Was the 1969 Moon Landing a hoax?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't see why it is so hard for people to accept LOL.

Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag, the momentum will make the flag move. Since it is in a vacuum it will take longer to stop waving. That gives the illusion of wind.

The landings happened, and I always have and always will believe that.

Because government lies all the time, we did afterall only recently invade another country based on a lie.

[Inseriousity.]

There was an episode of QI I think with a little mention of this halfway through

I don't think it was faked but I think the real question is do I really care?

[SirTezza]

Because government lies all the time, we did afterall only recently invade another country based on a lie.

Yeh, the government lies. But pulling off something as extravagant as a moon landing hoax is pretty difficult, especially considering what else was going on at the time. But everything seen in the Apollo moon landing videos has been questioned with conspiracy and all of those conspiracies have been answered with 100% validity. At this point it seems it's purely up to each individual to how they interpret the events of the landing, because as far as the experts are concerned they have already answered it.

My belief? .... They went to the moon

[Gibs960]

My mum and dad watched it on tv and they said it would of been almost impossible to fake it. And I believe that it was real due to the massive effect it has had on space travel today.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well i'm indifferent on the topic before I reply, but i'm just stating - don't believe everything government tells you, infact it is wise not to believe a word government says unless you can prove it from reliable sources/use your own thought.

Yeh, the government lies. But pulling off something as extravagant as a moon landing hoax is pretty difficult, especially considering what else was going on at the time. But everything seen in the Apollo moon landing videos has been questioned with conspiracy and all of those conspiracies have been answered with 100% validity. At this point it seems it's purely up to each individual to how they interpret the events of the landing, because as far as the experts are concerned they have already answered it.

My belief? .... They went to the moon

Well the CIA was considering blowing up civilian targets (and consquently civilians themselves) back in the 1960s in order to justify an invasion of Cuba and thats not to mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened) and Saddam Hussein his WMDs (which didn't exist).

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler

[Conservative,]

Well i'm indifferent on the topic before I reply, but i'm just stating - don't believe everything government tells you, infact it is wise not to believe a word government says unless you can prove it from reliable sources/use your own thought.



Well the CIA was considering blowing up civilian targets (and consquently civilians themselves) back in the 1960s in order to justify an invasion of Cuba and thats not to mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened) and Saddam Hussein his WMDs (which didn't exist).

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler

They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.

The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Wig44.]

They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.

The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.

It seems obvious to me that there were no nuclear weapons in Cuba. And I hope you aren't inferring that they had the right to kill civilians to justify a war. The same kind of hype seems to happen whenever America wants to go to war. Like how the CIA told JFK (who told the people, believing it himself) that there were possibly 2000 nuclear warheads in Russia's arsenal when they actually only had 2.

[Conservative,]

It seems obvious to me that there were no nuclear weapons in Cuba. And I hope you aren't inferring that they had the right to kill civilians to justify a war. The same kind of hype seems to happen whenever America wants to go to war. Like how the CIA told JFK (who told the people, believing it himself) that there were possibly 2000 nuclear warheads in Russia's arsenal when they actually only had 2.

No they did not have the right to kill innocent people but they had the right to defend themselves. There is clear evidence showing there were nuclear weapons on Cuba and that Russia were prepared to use them. I'm taking history GCSE and we're studying the Cold War...I think I would know?

[-:Undertaker:-]

They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.

The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm well aware of the Cuban missile crisis and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about Operation Northwood which aimed to get the public behind an invasion of Cuba by staging attacks on U.S. cities/soil and blaming it on Cuba, when infact it was the CIA.

The WMD issue, i'm sorry but there was no evidence that Iraq has WMD and its just as fruitless a claim as I could accuse you right now of harbouring terrorists and enemies of the state - the result (compared to the invasion of Iraq) would be a Police raid on your house, and if no terrorists were found I could just then say "well that doesn't prove their were never any terrorists there in the first place" by which time your house is destroyed.

The Bush administration was planning to do something about Iraq well before 9/11 or even before they gained office, infact if you watch Farenheit 9/11 you will see the way in which Rumsfeld came in to government agencies the day after 9/11 and said "Saddam, Iraq - get back to me" and when senior officals said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Rumsfeld said that there were not good targets in Afghanistan, lets bomb Iraq instead. Farenheit 9/11 is watchable on Youtube, pretty good quality and the entire thing is uploaded, here's the start and i'd advise a viewing of the entire documentary to anybody; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu40ZR7i_9M

I've mentioned U.S. government examples of deception of the public (lies in frank terms), but I could also go on about the devious 'European project' in its aim to create a European Superstate and then there's the global warming fiaso + numerous others such as swine flu.

[dbgtz]

No they did not have the right to kill innocent people but they had the right to defend themselves. There is clear evidence showing there were nuclear weapons on Cuba and that Russia were prepared to use them. I'm taking history GCSE and we're studying the Cold War...I think I would know?

Just because it's written down, it doesn't mean it's the truth. I bet half the stuff wiki leaks had just leaked counters some of the stuff we thought were happening.