"If You Believe They Put A Man On The Moon..." Contest!

Of course the moon landings happened.

For me, the best argument is the sheer scale and length of the cover-up required to believe otherwise.

Firstly, there's one thing the "evil NASA conspirators" couldn't fake: the artefacts left behind on the moon. Lunar rovers, LEM landing pads, golf balls, that sort of thing. One day, someone's going to go back there, or get a decent enough camera to take a picture of what the landing sites look like today. Their foul plot would be instantly uncovered if, lo and behold, "Tranquillity Base" and the other landing sites show no sign of human activity.

Now, maybe the "evil NASA conspirators" have realised this, and have since flown to the moon and built fake landing areas. But if they've got the technology to convincingly do that, today, surely they had the technology to do it for real, back then.

Finally, there are the artefacts brought back by the Apollo missions: the moon rocks. There are three possible sources for the moon rocks currently on Earth: the Apollo manned moon landings, the Russian robotic sample return missions, and meteoritic moon rock, blasted off the moons surface and found on the Earth as meteors. We know those particular meteorites are moon rocks because they chemically match the samples returned from the Moon... and nothing else. They also match what can now be spectroscopically detected on the Moon from here on Earth, using techniques that hadn't even been invented in the 1960's.

If the moon rocks are fake, then all the moon rocks must be fake, because they match. That means the Russians must have been in on the conspiracy, because some of the rocks are theirs. Indeed, American moon rocks were distributed widely after the landings, so it would mean scientists world-wide would have to be in on the conspiracy.

Rocks, of course, weren't all they brought back. Apollo 12 landed next to the Surveyor 3 unmanned lunar probe, and the astronauts walked over to it, took some pictures, and removed some pieces of the probe so the scientists back home could examine the effects of prolonged exposure to the lunar surface. If nobody ever visited Surveyor 3, how did the bits and pieces get back here, complete with moon dust and micrometeorite impacts?

I think that the simplest answer is also the the best. It's human nature to share secrets and a tell-all book would easily make the author millions of dollars. If I were the key grip or boom mike operator involved in an alleged hoax, I would have cashed in decades ago!

I saw an episode of Futurama where Fry, Leela, and Bender went to the original moon landing site and found the original capsule which had been "replaced by the historical accuracy society". Since I saw it on a cartoon, it must be real.

I believe they landed on the moon....seen a show on this very subject...I think it was the history channel, IIRC.. interesting fact which swayed me to believe they did actually land on the moon, many other countries were watching us at this time...would they have covered it up as well?.. I think not.

I do have one question, Why havent we been back there since?

I watched Apollo 11, the first landing on TV on 16 July 1969 as it was happening (about 1.5 second delay due to light speed limitation). I know of no technology back then which could duplicate the effects of one-sixth Earth gravity: the sorta slow motion bouncing, the ease of semi-flying through the air, the slow speed at which kicked-up dust returned to the moon's surface. But, the most compelling reason is as Sap stated with the following qualifiers: the geological specimens brought back by the first and successive moon expeditions could only have been formed under the vacuum and lighter-than-Earth gravitational environment. To my knowledge, science has not yet come up with anti-gravity device which can simulate 1/6 Earth gravity conditions.

C'mon people!! It never happened! Why do you think it was called "lunar landing". Lunar is short for lunatic, in that you have to be a lunatic to believe that we landed on the mooon. The sure did a number on so many Americans by calling it lunar landing. Boy, they sure must be laughing their heads off right now as so many gullible people bought into the lunar landing.

Why haven't we been back? Because we never got there in the first place- it was just too hard in the first place. We still may not get there yet....Budgetary issues may continue to kill NASA's budget. Speaking of which, if we can't afford to go the moon now, how in the world could we afford it back then, when our Gross Domestic Product was so much smaller, we had less National Deficit and less National Debt? Answer: we culdn't afford it so it was axed and instead, the residual money for the project was used to create the lunacy of the lunar landing. Great job they did, I say.

The other reason it never happened: I was born in 1970, so I never saw it happen. If I didn't see it with my own eyes, it couldn't have happened!! All the movie, audio tape stuff is all doctored Hollywood FLUFF. They are sooo good at the FLUFF ya know.

As for the rocks and other unearthly objects? These are falling as metorites all the time and the tests (which I do believe) clearly show that came from outerspace. So all the rocks and such supposedly coming from the moon, really came from meteors hitting the earth. It is not uncommon for a commet or meteor to hit the moon (have you even seen all the craters on the moon laterly? It's been hit a LOT over the years). Then a small chunck of the moon (moon rocks) came hurtling towards the earth. They have to go somewhere, ya know.

The stuff that is supposedly left on the moon: we did not actually have to set a HUMAN foot on the moon to do that- rockets could have gone up to the moon with the cargo, robots could have dumped it on surface of the moon and even used a human shoe to cause the famous shoeprint. It was robots, people, not people. Puh-lease!

The "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" audio that is played over and over like it is authentic? Well, any ordinary audio studio can tape that and create "artificial static" in the middle of it just so it sounds more legit.

Close-up pictures: any close-up pictures of the moon can most certainly be taken by satellites, space shuttle astronauts or even the Hubble Telescope. I do not see how landing on the moon is required to take good photos.

Supposed picutres of humans on the moon? Those were robots, people. Robots made to look like humans.

For all these reasons, we did not land a human being on the moon. Call me a lunatic[;D]

I forgot to provide the picture of proof that we did NOT land a human on the moon for real. Here it is (http://www.news.com/NASA-loses-moon...s---1115.asp :



Image: Moon--22457.jpg
73.88 KB


There are other excellent photos at this site, including a crab next to the footstep, a cigarette butt next to the footstep, and a McDonalds in the background, with a note from Jack saying they need to darken the lighting to make it appear more legit....