Was the moon landing Faked?

[888theGreat]

If you answer Yes it was. Why do you think it was faked? Some say to one up Russia to make them think we were better and ahead of them. Other things , could you even walk on the moon with no gravity? Wouldn't you more likely float? Also, why would you talk about going back to moon , if you were on the moon before? A cell phone today had more power than NASA computers in 1960's. So could they make the calculations necessary to do it? Also there is radiation and some say they could not have passed through this zone.

I have listen to Bart Sibrel and he makes some pretty good points why it couldn't have happened.

Yes

No

maybe

Updates

+1 y

I used to believe they did , but after what lies the gov't does now , I can see them staging this to make Russia concerned. Now I have to say maybe.

Updates

+1 y

Why is NASA just orbiting the moon now when they are supposed to be able to land on moon? How can you land on the moon in 1969 , but can only orbit moon in 2022 ? We should be able to land on moon like we go to the grocery store here. This guy has some good points, but the ones here saying we landed we landed have not listen to the guy's video. Same people that say US shit doesn't smell and economy could never collapse. Germany though their economy would never collapse. Rpmans though that too

[Snsl153]

Do you actually believe there is no gravity on the moon? It may not be as powerful a force as it is on the Earth's surface, due to the fact that the moon's mass is so significantly lower than the Earth's, but you can still walk on the moon even if you do feel significantly lighter.

I answered this question with a "maybe", but not for any of the reasons Bart Sibrel may suggest. The Van Allen belts are not the biggest obstacle for manned interplanetary travel, but what those "belts" actually protect us from; that is, the Sun. It turns out that space beyond low earth orbit is incredibly hostile to life, even life that has been protected by as much shielding as you can imagine, because the Sun is a brutally active star that spews out all forms of radiation, both ionising and non-ionising, across the entire length of the spectrum, and it is incredibly unpredictable.

The moon has no magnetosphere, so anyone on the surface of that celestial body, even if they wore a fancy suit, would be cooked by microwave, gamma and X-rays whenever they stood in direct sunlight. If the suits were so wonderfully effective in protecting the astronauts, well then, they should use them to clean up Chernobyl. Why weren't NASA moon-suits borrowed for the purpose when that reactor blew up back in 1986? Plans to visit and colonise Mars are pure fantasy, because Mars has no equivalent to Earth's Van Allen belts, because it has no liquid metal core to generate such a field. Besides, it's too small to terraform. I really need to speak to Musk about all of this.

[purplepoppy]

The whole point of going to the moon was to send a message to Russia about Americas capabilities. If there was any evidence it was faked Russia would be having a field day. The only people who claim its fake are far right Americans.

[FunkyMonkee]

If there's no gravity on the moon, what's keeping all the rocks and dust up there on the "planet"?

Yes, it was faked but we STILL went!!

When Stanley Kubrick was making "Dr. Strangelove", he'd heard about some fabulous new lens that the government had in their possession and he wanted to use it to shoot a scene in that movie so, he asked them if he could borrow it. They were quite skittish about this but, did so, anyway. Years later, they weren't sure their video feed on the moon would work so, it was decided to have someone shoot a fake moon landing so that, just in case they lost video during the live broadcast, they had SOMETHING to show the American people (and the world) so, as Stan owed them for the use of that lens, and, because he did such a realistic moon shot in "2001", they got him to do the moon landing video for them. Thankfully, the video feed had no issues so, Stan's film was never used.

[DryGermanGuy]

Did you ever visit something that remotely resembled school? "No gravity on the moon"? *SMH*
--> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_of_the_Moon

[FunkyMonkee]

@DryGermanGuy Yes, I did! What's your excuse? Get yourself a powerful telescope and you can clearly see the stuff we left behind on the moon from here! If there's no gravity, what's keeping that stuff from floating away? You know why the oceans have tides? Because of the gravity from THE MOON!! I guess they taught you THAT in school, either!

[888theGreat]

The problem now is that they lie about everything , so were they lying then? Of course liberal dumb nuts still believe everything go't says and what liberal mainstream media says. Vietnam war was a lie. Mass weapons of Destruction were lies

[FunkyMonkee]

I know what you mean! How can you trust someone that constantly lies to you? We've had mag-lev tech and LOADS of other Star Trek type stuff since at least the `50's but, will we ever get it?

[Googlemyahoo]

there's a conspiracy and documentary that says Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing hoax

[andreasderjuengere]

I don't believe it for practical reasons: There were too many people involved in this project. If that was a show only, some information would have leaked much earlier already.

The support of the ''fake'' idea comes - similar to pancake planet theories- more from feeling bored, and also from attempting to oppose the ''Establishment'' (which I personally welcome, but I'd prefer to see more intelligence involved).

[exitseven]

Ne the moon landing was real. Too bad we will never go back. With Biden in the White House all the money that could be spent on space exploration which resulted in the most innovative period in our history is wasted on useless social programs, illegal aliens and the fake green new deal.

[DryGermanGuy]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

[josephinelcajon]

I do believe we went I said maybe and here is a good question. With the moon so close and our sophisticated long-range telescopes can't see a single man-made object in clarity.

[zagor]

The largest man-made object on the moon is about the size of a small pickup truck. The moon is about 10x further than spy satellites orbit. There are lots of pictures of objects on the moon but they are usually taken from craft orbiting the moon and if you don't believe man landed on the moon you probably don't believe those are real either.

[josephinelcajon]

@zagor The telescopes that I meant are deep space such as the new James Webb. Even orbiting ones should see more! and my first sentence was "I do believe we went"

[zagor]

I don't think they waste the James Webb or even the older Hubble on taking pics of the moon.

[DryGermanGuy]

Not again….

[DavidRaul]

I believed in the beginning that it was fake but after reading all the facts, it made more sense and concluded it was all true.

[888theGreat]

after watching this guy's documentary , 3 out of 4 people say they probably faked it

[DryGermanGuy]

Which only shows the stupidity and gullibility of those viewers. 🙄🤬

[Sargentcaptain]

Anyone who considers these landings to be fake is an idiot.

[888theGreat]

did you watch his facts and reasons

[Sargentcaptain]

Honestly I haven't, if his arguments are similar to questions you pose here, well...

> Other things , could you even walk on the moon with no gravity?

Who ever taught you the moon doesn't have gravity?

> Also, why would you talk about going back to moon , if you were on the moon before?
> Why is NASA just orbiting the moon now when they are supposed to be able to land on moon?

Pick one.

> How can you land on the moon in 1969 , but can only orbit moon in 2022 ?

Issue isn't possibility, it's funding and purpose.

> A cell phone today had more power than NASA computers in 1960's. So could they make the calculations necessary to do it?

Yes. They took more time, but yeah, you could absolutely perform the same exact lines formulae then as you can now. Math is the same, it's just that computers are more powerful and the process will take less time, that is it.

> Also there is radiation and some say they could not have passed through this zone.

? What the hell does that even mean? What zone? Radiation isn't that big of an issue in the short term anyway.

> We should be able to land on moon like we go to the grocery store here.

Why? Why? Why? Take 5 seconds to think and you should be able to come up with a billion reasons for why that is stupid. Price and purpose alone are all the arguments you need anyway.

> Same people that say US shit doesn't smell and economy could never collapse. Germany though their economy would never collapse. Rpmans though that too

Try the Jedi mind fuckery again, your assumptions of my positions are false.

[Likes2drive]

Definitely not , only the election was faked

[zagor]

There is still junk on the moon from it. This is as bad as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.