Was NASA's Apollo 11 mission to the moon a conspiracy?

Could the government have orchestrated the deception of the 20th century?

If you closely observe the video of the astronauts placing the flag on the moon you can see that despite the clarity of deep space, the stars were missing from the black lunar sky. The flag is shown to be waving...even though there is no air on the moon. And lastly, there is no blast crater beneath the lunar lander where its powerful rocket engine had fired. This is almost convincing that we never sent a man to the moon.

I realize that during the cold war the United States and the Soviet Union were blocked in a struggle for world domination and that people assumed the nation that won the space race would win the cold war. And when Russia sent the very first satellite into orbit "Sputnik" the American public's fear of nuclear annihilation intensified. Meanwhile America's space program was having difficulty even getting off the ground.

Do you believe because the chances of getting to the moon and returning safely to Earth was virtually an impossibility, during the 60's they pretty much said if you can't make it, fake it.

Some believe that Area 51 in Nevada is the place where it was all filmed and that could be a reason why it is so heavily guarded.

Update:

The launch was very real and it is certainly possible for the astronauts to have orbited the earths atmosphere for some time and then come back. Unfortunately there were some flaws NASA made which are only now being discovered. Do you think if they wanted to fake it that they couldn't?

The cameras that were given to the astronauts to take the pictures were attached to the front of their suits right on their chests. You could not see the camera. You had no view finder and the only way to aim was by moving your body. If the cameras were so difficult to manipulate, how were thousands of photos taken with crystal clarity?

Update 2:

JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES!

THE SHADOWS FORMED BY THEIR SUITS ARE NOT PARALLEL WITH THE SHADOWS OF THE ROCKS IN THE FOREGROUND. IF THEY WERE REALLY ON THE MOON THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT WOULD BE THE SUN!

29 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago
    Best Answer

    No. And I can't believe this question keeps getting asked here (there were 1837 answers to "moon landing hoax" on Yahoo!Answers if you'd bothered to search).

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    "Do you believe because the chances of getting to the moon and returning safely to Earth was virtually an impossibility, during the 60's they pretty much said if you can't make it, fake it."

    All of the landings happened. Every trained person on the planet agrees. The only handful of people claiming hoax are laypersons. Guys like Bart Sibrel; a disturbed taxi driver.

    -------------

    "The launch was very real and it is certainly possible for the astronauts to have orbited the earths atmosphere for some time and then come back."

    You would EASILY be able to see the orbiting craft from Earth. Any amateur astronomer with binoculars would be able to see it. Considering the small amount of crafts that were in orbit at that time, it would have been noticeable.

    -----

    "Unfortunately there were some flaws NASA made which are only now being discovered. Do you think if they wanted to fake it that they couldn't?"

    No, they could not. Have you never seen movies from the 1960s? There was no Hollywood 2012 CGI effects. How do you suppose someone fakes 1/6 Earth's gravity without CGI effects?

    -----------

    "The cameras that were given to the astronauts to take the pictures were attached to the front of their suits right on their chests. You could not see the camera. You had no view finder and the only way to aim was by moving your body. If the cameras were so difficult to manipulate, how were thousands of photos taken with crystal clarity?"

    Are you suggesting that it is completely outside the ability for NASA to simply MEASURE? It is strange that you accept their ability to perform the complex operations necessary to achieve orbit, yet you are doubting their ability to make planned measurements for photographic purposes.

    ----------

    "JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES!

    THE SHADOWS FORMED BY THEIR SUITS ARE NOT PARALLEL WITH THE SHADOWS OF THE ROCKS IN THE FOREGROUND. IF THEY WERE REALLY ON THE MOON THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT WOULD BE THE SUN!"

    Many amateur photographers have been able to recreate these effects. Sometimes what your brain interprets is not really a true representation of reality. Please, have a look at the following .gif:

    http://psychology.about.com/od/sensationandpercept...

    -------------------

    Links to YouTube are not evidence.

  • Bob D1
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    ("Was NASA's Apollo 11 mission to the moon a conspiracy?"

    Could the government have orchestrated the deception of the 20th. century?")

    -------------------------------------

    ("Project Genini was begun in January 1962. It was designed to extend the existing manned space flight program by launching a two-man craft. This fact gave Project Gemini (which is the name of the Zodiac containing the twin stars Castor and Pollux) it's name since there were two astronauts launched each time. There were a total of 2 unmanned and 10 manned launches. The goals of the program were to subject humans and equipment to up to two weeks in space; dock with orbiting vehicles; and land at a pre-selected point. This was the next logical step toward landing men on the moon. The goals were met and the project was considered a success.")

    -----------------------------------

    Was all of the launches between Project Mercury in 1958 to the Apollo mission for landings on the Moon between 1969 and 1972, were they all fakes in your view? If so, that is a very hard act to try and sell. The Soviet's were monitoring and tracking all that stuff.

    ("The Apollo program began in 1963 with the expressed goal of landing a man on the moon. During its nine years, six missions (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) landed a total of twelve men on the moon. Early missions were to test equipment and did not land on the moon. Apollo 7 and 9 were earth orbiting and Apollo 8 and 10 orbited the moon. The historic Apollo 8 mission was the first to take humans to the moon and back. Apollo 10 was a practice run for landing on the moon but did not actually touch down.

    The Apollo 11 spacecraft was launched on July 16, 1969 atop the very powerful Saturn V rocket. It took three days to reach the moon. ....")

    See: History of Modern Space Flight

    http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312074/history.ht...

    ----------------------------

    Check it out for yourself. Was all those warm up missions in preparation for landing men on the moon hoaxes and fakes too? Get real! Americans didn't need to fake anything, they just proceeded to make it happen. Simple as that.

    ----------------------------

    ("The launch was very real and it is certainly possible for the astronauts to have orbited the earths atmosphere for some time and then come back.")

    --------------------------

    And the Soviets wouldn't have tracked the Apollo spacecraft in orbit around the Earth? Come on, get real. The Soviets had no trouble tracking their own spacecraft around Earth's orbit, likewise, they would have had no trouble tracking Apollo crafts in Earth orbit. Your argument does not hold water.

    ("The cameras that were given to the astronauts to take the pictures were attached to the front of their suits right on their chests. you could not see the camera. You had no view finder and the only way to aim was by moving your body. If the cameras were so difficult to manipulate, how ere thousands of photos taken with crystal clarity?")

    ------------------------------------

    Good lord, I have heard it said that none of the Apollo astronauts were professional photographers. So the cameras were probably preset for taking picture at the best overall exposure and resolution without having to be adjusted by the astronauts. Have you never seen the high resolution sharp images taken with a simple 'pin-hole' camera?

    ("JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES! THE SHADOWS FORMED BY THEIR SUITS ARE NOT PARALLEL WITH THE SHADOWS OF THE ROCKS IN THE FOREGROUND. IF THEY WERE REALLY ON THE MOON THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT WOULD BE THE SUN!")

    ------------------------------------

    This is utter nonsense. The moon rocks are close to the surface of the moon and do not cast a large shadow. What shadow they do cast has very little angle to it because the rocks have very little overall heights. The rock shadows are almost a linear reflection where as the astronauts stand considerably higher above the moon's surface, and the shadow they cast will have a corresponding angle associated with it. Try applying a little trigonometry to the problem.

    Best regards

    --------------

    Edit:

    See: Astronauts' tracks and trash show up i moon photos-

    http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/09/06/7632...

    See: NASA Unveils New Detailed Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Site

    http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landin...

    See: 40 years after the Apollo Moon Missions

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=ap...

    -----------------------

    Source(s): self
  • 7 years ago

    Nope, it's real.

    "If you closely observe the video of the astronauts placing the flag on the moon you can see that despite the clarity of deep space, the stars were missing from the black lunar sky." Take a camera to the darkest most star filled sky you can find and snap a photo, do you expect to see anything?

    "The flag is shown to be waving...even though there is no air on the moon." The was sewn to look like that.

    "And lastly, there is no blast crater beneath the lunar lander where its powerful rocket engine had fired." The lunar lander was not traveling fast enough to leave any sort of crater.

    EDIT: "JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES!

    THE SHADOWS FORMED BY THEIR SUITS ARE NOT PARALLEL WITH THE SHADOWS OF THE ROCKS IN THE FOREGROUND. IF THEY WERE REALLY ON THE MOON THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT WOULD BE THE SUN!" Think about it, shadows will only be parallel if the ground is perfectly flat, is the Moon perfectly flat?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Bіll
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Little fella is reminiscent of Kramer's intern on the one Seinfeld episode.

    My favorite part from the little boys story is how he cant figure out how those Hasselblad/Zeiss combos were able to be shot in the manner that they were. Hey junior, you're way off on the number of frames taken on lunar EVA of apollo 11 mission. Clear that you know nothing of that mission.

    Really honey, you type fine, a dandy job on spelling and punctuation too. As far as any technological expertise being exercised by yourself, keep your day job and don't bother with an application to NASA.

    Your photographic knowledge would make a porn star go frigid and join a convent, that stuff you have there is a bloody joke.

    Most of the clowns putting this kind of tripe out, lump all the apollo missions together. Not Gertrude here, nope, Gerty is firm in conviction that the other 5 missions really did happen, or the nitwit would have mentioned it. Get your duff and start editing, Gertrude. You have work to do that will cover you own butt a bit more effectively.

    Yahoo is moving heaven and earth to load this junk into search que, that's the bull.

    Everyone, leave this clown be, further searching will only make it worse, don't let this jerk use you.

  • 7 years ago

    >>Was NASA's Apollo 11 mission to the moon a conspiracy?<<

    No. And why that one in particular? There were nine flights to the Moon and six landings on the record. Why do so many people focus solely on Apollo 11?

    >>the stars were missing from the black lunar sky.<<

    Not something any reasonably competent photographer would be surprised by. The surface is in full sunlight. It is millions of times brighter than any star. The film does not have the dynamic range to expose stars with such short exposures as are needed to correctly image bright sunlit scenes.

    >>The flag is shown to be waving...even though there is no air on the moon.<<

    The flag waves when a man is waving it. It's a nylon flag. It will flap around. But when they let it go the oscillations die away (much more slowly than if air was damping them) and the flag remains totally still for the rest of the footage. That's impossible in anything but a vacuum.

    In any case, why would NASA be so stupid as to film a scene set in a place with no atmosphere ona set with a wind blowing across it?

    >>And lastly, there is no blast crater beneath the lunar lander where its powerful rocket engine had fired.<<

    Please feel free to provide the mathematical proof that the engine was powerful enough to carve a crater in lunar regolith, taking into account the rapid dispersal of the exhaust in the vacuum and the cohesive strength of regolith particles.

    The Hawker Harrier has far more powerful jet engines, yet it does not routinely carve craters in the ground when taking off or landing vertically.

    >>Do you believe because the chances of getting to the moon and returning safely to Earth was virtually an impossibility,<<

    Please provide your citation for that assessment.

    >>during the 60's they pretty much said if you can't make it, fake it.<<

    Please provide your citation for that statement.

    >>Some believe that Area 51 in Nevada is the place where it was all filmed<<

    Only those who can't see the vast differences between the landscapes on the Apollor ecord and those in Nevada. Area 51 is a military research facility. THAT is why it is so heavily guarded.

    >>The launch was very real and it is certainly possible for the astronauts to have orbited the earths atmosphere for some time and then come back.<<

    Not without being easily seen, and they could not have transmitted live TV to the ground for more than one hour at a time due to the incomplete coverage of the communications network at the time. Orbiting spacecraft remained in contact with the ground for a maximum of about ten minutes.

    >>Do you think if they wanted to fake it that they couldn't?<<

    Yes. Physics does not permit them to fake the things that were seen. So many conspiracy theorists maintain it would be 'easy' to fake but are utterly unable to say how it could be done or else appeal to some magical 'secret ability' they must have had. That's the reverse of logical reasoning.

    >>The cameras that were given to the astronauts to take the pictures were attached to the front of their suits right on their chests. You could not see the camera. You had no view finder and the only way to aim was by moving your body. If the cameras were so difficult to manipulate, how were thousands of photos taken with crystal clarity?<<

    The camera will take crystal clear images wherever it is. That's the optics at work. The pictures that were taken include a large number of badly framed shots and out of focus or accidentally exposed shots. The camera could also be removed from the bracket on the chest and the astronaut certainly could see it.

    >>JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES!<<

    I have, and I'm willing to bet I've seen more of them than you have.

    >>THE SHADOWS FORMED BY THEIR SUITS ARE NOT PARALLEL WITH THE SHADOWS OF THE ROCKS IN THE FOREGROUND. IF THEY WERE REALLY ON THE MOON THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT WOULD BE THE SUN!<<

    And you don't think perspective and uneven terrain can make parallel things look non-parallel? Let me ask you this: when you look at railway lines going off into the distance, do you really think they are actually converging, or does it just look that way to you?

    Non-parallel shadows are commonplace here on Earth. You just never noticed them because they have been there so long you hardly even look any more.

    Apollo was real. End of story

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    1. It was day time when the pictures were taken and that is why you can't see the stars. Any Idiot knows that.

    2. The Flag is NOT Waving, it is held up by a piece of wire sewn into the hem.

    3.There is no blast crater because the rocket engine was not that powerful, Did not have to be becuase of the moon weak gravity.

    MOON LANDINGS >

    There were two Moon landings in 1969, Apollo 11 in July and Apollo 12 in November. They were NOT faked and neither were the four subsequent Apollo landings. The hoax theories are based on misinformation and ignorance and they have been debunked many times. Images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Obiter show leftover Apollo hardware and even astronaut footpaths on the Moon's surface. The landings were real; to say otherwise is irrational and it is an insult to the scientists and engineers who worked for years on the Apollo program and the brave astronauts who risked their lives to reach the Moon.

    There have been SIX landings on the moon. 12 men have walked on the moon.

    Someone has created some very clever youtube videos that claim the landings were a hoax. These videos are the only hoax.

    Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about Moon landings that does not come from either NASA, the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence serves as independent confirmation of NASA's account of the Moon landings.

    A total of 382 kilograms (842 lb) of Moon rocks and dust were collected during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions. Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been destroyed during hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica. The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old, making them 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks, which are from the Hadean eon and dated 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme. A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was accurately dated to be 4.417 billion years old, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 million years. The test was done by a group of researchers headed by Alexander Nemchin at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia.

    There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

    Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

    However >

    Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

    Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.

    After the images were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution.

    Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the moon.

  • 7 years ago

    And you think that 9/11 was a conspiracy too right? What about Sandy Hook? Did the Obama administration make that up or send in someone to kill those children just to pass gun legislation?

    How do you know there is no blast crater under the lunar lander? When it took off there were no cameras on it.

    I've personally witnessed a launch at the Kennedy Space Center. Those rockets going into space is very real.

    ----------edit----------

    The flag appears to be waving because it had supports sewn into it that made it look like that. I watched the landing, moon walk(s) etc.... on TV live. I recall Walter Cronkite mentioning the bit about the flag that day.

  • Loud
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.

    DEBUNKED: The flag is held up by a horizontal bar and simply moves when it is unfurled and as the pole is being fixed into position by the astronauts. The flagpole is light, flexible aluminium and continues to vibrate after the astronauts let go, giving the impression of blowing in the wind.

    2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.

    DEBUNKED: The Apollo landing takes place during the lunar daytime with the Sun shining brightly. The stars are simply out shined by the light from the sun. That's why stargazers don't go out during the daytime on Earth.

    3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

    DEBUNKED: The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull. You try making a blast crater in solid rock. You will fail, guaranteed.

    4) The shadows formed by the suits are not parallel to the rocks in the foreground.

    DEBUNKED: Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon's surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter and distorted. Furthermore, shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.

    This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

    Nice Try

    theREDdragon is wrong. They think neither the astronauts nor the equipment could have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation.

    HOWEVER: The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts, along with the spacecraft, were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

    The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.

    Nice try to you to.

  • 7 years ago

    "Could the government have orchestrated the deception of the 20th century?" No.

    " the stars were missing from the black lunar sky" They are here during the daytime, too.

    "The flag is shown to be waving" No, its not.

    "there is no air on the moon" How do YOU know? Because of NASA? On the Moon?

    "there is no blast crater beneath the lunar lander" Regolith is the consistency of powered cement.

    You'd have to be very stubborn to hang onto the "moon landing hoax" claims after they have all been debunked over and over... or just a Troll.

  • 7 years ago

    <QUOTE>the stars were missing from the black lunar sky.</QUOTE>

    Here's what I want you to do next time you go out at night with friends on a clear night.

    Find a place where you can see your friends clearly AND you can see the night sky and take a picture of your friends against the backdrop of the sky. The important thing is that your friends should be well visible in the picture. Make sure that, before you take the picture, the stars you're seeing with your eyes are also in the field of view with your friends. Use a digital camera, a phone, whatever you want. After you're done, go home and examine the picture carefully.

    You're going to be surprised with the results.

    As for the other claims, none of them are new. You can find a discussion here: http://www.clavius.org/

    <QUOTE>Some believe that </QUOTE>

    No, you mean YOU believe it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.