I disagree. The moon landing wasn't a hoax, and it's pretty insulting to scientists that you think we can't land there. Honestly, if the government was willing to consistently fund us as well as they did during the Cold War, we would have a lot more to show.

Instead, what do we have, idiots in Congress who put in some money, only take it back out at the last moment. For instance, the linear supercollider that is just now a hole in Texas, or somewhere in the middle of America? What about how funding was randomly pulled away from plasma programs to fund ITER instead of making it a separate funding?

So, no, the American government won't do that, and any country that decides to land on the moon may or may not mess with the original site beyond checking it out for funsies. In addition, who the fuck will stop them from doing that if we're paying other countries for time on their shuttles anyway?

it's pretty insulting to scientists that you think we can't land there.

Sorry to interrupt, but I hate such weasel arguing styles. It's an insult to logic theorists for someone to try an argue with such tactics (if you catch my drift).

I wasn't arguing; I was stating my opinion as a precursor to my answer to his question. In addition, I'm saying it's insulting to me that you people think we can't do that.

Believing in the moon landing hoax theory does not require belief that it was/is impossible to reach the moon. There are many things that are both possible, but not achieved because the resources are not available.

What do you mean... You people...?

"You people"= the idiots of this subreddit who just want something to believe without evidence. This subreddit has some thinkers sometimes, but it seems that an overwhelming amount of the other people are just idiots who want to believe in some grand theory and are nothing more than like the religious fanatics who want to believe in some myth.

It was a joke

See, it doesn't work if you're not rdj in tropic thunder..

I agree. I believe that we landed their as well. But only time will tell.

I think the only conspiracy is the fact thqt it wasn't a 'race' we had no competition, the Soviets openly opposed going to the moon.

No, we only needed the idea of competition to force people to agree with the funding. I didn't say it was a competition, just that Cold War funding was waaay different.

I definitely believe several moon landings have indeed occurred, but that we've never seen pieces of the real, unedited video footage of them until recently (thanks internet!). There would be dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of real footage total, and the public has seen maybe, what like less than an hour or two total of various 1-3 min clips? - and any clips/images we do see are generally a mix of either old training video, possibly real but edited video/stills, or real but lacking anomalies anyway so its safe to release. I read a report somewhere that the NSA had a separate feed to the first Apollo astronauts, and that if any alien contact was made or observed, there would be a latency period to switch the main video feeds to previously-prepared footage (most likely from training exercises). I believe the original 1969 broadcast footage that was aired publicly is fake, but I do believe the astronauts were actually there. I've heard many transmissions (first begins around 1:40) as well from astronauts regarding alien craft, so there's definitely reason to suspect something occurred on the moon that was instantly deemed classified and covered for. I mean, Edgar Mitchell says aliens and these craft exist and have for a long time, so there's no reason to doubt his testimony.

One thing I've found interesting though: our basic physics books always said the moon had gravity 1/6th that of Earth based on its estimated mass? Well, I read a rumor that the Moon actually has 40-60% of Earth's gravity (not 16-17%), and based upon viewing lunar footage, based upon the astronauts' movements themselves, it seems that 40-60% seems more accurate. Makes me definitely believe more and more that Gravity is an electromagnetic side-effect (as Tesla put it: standing longitudinal electric-waves in the ether), and completely independent of mass.

You lost me at gravity has nothing to do with mass. You're just a simpleton looking for something to believe in..

There is one serious factor that needs to be properly explained by a moon hoax expert before I fully believe in the possibility of deception:

Sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array."

If someone can explain how these are faked then I am sold.

I don't get the significance of this. What does it do?

I believe in a lot of crazy shit, but the moon hoax is not one of them at this time. Not sure why I was downvoted. Here is what they do tamrix.

"Using these mirrors," explains Alley, "we can 'ping' the moon with laser pulses and measure the Earth-moon distance very precisely. This is a wonderful way to learn about the moon's orbit and to test theories of gravity."

Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/

This already happened.

Either that or.....

Something happened up there.

They found something up there, that they dont want anyone to know about.

There is a reason no one has ever gone back.

There is a reason the USA descended into fascism after the moon landings.

They found something up there.

When the first man climbed Mt Everest. It was historic! Now, its a tourist trip.

When men first flew across the Atlantic? Millions followed.

When the first men dove to the depths of the Ocean? Thousands followed.

The depths of African jungles? The Mysteries of South America? Antartica? The North Pole? One man went. Throngs followed.

But the Moon?

Half a CENTURY ago.. Men landed. And NO ONE has been back since? Not the Soviet Union? Not the Russian Empire? Not the Chinese? Not Japan? Not the UK? Not France? Not Germany? No one? Not one WORLD POWER? EVER?

WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS IDIOTIC STORY?

Either they never went? OR.... They found something BAD up there.

It turned the most free country in the world into fascists.

It made them afraid to go back.

And NO ONE has ever gone back.

Why?

I THE FOULBASTARD WILL SPEND THE REST OF MY NATURAL LIFE FINDING OUT WHY. ON THIS YOU HAVE MY PROMISE.

I hope this is satire.

You do realize it cost a s***load of money to even go to the Exosphere, right?

Half a CENTURY ago.. Men landed. And NO ONE has been back since? Not the Soviet Union? Not the Russian Empire? Not the Chinese? Not Japan? Not the UK? Not France? Not Germany? No one? Not one WORLD POWER? EVER? WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS IDIOTIC STORY?

Its because they never went to the moon and it was a hoax and even 50 years later no one has the technology to go there and the first mission back to the moon is scheduled for 2020, which would be over 60 years that no one could go there.

Have you guys ever wondered maybe it's because it's a historical site they don't want it to be destroyed?

There is potential legitimacy to what you are proposing... but seriously, imagine it in your mind, it's funny :) I can see the AP blurb now...

"...friends and family at mission control all celebrated as their passion paid off. SpaceX (or some other private space company) successfully landed on the surface of the moon with three first-time astronauts! They streamed everything live via youtube as millions watched in awe and reverence! However, they made a pitstop at the historical landing site of Apollo 11 and desecrated it... that's right... smashed and burned all traces. The world watched it happened live... millions in horror... wondering why..."

lol that is kind of funny.

I still don't believe the 1969 moon landing was faked though. :p

To confirm? Do you think that any government would spend billions just to confirm that the US really landed on the moon?

I guarantee you that even if someone lands on the moon and visits the site and broadcasts live footage, there will be those who cry "fake".

The only conspiracy there is to throw cold water on the greatness of the United States and NASA. The men ans women who did all that are awesome.

The greatness of United States? Come on bro, a patriotic song-and-dance act is not really a way to prove your point. It only works with your fellow country-men.

MY fellow countrymen are the ones I care about.

What a sad, myopic way of living.

TO anyone saying that this has already happened - got any links?

I don't fancy the conspiracy itself much, but I like the idea of future predictions based on a conspiracy. Sounds very.. scientific.

All details can be inserted and once broadcast/circulated, become 'a happening'.

Considering the stuff on the Moon would be historic and invaluable research on how the designs fare in the environment up there, it is due for a revisit by somebody---for science?

Well, I hope China or Russia tell them to go fuck themselves.

Na. I don't think this would work. It'd be too easy for any other country to say "Fuck you, US. This is the fucking moon we're talking about! US doesn't have some sort of special 'US astronauts only' dibs on the fucking moon!"

future visits to the moon will be halted in order to conserve the presumed lie.

Various people have said that future visits to the moon have already LONG been halted, and it didn't have anything to do with the US.

anybody ever seen Moon Rising on youtube theres some pretty interesting information there. Heres the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pamQEWEGUX8&list=PL7D781C721CDE72B5 tell me what you think.

I'm sorry, I had to stop when they revealed they suggested a machine ten times the size of LA was captured on film by NASA, but NASA blurred it out.

• First off, a machine 10x the size of LA??
• Second, you can't get detail back from an image if the information has been removed. It's like the 'enhance' joke of shows like CSI.

I couldn't watch any more when that's the kind of information the makers of the movie found to be acceptable and reasonable.

Nothing will happen, because I can almost 100% sy that the moonlanding wasn't a hoax.

Honestly though, I don't know what to think about that conspiracy. On one hand, the information is out there, and rather soild unless the CIA managed to either break the laws of physics, or work out how to put the entire 'set' in a vacuum, both of which would probably be harder than just landing on the moon.

On the other hand, this conspiracy is simply a misapplication of science, something that is entirely understandable. Unlike others which are failed logic ('9/11') or just plain nuts/no proof/ignoring Occam's Razor (LAZORS IN SPACE, Lizard people etc etc)

They've already done so.

Also, just off the top of my head, here's various problems with the official Apollo story:

• cosmic & solar radiation would've killed all the astronauts and fogged all the camera film
• no evidence of thrust on Apollo 17 liftoff
• the Apollo spaceships & spacesuits offered no protection against micro-meteorites
• no evidence of high-energy particles on any of the Apollo rolls of film
• no other country has sent any living organism to the moon since Apollo - despite technology getting much much better
• the first time any LM liftoff engine was ever tested was on the moon.
• the best current pictures we have from NASA are from far away despite the fact that satellites in earth orbit can read headlines from a newspaper

Again, that's just off the top of my head. Some resources:

What really happened on the moon?

Consider this

Apollo Zero

Aulis

Marcus Allen

Apollo Fake

McGowan

1: Nope. Anyone with a basic understanding of space and physics can tell that idea is bunk, due to the flight that was taken, and the fact that the majoirty of the radiation talked about it harmless, with the rest being harmless in small doses.

2: Nope

3: The answer to that was found in 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield

4: There was a lot of tape not seen, and see 1

5: Simple reason is there's no reason to go back. While we could go back if we wanted to, since there's no longer a cold war there's no incentive to do so aside from exploration, which has sadly taken a back seat to other issues.

6: So?

7: Those satellites don't exist. The best we have is the hubble telescope, which is A: Being used for better things, and B: Not very good looking at close distances due to how everything is spinning around. And even if they did exist, the distance between orbit and earth, and orbit and the moon is far far larger.

1: Nope. Anyone with a basic understanding of space and physics can tell that idea is bunk, due to the flight that was taken, and the fact that the majoirty of the radiation talked about it harmless, with the rest being harmless in small doses.

Your hand waving does not impress me. How much average radiation per hour would the astronauts experience in deep space? What's the average number of gamma particles per square inch in deep space? Why didn't the solar radiation destroy the camera film on the moon? What protection did the spaceship offer against solar flares? What amount of radiation per minute is considered harmless? How much fuel is necessary for a trans-earth injection burn? These are not questions with "basic" answers.

2: Nope

More hand waving. Point out which rocket in the film is releasing a hypergolic mixture. Also, why are sparks and flame visible in the oxygen free environment?

3: The answer to that was found in 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield

No Whipple shields on the spacesuits. If any astronaut was hit by a micrometeorite, their space suit would have punctured and all their bodily fluids would have boiled away. Moreover, in all the Apollo footage we see astronauts falling. Why were none of them concerned with puncturing their suit and dying?

4: There was a lot of tape not seen, and see 1

All the Apollo pictures have been published at the Apollo journal. Any camera on the moon would have been bathed in radiation - as the moon has no atmosphere. All pictures should show signs of radiation damage - naturally, most of them don't.

5: Simple reason is there's no reason to go back. While we could go back if we wanted to, since there's no longer a cold war there's no incentive to do so aside from exploration, which has sadly taken a back seat to other issues.

No reason to go back? You're saying that we can land 6 times on any foreign body and learn all there is to know? This is a poor explanation. Why do we keep sending up satellites if there's no reason to go back? Why did bush make a new commitment to go to the moon (subsequently canceled by Obama) if there's no reason to go back?

6: So?

From an engineering standpoint, you don't want the first time you test a piece of equipment to be when you're using it in the field. The idea that an untested piece of equipment worked perfectly in unknown conditions every time is hard to believe. Moreover, the hypergolic fuel mixture they used was so corrosive, that they had to replace each engine after use. Thus, each LM liftoff engine was only used once, never tested - and the first time it was ever fired was on the moon. That stretches credulity.

7: Those satellites don't exist. The best we have is the hubble telescope, which is A: Being used for better things, and B: Not very good looking at close distances due to how everything is spinning around. And even if they did exist, the distance between orbit and earth, and orbit and the moon is far far larger.

My point is, we can make satellites with far greater resolution than the current LRO.

Other things to consider:

• All the original tapes, telemetry data and original mission recordings were deleted. Why wasn't the raw data from the greatest feat of human engineering kept in a safe location?

• The amount of computing power on the Apollo spaceships was about 32k. That's about the computing power of a pocket calculator. Why didn't these primitive circuits get overloaded by the magnetism of the Van Allen radiation belts?

• The first Saturn V rocket test to orbit the moon was manned. This means the first mammals to orbit the moon were human! No dogs or monkeys were sent up first.

• Why did Van Braun take a trip to Antarctica in 1967? (Antarctica, of course, being one place on Earth that has lots of moon rocks.) Moreover, if the Apollo astronauts brought back over 750lbs of moon rocks - why was the moon rock given to the Dutch by the Apollo 11 astronauts a piece of petrified wood. Moreover, if weight was such a concern for the Apollo astronauts, how did they account for the unknown weight of the moon rocks ahead of time?

On and on it goes... Any scientist should be gravely concerned about the Apollo record.

Why do we keep sending up satellites if there's no reason to go back?

It's a lot cheaper to send unmanned probes than to send people.

Why don't you name a couple of reasons why people should be sent to the moon?

Stanley Kubrick Room 237

Hey friend thanks for these links, great info.

[deleted]

what were they doing on the back side of the moon?

I'm not trying to be condescending, and while I don't believe it was a hoax, I like to think that above all else I keep an open mind.

No one knows. Only a few NASA ex employees have come out over the last 20 or so years because they figured they were at the end of the road and decided to tell someone what really happened that day of the moon landing. Most people denied it and called them crazy and then poof. Gone. Hopefully I can find the site again with names and dates.. but no one has to believe them. The sixth man on the moon was interviewed and he had some pretty interesting things to say about extraterrestrials. I myself have seen some amazing and I am pretty sure out of this world stuff in the sky. My friend Staci and I witnessed what appeared to be two pyramids pressed together on the bottom of each other to form a diamond that was spinning clockwise slowly. It had a green/cyan hue and it hovered for about 5 minutes while moving due north and then vanished. We didn't know what to think except for jumping up and down yelling we saw something together. It was a good moment in our friendship.