Moon Landing - Real or Fake: YOU DECIDE

[LittleSally]

The first Earthly expedition to have landed on the moon was Russian's Luna 2 mission, on 13th of September 1959.

The U.S.A.'s Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing )

Moon facts:

The Moon is 383 023 km from Earth.

On the Moon there is a 6th of the Earth's gravity.

America was racing with Russia - who will go to the Moon first!

The theories supporting the theory that it's fake:

- no one has gone BACK to the Moon SINCE then (excuses are 'funding', and yet there are trillions missing from the government unaccounted for)

- we haven't even gone past 643 km since 'we went to the moon'

- footage looks like the astronauts are jumping on trampolines and one actually fell (that's not possible when you have only a 6th of the Earth's gravity)

- president Bush said he doesn't believe the government because they can 'fake anything'

- Bill Kaysing's book (employee od NASA) "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle" (in which he explains how they didn't have the technology for it back then)

- there's a proof NASA has faked things in the past

- the pictures on 'the Moon' don't match the crosshairs - because they would be BEHIND the objects in the photographs... ?!

- the object in one of the astronaut's helmet glass looks like a stage light

- the flag was flying in the wind

- the C rock: maybe a prop rock

- the US gave Holland a moon rock that later turned out to be petrified wood !

- the sky is black...no stars

The theories supporting the theory that it's real:

- NASA could've taped the landing on Earth because the camera footage on the Moon got damaged

- the stage light pic could be a UFO instead

- the C wasn't there in the original picture of the moon rock

- maybe they gave Holland a piece of petrified wood on purpose or there was some kind of a mix-up...who knows...

Maybe not the whole thing was faked...but certain things definitely were.

Maybe they came in contact with something they thought people on Earth couldn't deal with and they went into the studio and made a new fake footage to put people at ease.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!

[Starrk]

Most definitely real.

First of all, if the moon landing was fake, the USSR would have detected it and they would have most definitely called the US out on their bullshit. Such fabrication of the moon landing would have been political suicide for the President and would have been an extremely embarrassing moment for the US.

Second
ilrs.cddis.eosdis.nasa.gov/images/AS14-67-9385.jpg

That metal object is called a lunar retroreflector. There are over a dozen of them scattered across the moon's surface. These retroreflectors are there so Earth bound astronomers can measure the distance between Earth and the Moon. They do this by firing a laser beam from Earth at one of the reflectors. The amount of time that it takes the laser to hit the reflector and return to Earth is measured and a distance is calculated between the two celestial bodies.

If the moon landing was fake how is it possible that man-made objects are located on the moon and they have been regularly used by astronomers worldwide since 1969 which was when the first laser beam was fired at one of these reflectors.

[CubsterShura]

You know what? When such science hits such big milestones there's always rumors about it from the media and greedy people who shove these fake stuff into gullible people's mouth.

If it was fake, by more we'd all know it and almost all scientists would question its truth from the beginning.

[Anpu23]

Here's the problem for me in 1969 Russia also had an advanced space program, they had active satalites that we're circling the moon during the landing. If it was faked they could have PROVED it yet they accepted it as fact. (It would've been a heck of a propaganda win to show photos of the landing site without the lander). To claim that it was colusian is to misunderstand the political situation of the late 60's. Most of the questions that have been raised have been explained away such as the flag dealing with inirtia (not wind) some gravity can cause someone to fall (ever tripped on the bottom of a pool?) etc etc.

[Nik1hil]

the Moon landing was real,

BUT THE EVIDENCES GIVEN out to people as part of moon rock were fake
the video was fake
the moon landing movie was fake to probably
carrying sample of of minerals from one planet to another is equivalent to Mining.
which is (how should i put it) illegal, don't ask me the law governing it.
moon has huge cracks enough to carry a small aircraft inside.

which makes it hollow and most probably more inhabitable from inside then outside. .
and they didn't landed back again there probably for some reason
But ISRO has confirmed that there is water below surface
which generates possibilities of inhabitable area probably in deep caves.

[Dale1982]

Cold war protocol. If you can't really do it make the other side think you can. It was posturing on the international level. Thats what all the nuke tests were about culminating in the tsar bomba. I never thought they went to the moon. In near earth orbit the satellites and iss are still protected by the magnetic flux lines coming off the earth core which deflect harmful radiation from the sun. When you go as far as the moon that protection ain't there and they're exposed to the whole electromagnetic spectrum. That kinda radiation can penetrate a mile of rock never mind a flimsy suit

[LogicBomber]

Also, let's not forget the Van Allen Belt that NASA has stated they can't get through currently. But magically got through in a tinfoil pod back in the 70's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBBUwdyz4I

[Starrk]

The Van Allen belt isn't a threat to the spaceship itself nor is it a threat to the occupants as long as they remain inside. The Van Allen belt has been known by astronomers since 1958 and Van Allen himself even dismissed the idea of the radiation being harmful to the Apollo crew.

The only reason why the Van Allen belt is a problem now is because modern spacecraft (such as Orion) are fitted with superior computerize technology that can fail upon going through this field of radiation.

The Apollo spacecraft inferior level of technology made it possible for it to bypass the Van Allen belt without any disruption to their computers. Also radiation isn't some monster that kills you in 2 seconds. Radiation only becomes a problem when you're exposed to it in extremely high dosage or when exposed to it for a long period of time. The Apollo astronauts were only in the Van Allen belt for a few minutes and the spacecraft protected them from getting a high dosage of it.

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk NASA Van Allen Belt is 60, 000 KM thick and Apollo traveled 7 miles per second.
This ship was in the belt for (60000/7)/60= 143 Minutes (2 1/2 hours)
NASA has said numerous times that they need to protect the ASTRONAUTS from the radiation (NOT the electronics) as they did in the video above.

www.smithsonianmag.com/.../

[LogicBomber]

NASA has sent numerous unmanned and highly sensitive equipment into space past the belts in recent years... so the equipment isn't the issue, it's human life.

[Starrk]

Actually if you re-watch that video of yours the man clearly said at 0:24 seconds that " "Radiation like this can harm the guidance system, on board computers and other electronics on Orion".

The on board technology is the major concern for NASA in regards to the Van Allen belt. Any area were radiation is intense can damage such technology which is why satellites, and the Hubble Space Telescope have their sensors turned off when passing through such regions.

Also, the Apollo crew never went through the entire Van Allen belt. The Apollo crew completely bypassed the Inner belt and only came in contact with a thinnest portion of the outer belt, thus decreasing the overall time that there were in contact with the Van Allen belt.

www.popsci.com/.../apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

[Starrk]

As for your link you are comparing apples to oranges. First of all, that link of yours is talking about radiation in route to Mars. We can easily send man from Earth to the Moon without worrying to much about the radiation due to the small distance between the two bodies. The distance from Earth to the Moon is about 240,000 miles. It only took the astronaut 3 days to get to the moon and 3 days to come back to Earth. A roundtrip from Earth to the Moon only takes 6 days to accomplish.

However, Mars is 40 million miles away from Earth. A trip to Mars is expected to take between 150-200 days an additional 150-200 days to get back. The level of radiation that astronauts will experience from being in space for 1-2 years is nothing compared to the small dosage they received from being away for 6 days.

So when it comes to traveling to Mars, radiation is a huge concern due to the duration that they will be exposed to it, but traveling to the moon and back is child's play.

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk The moon is 30 earth diameters distances away from Earth, the Van Allen belt is in between them. If they were able to get past to get to the moon, they wouldn't have issues now getting past it to get to mars. The distance to Mars after that is irrelevant in this argument since we are talking about the van allen belt which they seem to be having issues with, not anything past that.

lh6.googleusercontent.com/.../...fjs-1920x1080.jpg

[Starrk]

The distance from Earth to Mars is relevant because distance will determine the duration that the astronauts are going to be exposed to cosmic rays. Look at that link of yours from the Smithsonian. Nowhere in that link do they mention the Van Allen belt. The radiation they mention in that article is not the Van Allen belt. The radiation they are referring to is cosmic radiation which comes from outside our solar system.

The Van Allen belt contains very little cosmic radiation, because it's made up mostly of solar winds. Astronauts on the International Space Station deal solar winds all the time and they are not dead. They're not dead because the ISS covering protects them and because they aren't exposed to it for a long time.

A voyage to Mars is different from that of the Moon because the astronauts are going to be exposed to cosmic radiation for the entire 3 year voyage, something they didn't have to deal with for a long period when going to the moon ( 6 day trip).

[Starrk]

This comes straight from YOUR Smithsonian link.

"Unlike radiation from the sun, however, cosmic rays could also spark long-term degenerative effects while still in space, including heart disease, reduced immune system effectiveness and neurological symptoms resembling Alzheimer's."

"astronauts on board the International Space Station already have to deal with these radiation dangers. They can seek shelter in a more heavily shielded part of the ship when the sun releases a particularly high-powered burst of radiation. But avoiding the constant, steady assault of cosmic radiation presents a greater challenge. And no one on the ISS has yet to experience the full radiation dangers that would be seen on a three-year mission to Mars and back; the maximum amount of time anyone has spent on the space station is 14 months."
-

[Starrk]

Along with this..

"Turner says the best way to mitigate the danger from cosmic rays won't come from shielding. Instead, he thinks the solution will come from reducing the time astronauts spend traveling to and from other worlds. Once humans touch down on Mars, the bulk of the planet will provide significant protection, effectively halving the amount of radiation that makes it through. While Mars’ thin atmosphere won't provide the same shield as Earth's thick layer of gases, it, too, will reduce the cosmic rays that reach explorers on the surface."

So the video that you provided and the Smithsonian link are talking two different things. The Smithsonian link is talking about how to protect astronauts from enduring cosmic rays for 3 years while going to Mars and back, while the video is talking more about how to protect the equipment of the Orion spacecraft from failing while traveling through the entire Van Allen belts.

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk I don't know what you are trying to prove with your statements... The point I made was about the Van Allen belts... anything referring to other forces is irrelevant to that topic.

The people on the space station are in LOWER EARTH ORBIT and do not experience the radiation of the Van Allen Belt. If they could get someone outside of the belt, then you could talk about external issues, but they have yet to put anyone even close to the outer edge of lower earth orbit. When they tried to get closer to the belts, the astronauts could see flashes of light with their eyes closed and got severe headaches from the amount of radiation they were getting when they were simply closer to the belts.

aetherforce.com/.../vd5479885f.png

The entirety of the van allen belt is between lower earth orbit and the moon... so if they could get through it to go to the moon, they wouldn't need anything new to get through it to go to mars.

[Starrk]

"I don't know what you are trying to prove with your statements... The point I made was about the Van Allen belts... anything referring to other forces is irrelevant to that topic."

So why did you post the link from the Smithsonian which was talking about prolong exposure to cosmic radiation?

The people on the space station are still exposed to high level of solar winds which is what the Van Allen belt is predominately composed of.

"The entirety of the van allen belt is between lower earth orbit and the moon... so if they could get through it to go to the moon, they wouldn't need anything new to get through it to go to mars."

They never went through the entire Van Allen belt when they were going to the Moon. they planned their trajectory accordingly to where they bypass the inner belt and only experienced the thinnest portion of the outer belt. And like your video stated, the concerns regarding the Van Allen belt while going to Mars is the safety of the equipment.

[Starrk]

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Also this a report from NASA regarding radiation threat to the Apollo mission.

Those flashes that the crew experienced, which you attributed to the Van Allen belt was actually believed to be caused by cosmic rays.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk The link was simply to provide you with info on how radiation affects humans.
Radiation is “a risk we need to learn more about over the next decade so we can do the proper mitigation, so we can do the best we can for the astronauts who are going to be putting their lives at risk for a number of different threats,"

"They never went through the entire Van Allen belt when they were going to the Moon"
And if this is true, then they should have no issue doing it again, which they state they can't.

The underlying point of this entire post is that they currently can not do something that they apparently could do without issue almost 50 years ago.

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk If someone told you that they were able to teleport and showed you a shitty grainy video of what appears to be them teleporting without any issues on 50-year-old equipment, but when you ask why they don't do it again, they tell you that they need to find a way around the issue of mutation before they take the risk because mutation is guaranteed... would you not question how they were capable of doing it the first time without mutation on 50-year-old equipment, would you not ask why they don't use the 50-year-old equipment to do it again since it seemed to work fine. Would you not wonder why the only "provable" item they have to show you is a shitty grainy video with multiple logical flaws.

[Starrk]

Your analogy is flawed because you are focusing on evidence that has been taken out of context and you're trying to prove a conclusion despite having a flawed premise.

There is a large amount evidence that says the moon landing occurred. For one there's man-made objects located on the moon. A array of lunar retro reflectors were placed on the moon surface during the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 mission. How could it be possible that we have man made objects on the surface of the moon if we never made it there. Observatories across the globe since 1969 have interacted with these retroreflectors. Every country who has ever probed the moon have all confirmed that the moon landing occurred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpjbdH1y_ds

Not to mention we have rocks from the moon that are dated at 4.5 billion year old. The oldest rock every found on Earth is 3.8 billion. If the moon landings are a hoax then were did the 4.5 billion year old rock come from?

[Starrk]

Also, if we never made it to the moon then why are we trying to send people to Mars (by 2032) which is 165 times further away from Earth then the Moon is?

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk It's isn't flawed simply because you don't like it or understand it. The premise is simple... there is a barrier which they stated they have passed, they now say it isn't possible to get past it. Therefore the first time must have been a lie.

Since we can not actually go to or see these items which we are told exist on the moon, you can only go off what is presented by the people telling you it's there. You are claiming evidence based solely on faith in the people who stand to benefit from your belief in them.
Also, items existing on the moon doesn't mean people were there... they put a rover on Mars without people going there. That is man made stuff now on a planet where no man has actually been.
The rocks which we have from the moon...
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...uzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

What does them being to the moon have to do with them wanting to go to Mars?
I have never been to Texas but I'd like to travel to Australia, even though it's further.

[Starrk]

Your premise is flawed because your premise is based off of misquotation, misunderstandings, denial and ignorance. Your entire premise is based entirely on a video that you deliberate misquoted in order to fit your wishful thinking.

Man made objects being on the Moon is irrefutable evidence that we sent man to Mars. Why? Because rover technology was not produced yet during the first Apollo mission. So please tell me, how else could we have meticulously placed a dozens of objects on the Moon's surface if rover and robotic technology was not advanced nor reliable enough to do so.

"What does them being to the moon have to do with them wanting to go to Mars?"

Because if we lack the sophistication and technology to bypass the obstacles between Earth and Moon like you claim, then how in the hell are we going to bypass the even more complex obstacles that are between Earth and Mars.

[Starrk]

You seriously need to do more research on the subject. That specific moon rock was fake. The real moon rock is actually located in a separate museum.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/.../...-14-moon-rock_N.htm

"I have never been to Texas but I'd like to travel to Australia, even though it's further"
False equal valence is what that analogy of yours is called. You are implying that we can't travel to the Moon because of inferior technology. So tell me, how can you plan a voyage to go to a planet in the next 15 years, that's not only further away but also include more complex obstacles then simply going to the Moon. It's the equivalent of planning a long distant DRIVE (in your car) to Texas tomorrow despite the fact that your shitty car is incapable of leaving the neighborhood before cutting off.

[Starrk]

Being able to travel to the moon is essentially a prerequisite for any type of further space travel, the same way being able to travel to Mars needs to be accomplish before you can start planning trips to Pluto. Or knowing how to play football is a crucial prerequisite before you can start signing up for the Dallas Cowboys.

You are claiming evidence based solely on faith in the people who stand to benefit from your belief in them.

So countries like Japan, India and Russia who have all released their own pictures of the Apollo landing site benefit from the Apollo mission how exactly. The hundreds of Japanese, European, Russian and Chinese astronomers (and geologist, and scientist) who have all corroborated the Apollo landing, gain what from the Apollo mission?

You need to understand that experts from all over the world including our adversaries have confirmed the space landing, not just NASA, not just Americans, but the entire international community.

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk There is no misquotation, it was a direct quotation. "We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"

The Lunokhod 1 rover landed on the Moon in November 1970. It was the first roving remote-controlled robot to land on any celestial body.

I believe the quote above is an answer to your comment "how in the hell are we going to bypass the even more complex obstacles that are between Earth and Mars." They are currently trying to figure out how to get past the Van Allen belt (which if they did it before, they currently wouldn't need to "solve" because they would already know how.)

I don't think I am the one who needs to do more research. I have done and continue to research... you simply believe what is presented.
If there are rocks from space that are said to be from the moon, how can you be sure they are not just parts of meteorites which the US government had and used as "moon rocks".
...

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk... Why and how would the first two astronauts on the moon, give a fake rock to someone if they were really on the moon? They would easily be able to tell the difference if they were actually there.

[LogicBomber]

I don't see how you are so hung up on the moon needing to be a prerequisite to Mars?
They currently state that they can't get out of lower earth orbit, so the prerequisite is getting past the van allen belt, which they say they have already done, but are now unable to do again... so why are they putting this time and research into something they say they can't do, if they already did it?

[Starrk]

There is no misquotation, it was a direct quotation. "We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space".

A direct quotation which you are taking out of context. The man stated why the Van Allen belt is dangerous and he explicitly said at 25 seconds "Radiation like this can harm the guidance system, on board computers and other electronics on Orion".

What part of that are you not comprehending.

"The Lunokhod 1 rover landed on the Moon in November 1970. It was the first roving remote-controlled robot to land on any celestial body."

Which was a year after the moon landing, not to mention Lunokhod was a USSR rover, not an American one. Try again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc

This video explains your concern regarding the Van Allen belt. Watch the WHOLE thing, because this is getting redundant and foolish.

[Starrk]

"Why and how would the first two astronauts on the moon, give a fake rock to someone if they were really on the moon? They would easily be able to tell the difference if they were actually there."

The moon rock given to the Netherlands by the two astronauts was a REAL moon rock. The moon rock was given to the Dutch prime minsters who held onto the rock for over a decade. After his death in 1988 "a rock" was donated to the museum from his estate and it was labeled as a"moon rock". It was there that it was discovered to be fake.

The problem with your argument is that the real moon rock did exist. It was simply sent to another museum (the Museum Boerhaave) where it is encapsulated in Lucite. Every moon rock to have every been sent to the Netherlands went to the Museum Boerhaave in Leidin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk Listen, regardless of your excuses and explanations... they physically have stated they currently can not get through the van allen and stated they need to figure out how... which is a contradiction if they did it once before without issue.

The end of the video you posted even says "this remains true today as it does for any future missions" and "why go through it when you can around it"... so this bald guy just solved all of NASA's problems didn't he. I mean he should call them up and just tell them that what they did before would work and that they should simply go around it. It would save them all that time and money they are currently using to figure out how to get through it.

*Do you see where your logic fails?

[Starrk]

Going around the Van Allen belt has been common knowledge since the 1950s (Where have you been). Going through the entirety of the Van Allen belt poses some risk that we are still trying to work out such as how to safeguard the equipment on board. BUT The Van Allen belt does NOT prevent us from traveling like you are trying to insinuate.

The man clearly said that going around the Van Allen belt is the way we have been dealing with it space travel. Going around the belt saved us the resources of having to go through it, the same way going around a wall saves you the effort of having to go through it. That snippet of information destroys your entire argument of the Van Allen belt being this invisible monster that traps humans on Earth

Stop playing mental gymnastics and read a damn book on the topic. It's absolutely foolish that people are still talking about the moon landing being fake. What in the hell are you people using the internet for, because learning sure isn't it.

[LogicBomber]

@Starrk Why do you think they need to go through the entirety of the belt now if they didn't need to in the past? What you are saying doesn't make sense. Shaming tactics won't make your illogical argument valid.
It's not a hard concept, If they are able to go through the belt as they suggested they did in the past then they have no reason to make the task more complicated NOW and go through the entire belt. They should simply go around it as they did in the past and therefore all this research and issue with the belt that they are spending millions of research dollars on are being wasted.

If you have a door you can go through to get in your house that is always open, you don't start trying to find ways to get in the second story window and claim you need to find a solution before you can send people into your house. You just use the fucking door that you used in the past. FFS.

[Starrk]

"Why do you think they need to go through the entirety of the belt now if they didn't need to in the past?"

They don't NEED to go through the entirety of the belt now, I was just informing you that going through the entirety of it comes with a lot of risks which is why they prefer to take the short cut, which is bypassing the inner belt and going through the thinnest part of the outer belt.

"Shaming tactics won't make your illogical argument valid."
Bro. You are the one who is basing your argument off of a misquoted video and taking it completely out of context. You are the one who is denying the hundreds of "real" moon rocks that we have on planet Earth. You are the one who is denying the Lunar retroreflectors. You are the one who is ignoring the fact that every country on the damn planet including our adversary (Russia/USSR, China) have confirmed the Moon landing. From the looks of it my logic is way more sturdy then your complete lack of logic.

[Starrk]

Now I'm about to explain to you that video of yours.

That man in the video is explaining to viewers (in the most simplest way he can) the challenges that the Orion spacecraft must overcome in order to be a viable spacecraft for space travel. Keep in the mind that Orion is not Apollo. They are two totally different spacecraft with different levels of technology and a different mission. Every thing from the shielding and in-board technology between the two spacecraft is completely different.

As a result of this, everything on Orion needs to be tested to the extreme to ensure it can pull off the same feat Apollo was capable of doing 50 years ago which was going through the Van Allen belt. Orion's spacecraft has more sophisticated on-board technology and more powerful computers which makes it more susceptible to failure during areas of space that is filled with high energy of radiation (the Van Allen belt).

[Starrk]

Apollo was a great spacecraft for our little camping trip to the Moon. However, in order to get to Mars and back (a 3 year voyage), more sophisticated level of technology is needed. As a result of that an entirely new spacecraft (Orion) was crafted. This new spacecraft needs to be tested to hell and back before we throw people inside of it for 3 years, the same way a new airplane needs to be extensively tested before it can be boarded by hundreds of people. It doesn't matter if the older airplanes worked perfectly, we still need to test the newer ones to ensure they won't nosedive on the first flight.

[Impregnator511]

Could you be any more biased? We have satellite TV. Is it so hard to believe we landed on the moon? Where do you think all those Apollo rockets went anyway?

[Zorax]

Apollo 11 landing was probably faked, out of political reasons, but I think the later landings might have been real.
Excellent Take.

[LittleSally]

There were no later landings...

[Zorax]

There were later landings according to wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/.../Moon_landing

[LittleSally]

Damn... You got me there. So there were 6 overall...
Why do you think the first one was faked?

[Zorax]

Because Americans were afraid that Soviets would send the first manned mission - before them, just like they did with the first unmanned Moon probe (Luna 2).
They knew that USSR was already leading in space research (First artificial Earth satellite - Sputnik 1, First animal in Earth orbit - the dog Laika on Sputnik 2, First human in space and Earth orbit - Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, First woman in space and Earth orbit -
Cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova on Vostok 6, First spacewalk - cosmonaut Alexey Leonov on Voskhod 2, First spacewalk (cosmonaut Alexey Leonov on Voskhod 2), First space rover -
Lunokhod 1, First image of the far side of the moon - Luna 3, First sample of lunar soil automatically extracted and brought to Earth (Luna 16), and First space station - Salyut 1.

[Zorax]

*I accidentally pasted first spacewalk twice*

[LittleSally]

Haha Wow... America and Russia - now they're best friends apparently... xD

[Zorax]

Right, haha, Trump and Putin :P

[Hans222]

I think the stories about it being fake are fake Sally... those images of the Saturn 5 taking off looked real! Very real!

[ChocoLada]

Pff, I think it was totally fake, the flag waves but we all know there is no wind on the Moon.

[ClearlyCanadian]

yea i know check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

[BrittBratt2416]

@ClearlyCanadian it's floating.. you float in space

[ChocoLada]

@BrittBratt2416 It's not floating, it's waving, but there is no air flow on the Moon (or atmosphere), so it's obviously faked.

[ClearlyCanadian]

Did either of you watch the video? This isn't complicated at all.

[Deathraider]

It's real. Google itself, the company confirmed it by shining a laser and reflecting it back in a special way that a mirror would. If you doubt google, how did you got onto this website?

[FatherJack]

Appears fake to me !! I NEVER trust " official government " type sources !!

[Giacomanzo]

What I think is "Who cares?" I'm perfectly aware that we can NOW go to the Moon; there is no USSR anymore. Why bother?

[omykb1_one]

its real.
there was bickering in the senate and the hose for $50
it is a never ending cycle. now..

[coachTanthony]

How about the live shots from YOUTUBE?

[Rissyanne]

I would hate to think it was fake.

[MarkRet]

It could be fake, but I prefer to think it's real.

[Decentguy]

its def fake

[Iron_Man]

Its real

[cupidkisses]

i think it is fake

[player0696]

I think it's real