Was the Lunar Landing and Apollo 11 Mission a hoax (see details)?
In the movie, the flag is waving, however since there is no atmosphere on mars, how does the flag wave
In the movie, there is no evidence of any dust on the lunar landing pad, however given the stregnth and magnitude of the impact of the lunar lander, a lot of dust must ahve been kicked up
In hte movie, there are no stars. With no atmosphere and since the movie was facing away from the sun, it would have been easy to see stars
In the movie, they show a picture of planet Earth, however it is slightly distorted and not spinning on the proper axis
In the movie, Armstrong and Aldrin are jumping through hte air very slowly. In fact they stay in the air a full 9.8 seconds per jump. The atomspheric pressure difference is only 36 times different and with the force exerted by the astronauts, they should have only been in the air 4.5 seconds almost HALF the amount of time they were actually in the air
i like dontdoweekends response...every one else before him, you guys are idiots
and danmerquiry's response is a good argument...I would talk about how when the lunar landing module came down it kicked dust up and since there was no atmosphere or a lot of gravity the particles of dust descended in a parabolic manner
to ukman, people might make it up because morale in the US was low at the time,. THe US was in a losing war (vietnam), the Russians were overtaking us in spacce, JFK had promised in 1960 that by hte end of the decade there would be a man in space. and other erasons
and thegoochs, the reason astronauts have not been back is because it is impossible. With new technology we can see if the lunar lander actually landed there, or if it was a lie from telescopes in every one's home. NASA knows they can not fake it again. THey are delaying
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest answer
1. They had a rod that stuck out from the pole so the flag would be held straight out. It broke halfway out, and on subsequent missions, they deployed it halfway on purpose because it looked like it was waving. Irony at its finest.
2. The lunar lander didn't crash down on to the moon. They went really really slowly, just as you wouldn't parallel park at 40 mph.
3. There's no atmosphere, so the Sun's light wasn't scattered. The astronaut suits were white. It was really bright. What do you do on a camera if its really bright? Make the exposure time really short. That's why you couldn't see the stars. Ask any professional photographer.
4. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Film distortion?
5. Where are you getting those numbers? I've never heard of this.
As you can see, this hoax thing is really easily explained.
- SagusLv 51 decade ago
Here are some explaination to your questions:
Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?
This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.
I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags where attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless
The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.
The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.
Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts.
For more information see link belowSource(s): http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Most of the conspiracy theories are simply bad or misleading science. Google for sites on the moon landing and read the pro and con sites.
I have watched both sides in documentaries and it is quite clear that all the theories can be explained.
BTW does anyone believe that the thousands of people that would have to be involved wouldn't have let out better information by now?
- 1 decade ago
I think they probably DID land on the moon, but maybe the film got messed up and they were embarrased so filmed in a studio instead!
One other question though. The moon landing was in the sixties. Have astronauts been back since?????IF not, Why?
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- lunaticLv 71 decade ago
Damn right it was a hoax! Just like the Earth being round and revolving around the sun. What hogwash. They can't fool me. The horizon is FLAT and I see the sun going around the earth every day. Seeing with your own two eyes. That's real proof.
If I haven't seen it, it ain't true. Right?
- dontdoweekendsLv 51 decade ago
I was on the moon before these people, running a bar, nice place but no atmosphere, and i can assure you that they were there but as like most Americans, refused to pay the cover charge !
- pontowLv 43 years ago
What do i think of approximately this project? i think of that the conspiracy theories have been debunked many years in the past, and are actual debunked by way of absolutely everyone with a severe-college technological know-how coaching. in reality, i've got seen instructors speaking approximately how they set that as an exercising to their severe-college training. So what do you think of approximately people who post cyber web pages spouting stuff that selection into already debunked, thousands of cases, claiming it as something new? And what do you think of approximately somebody attempting to convince you of stuff that any respectable severe-college scholar can see by way of? Do you think of perhaps they want you're an fool?
- 1 decade ago
No hoax - it happened as did the following landings, Apollo 12 onwards - why would anyone make it up?
- wi_saintLv 61 decade ago
Your question answers itself...
In the movie....
Movies are made here, so of course some of the details are not quite right.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You realize the moon lander can be seen from earth, on the moon, by telescope right?