Did Neil Armstrong actually walk on the Moon?
Today many wonder is the walk on the Moon really authentic or is it a cruel deception,was it really a big step for man kind or simply a big step for Photo Shop?Is the walk on the Moon ,rightfully, Americas` pride or was it just a good tool for the predominance in the world?Did America really have the wish and the capacity to conquer the Moon or just to win the Cold war?Was it a great achievement or just a way to win the "space chase"?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Why did Neil have to steel the Moon?
The pictures from the moon contain no unexplained anomalies- the supposed "anomalies" are simply misunderstandings of space. For example, the flag has a very obvious pole on top so it sticks out. It does not "wave in the wind" -- it moves simply because it was moved by the astronaut.
If we have been to the moon surely we could go back.
After the Apollo missions the US has chosen not to go back to the moon while other countries have not yet been, why did Russia not follow? And why has the USA stopped going to the moon if it can?
Why crash a probe into the mood to see if there is water, after over 40 years of technological breakthroughs why not send another team with a drilling rig?
Expense is the simple reason. It cost more than $4 billion a year for 9 years, since this was more than 40 years ago there is alot of inflation to factor in.[[Ned Potter, Apollo 11 Anniversary: Debate Continues, abc news, 16th July 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Apollo11MoonLanding/story?id=8090280%5D%5D Once we have been why should it be necessary to go again? According to Val Germann, president of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association in 1970, "they cancelled three [missions scheduled to fly to the moon] because of budget problems. Quite frankly the moon is giant parking lot, there's just not much there. Space is dangerous place. There's a lot of radiation. And humans become ill in low gravity. It's not comfortable -- it's not someplace you want to live."[[Christina Caron, Refuting the Most Popular Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories, abcnews, 19th July 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Apollo11MoonLanding/Story?id=8104410&page=2%5D%5D
Since we have the Hubble telescope why not simply take a picture to refute claims that the USA did not get to the moon?
If there is no oxygen on the moon how was it possible for neil armstrong to take a picture of the flag unfolded. without wind it would have obviously just stayed down
The moon is about 240,000 miles away from the earth, whereas the Hubble Telescope orbits approximately 380 miles above the earth. Its a long distance to want to take a photograph of a small flag. Unfortunately Hubble is not able to photograph such a small object.
Furthermore there is no need for photographs to prove we were there. The US left behind a reflective half cube that reflects lasers and other EM waves back to the earth to the same spot they came from. Amateur and professional astronomers all over the world have confirmed this, and it's not too hard to do (you just need a powerful enough laser)
the USA had every incentive to lie
It was the middle of the cold war, the space race was on, indeed the Russians seemed to be winning, they were the first with a satellite into space, first animals into space, first mammal and first human into space.[[ http://www.thespacerace.com/timeline/%5D%5D America seriously needed to get the big one of a man on the moon for prestige reasons, even if this meant faking it!
Governments bungle things and secrets come out eventually, such conspiracy theories hold little water precisely because government is inefficent. Space scientist Professor John Zarnecki, from the Open University, said: "I think it would have been a far greater achievement to have mocked the whole thing up AND to have kept it quiet for four decades."[[Apollo 11 hoax: one in four people do not believe in moon landing, The Telegraph, 17th July 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5851435/Apollo-11-hoax-one-in-four-people-do-not-believe-in-moon-landing.html%5D%5D
There are problems with the pictures
1, The American flag seems to be flapping around as if it was windy, there is no wind on the moon
2, there were two astronauts on the moon at a time yet you can see the 2nd in the visor of the first and he has no camera.
3, there are no stars in the pictures, this is space, we can see stars from earth so why not the moon?
4, the land the module is sitting on is reasonably undisturbed, the decent and landing with the firing of thrusters should have kicked up alot of dust and left a crater.
5, Shadows look wierd, they are inconsistent, not always in parallel, some objects in shadow appear well lit.
6, footprints are too clear
7, there are mysterious reflections
1, In the video and pictures the flag is still moving as it was just put there the effects of the motion are still present in the flag (afterall there is little friction from the atmosphere). The flag pole also got bent several times by being knocked against with the motion created giving the appearance of the flag being in a breeze
2, He does, it is simply mounted at chest level rather than having to be moved up to the visor.
3, The moon’s surface is reflective (hence we can see it so brightly from earth) meaning there is a lot of glare as they were taking pictures at an exposure 1/150th or 1/250th of a second the stars don’t show.
4, the engines were fired before landing so the module landed softly and did not hover while firing its thrusters. Moreover the rocket exhaust fired out sideways rather than straight down.
5, there were several light sources; sun, earth, lunar glare, even reflected light off spacesuits and the module.
6, the lunar surface is a fine powder it compresses very easily, the shape would then remain due to the vacuum.
7, The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares.
For many of these they would be very silly mistakes, would people believe that there are no stars on the moon, why not put them in if done in a studio, why not edit out those mysterious reflections etc[[8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths – Busted, National Geographic News, 20th July 2009, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/%5D%5D
All Lies, The Sheeple Follow
You can never convince me that all the technology in this world will not allow beautiful close up photos from the moon. But, they don't exist? That is simply because the moon landings were a lie, the astronauts never want to share their real experiences, not even Buz Aldrin who is the only astronaut to remain in the public eye, and much of what he says never really agrees or says that they really went to the moon. You can tell, he his covering for government lies and worst yet, he knows many things that are secret that he won't and can't say. Plus, they all have gone through a debriefing that erases much of their memory of what they really saw and the first this process was not fine tuned like it is now to erase the experiences from their mind. So, the real reason why there are no good photos is simple. The moon has much alien activity and the governments of the world deal with the aliens politically to not expose them until they want to be known to mankind. No doubt we are factions of their creation and in some cases food as well as slaves (the Bible like to use the words; servants and sacrifices). That is why, they will never let you see the truth until you are in a vat of sodium solution on floor 7 of the Dulce underground base stewing for aliens to eat you.
What do you think?