Did America land on the moon in 1969? - [Closes 23/12/07]

[dannyisnotamazing]

i think its fake cos i went up ther other day n ther was no flag

[Plixor]

the thing with the wind is stupid.. theres no wind in a studio neither

[Kardan]

the thing with the wind is stupid.. theres no wind in a studio neither

They can easily create wind with an industrial fan if they wanted to.

And yes, there's proof that they've done it, plus they're going to do it again within the next few years. If they did fake the last one, which they didn't, and they were going to fake this next one, it would be obvious.

[Plixor]

why should they make wind inside a studio, when its supposed to be on the moon.. i dont think they are THAT stupid

[dunke]

if it was real then it wasnt neil armstrong who first set foot on the moon - it was the camera dude.

YEA!!! I ALWAYS SAID THAT

[d17c]

To those people that commented about there being no flames, I may be mistaken, but I thought that rockets took oxygen with them, and pumped it in with the fuel to make it you know, BOOM.

I've only actually watched a small section of the film, and Neil Armstrong says something like "this is an eagle feather... from an eagle"
Now, I'm not exactly part of NASA, but I wouldn't let a man like that leave the house, let alone the planet.

Overall, I'm torn, no 100% definitive evidence either way.

(I did have some good points to make, but I kinda forgot them after reading everything else)

[micky.blue.eyes]

Don't throw accusations around without a source. This is a debate, not a 'who can make up the best story' competition. There may not have been wind, but things still do have to move. The astronauts didn't struggle to move around did they? I guess neither did the flag.

Astronauts have muscles, flags don't. -.-'

REAL. Oh my god, these debates are so stupid. Why the hell would they fake it.

So they'd be the first people on the moon, they were racing Russia.

Okay so lets think;

Lines of shadows collide (this is impossible with one light source (the sun in this case))
When you speed up a copy of the film the men are running like people would on the earth.
When you look at diffrent appol missions areas of the moon said to have never been seen before look the same as other places from earlyer appol missions.
The flag waves, it's been proven that this couldn't of happend on the moon as it did in the film.
Magicly the only people to have gone to the moon are nassa.
Sciences have found out there is a boundery of radiation around the earth what no man can pass though with out dieing, or atleast dieing after passing through it (well at the time with the stuff they had with them they couldn't pass through with out any effect)
No landing crater, if the landing craft landed like it would of on the moon there would be a crater yet theres nothing.
No dust on the landing craft, if the landing craft landed on the moon dust would of setteled on the craft.
Photos from the landings have been proven to have been edited.

MAJOR POINT:

In the film when people walk behide the landing craft in to the shadows you can see them, and this is impossible as the suns light would be blocked by the landing craft, and as theres only one lights source the sun it should be 100% darkness there you shouldn't beable to see a thing, yet magicly you can see the people there.

And yes people have "disappeard" after releasing stuff or about to release stuff what could prove the landings fake.

EDIT: Reason why it's fake: Space Race. If you don't know what that was it was a big thing between russia and america, and as you know russia and america weren't the best of friends at the time anyway, russia got the first man in space, next was the moon, russia was winning but had to call it off because it was too much of a health risk to the people maning the craft, although america didn't know this and want to win the race, so they stopped the whole lets do it for real and just faked it, with the money they were going to use on getting some one to the moon for real.

^^Sums up about everything I wanted to say. There were some odd things with the dust aswell, can't really remember what but I think it was that the dust didn't show any patterns that moved away from the shuttle, which is impossible if the shuttle did land.

Chris just reminded me of something. The Russians had satellites in space at the time, and they would have hesitated not a single second to tell the world that America never really got there.

Then those satalites should've been able to follow the shuttle and watch it land on the moon, which they couldn't. Russia would look like jealous fools if they used that as 'evidence' against the landing.

It's real, why would they fake something as big as that and not get caught for so long. If it was fake, haha. We are big idiots for believing it :eusa_danc

So they were 'the first' to be able to land on the moon -> space race with Russia etc etc bla bla.

end of the day its just conspircy

Oh We didn't land on the moon, oh their was a second gunman on the grassy null, there are aliens

There have to be aliens.

Do you people intentionally fail to read what people who disagree with you say?

100% for sure proof is the moon rocks that they have.

How do we know they're really moon rocks? "They could go back to the moon and bring more rocks and compare them to the old ones." How do we know they won't replace the old rocks?
This may look like a lame argument against the moon landing but so are loads of arguments against the evidences against the landing.

Excellent, you just outwitted yourself. As you say, the movements are different, hence why a sped up version of people bouncing around on the moon would look like people running rather than just walking fast.

How can bouncing walks on the moon look like running on planet Earth when you speed it up? It would look completely different.

Yeah we can, can't fake 300kg of moonrocks, can't fake the footage that they took (you may say, yeah you can in a movie studio! But no, not in the movie studios of the late 60s can you find some fan that will only move the flag and not all the dust surrounding the astronauts).

^^For my point against the moon rocks and something about the dust.
At the flag part: Neither can the moon. Somebody said that playing with the flag and placing it on the moon caused it to move, this could've happened in the studio aswell.

To those people that commented about there being no flames, I may be mistaken, but I thought that rockets took oxygen with them, and pumped it in with the fuel to make it you know, BOOM.

I've only actually watched a small section of the film, and Neil Armstrong says something like "this is an eagle feather... from an eagle"
Now, I'm not exactly part of NASA, but I wouldn't let a man like that leave the house, let alone the planet.

Overall, I'm torn, no 100% definitive evidence either way.

(I did have some good points to make, but I kinda forgot them after reading everything else)

I don't have much knowledge about how space shuttles work but I do know that mixing some chemicals will lead to a reaction which could give enough kenetic energy to move the shuttle and other reactions will produce oxygen.
Doubt it happened like this because you'd need loads of those chemicals but it could have.

I haven't seen any evidence that shows the shuttle could've made it back to Earth, which only adds to the evidence that it's fake to me.

At why didn't the Russians prove it didn't happen?: They would need need really good evidence to prove the Americans wrong, which they didn't. Everybody would laugh at them if they accused America of faking the landing without good evidence to back it up. Also, who said they didn't try? Many people have been killed after they tried to release evidence against the landing.

I personally don't care whether it's fake or not, it's just the moon. =/ But I think lying like that is just sad and proves uncapable humans are at living with each other (and their environment). They all want to be the best and have loads of power over as many things as they can, even though the Earth is just a small place in a huge universe. If everybody worked together I think we could've been to the moon way earlier and many other planets.

[Grainger@CUFC]

I don't think they did. I've looked at stuff on the Internet before that have persuaded me to think they didn't. Images of exactly the same landscape from different missions even when it's meant to be in a completely different place. Things like a "third voice" in the module's conversations with Mission Control to tell them when to talk. I dunno where they are, but I've definitely seen them before. Anyways, I'm more towards the fake side than real.

[Ekalb]

so this debate ends with the negative leading a charge of "nah dont think so's" against the affirmatives debunking.

Oh and we know they're moon rocks because because they have completely unique compounds, cant be found on Earth and cant be manufactured by man. The flag ripple actually helps prove that they did land on the moon. If it was in a movie studio all the dust would be moving if the fan was on (why the hell would they turn it on anyway?) and if it was on earth and the ripple was just because of setting up, gravity would not allow it to just float and it would very quickly be lifeless.

Maybe someone will find 'the president's secret book' and will prove everything to us all.

[FlyingJesus]

Apparently the fact that you can't prove something to be 100% correct is suffice to say that it's 100% incorrect. Nice failed logic there chaps, congratulations. Frankly if it hadn't happened, there are enough nerdy scientists who are fascinated with this stuff that by now someone would have come out with conclusive proof that it couldn't have happened.