Did Apollo 11 really land on the moon?

[dR3]

After seeing a documentary (well, a conspiracy theory) about this, named ''Moon Landing Hoax'', I really think that Neil and Buzz never walked on the moon in 1969.

What do you think?

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Conspiracy theories are so lame.

[mcZu]

I haven't done any research to back up my opinion, but I do believe that the chance of it being staged is pretty high.

[EminemBase]

Yes they did land on the moon.

@GGGG - What a silly, inane, wishy-wash statement from you.

You can't bundle all theories in together automatically, blindly declaring anything which differs from the 'official' theory as lame. How ridiculous.

The THEORY that Al-Queda was behind 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It's a theory that somebody or a group of people conspired to do something. It's not a fact. Many official theories, are conspiracy theories.

It's such a broad term, people assume conspiracy theories are only theories which are not the dominating theory. Theories dreamt up by Internet nuts. Not true at all. Any theory in which somebody is conspired to do something, 'officially supported' or not, is a conspiracy theory.

[MikeNUFC]

Done a little bit of reserach into this, not loads, but I'm pretty sure they did land on the moon.

[dR3]

Conspiracy theories are so lame.

That's all you have to say? I was expecting something else but nvm.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Conspiracy theories are so lame.

That's all you have to say? I was expecting something else but nvm.

I'm just not interested.

[Shadysapathy]

nope that was fake

[Emadyville]

I've seen a show about this years ago, and it seemed to make sense then that it could be fake. There are 2 reasons in general that make me question it.

1. They did it in 1969, I mean, I find it hard to believe we were capable of doing so then, if it were the 80's I'd feel more comfortable believing it. I mean the airplane only got off the ground what 60 years before? (I know this is somewhat stupid, especially since I wasn't alive then, but it's just my opinion)

2. We were trying to win the space race, good enough reason to fake it if you ask me.

[EminemBase]

^ Well that's the only fact that made me question it too was the fact it was 1969.

We had only just figured out how to produce TV with coloured images yet we could send a man out of the Earth's atmosphere onto the Moon...

But after quite a bit of research, I'd say it's real. It's a much different issue. For the moon landing to be fake, the entirety of NASA would have to of been involved and / or fooled at the time with no whistleblowers.

With say 9/11, you don't need the entire Government, just a very select few and there have been thousands of whistleblowers.

But for it to be fake, they'd of have to of faked the launch to the entire World and every generation of NASA since then would of have to of been fooled by the footage. Which, wouldn't of been the case at this stage. Too many would of found too many flaws.

[dR3]

What got me into thinking that it's fake were the ''camera crosshairs'', which at some places on the photos were behind an object (ex. the astronaut, or a rock).

[Emadyville]

^ Well that's the only fact that made me question it too was the fact it was 1969.

We think the same when it comes to these "conspiracies" haha.

I never thought one way or the other, it'd of been cool if it was faked just cause of the whole conspiracy thing, but your point about so many would have had to know is a solid. Plus I've only really seen one show about it, never did research

[EminemBase]

^ Well that's the only fact that made me question it too was the fact it was 1969.

We think the same when it comes to these "conspiracies" haha.

I never thought one way or the other, it'd of been cool if it was faked just cause of the whole conspiracy thing, but your point about so many would have had to know is a solid. Plus I've only really seen one show about it, never did research

Yeah, plus the only positive motive is the space race. Which isn't small, it means that nation would be at the forefront of science leading into the next generation.

But I think they'd of sooner attempted to pay-off the Russians for the technology or hand in it as opposed to faking an entire moon launch to the entire World.

[S.T.A.N.]

It puzzles me a lot.I did some research on it.They actually took off for moon many times but only landed 2 times.The other ones were unsuccessful.Its hard to beleive that if they did so in 1969,why cant they do it now???? Many ppl think NASA did it deliberately to piss the Soviets.

I personally belive it.Its not a piece of cake to land on Moon,if they hadn't many ppl wud have concrete evidences.Those thoeries dont amount to shit.

[mrjizzbomber]

It puzzles me a lot.I did some research on it.They actually took off for moon many times but only landed 2 times.The other ones were unsuccessful.Its hard to beleive that if they did so in 1969,why cant they do it now???? Many ppl think NASA did it deliberately to piss the Soviets.

I personally belive it.Its not a piece of cake to land on Moon,if they hadn't many ppl wud have concrete evidences.Those thoeries dont amount to shit.

I don't think anyone is saying its a 'piece of cake' to land on the moon. But what does sending a man to the moon really accomplish? When we do space exploration, we use robots, machinery, technology. We COULD send someone to the moon if we wanted to, but... why would we want to. We pretty much only did it to shove it in the Russians' faces.

Anyway, yes, we did land on the moon. As with most conspiracy theories, I only have to get to the first bit of 'scientific evidence' before I stop listening. What I've heard thrown out there the most is that the flag was waving, and there is 'no wind on the moon!!!!11111'. Well, an object in motion will remain in motion until something impedes the motion. When the flag was being planted, shaking and moving the flag would have set it in motion, causing it to flap. Since there was nothing (virtually nothing) to impede that motion, it would continue to flap, appearing as if waving in the wind.

I forget the other 'evidence' of this conspiracy, but if I remember correctly none of it was very difficult to argue against.