Were the moon landings faked?

[HPDJ]

Do you think the moon landings were faked? I am personally undecided. What about you?

 

[Beauregard]

I know a man named Steve Ransome who is writing a book on the subject. I will not make my decision until I have seen his research. However, I am open minded on the subject, and would readily believe they were faked.

 

[That Announcer]

I know a man named Steve Ransome who is writing a book on the subject. I will not make my decision until I have seen his research. However, I am open minded on the subject, and would readily believe they were faked.

Yeah, me too. Supposedly, in the original broadcast, a Coke bottle was kicked into the screen.

 

[Beauregard]

Oh really? I didn't know that. I do know however that most of the people involved hardly talked to anyone, and many of them died soon after (or so I hear) and that you can see strings on the moon-walkers.

 

[Xerus]

I too wonder if the moon landing was a fake. And if there's really life on the moon. Like how the sci fi movies and TV shows from the 40s, 50s, and 60s show moon creatures visiting or invading Earth.

 

[Jinx]

Ah, the bad science based on "Well, I heard from someone..." and "or so I hear..." and "supposedly"...

These are terrible criteria on which to make a decision. Those of us old enough to have lived through the Apollo program remember it clearly. And no, many of the astronauts did not die shortly thereafter. Most are alive today.

Crackpot conpiriacy theorists who are bent on "proving" these ridiculous ideas quite simply do not have actual science to back up their notions of fantasy. Quite commonly you'll hear stupid things such as "why are there no stars in the skies behind the astronauts in the photos taken on the moon surface?" Well anyone with only a rudimentary knowledge of photography can easily explain the exposute latitude that prevents them from showing.

Also, the depth of the stories of Apollo are too deep and varied to be a fabrication. Stories of hoaxes and folklore are subject to constant change and revision. How many variations of "bigfoot" have you heard? To create a hoax of this level of precision would be far more ponderous than actually landing man on the moon. There are simply too many events:...Al Bean getting hit on the head with a camera on splashdown...Al Shepard hitting the golf ball...Dave Scott dropping the hammer and the feather simultaneously and them hitting the ground similarly...and you'll notice that the astronauts' stories have not changed over the years. Folklore changes with time. The Apollo stories have remained absolutely unchanged.

Then we might be asked to consider the following: What could the purpose possibly be for Apollo 8 orbiting the moon without a landing? It would have been just as easy to "fake" landing in 1968 instead of waiting a scant 8 months later in to do it in '69. And then what would the purpose have been of Apollo 13? If the whole thing was a "hoax" to win the space race, why would America blight its own image on the 3rd lunar mission? It quite simply does not add up.

I suggest a visit to http://www.badastronomy.com/index.html for a website that does not tolerate bad pseuduo-science.

My favorite story from a few years ago was when a crackpot ambushed Buzz Aldrin and accused him of faking his moon walk. Aldrin, in his 70's, punched him squarely in the face. Then the idiot had the nerve to try to press assault charges against Mr Aldrin. The judge laughed him out of the courtroom. And rightfully so.

If you choose to question the events, then be thorough in your research. Weigh ALL of the evidence you can possibly get your hands on and beware of seemingly convincing arguments. I consider that in my work as an actor it is my job to give convincing portrayals of often fictitious characters and events. If I do so outside of the confines of the theatre, where there is a mutual agreement between performer and audience to suspend disbelief, then I have abused my persuasive skills.

 

[McFraggle]

If you choose to question the events, then be thorough in your research. Weigh ALL of the evidence you can possibly get your hands on and beware of seemingly convincing arguments.

I agree.

 

[Docnzhoss]

Ahh, the moon. I can't wait to get my astronaut's license so I can sink my teeth into a chunk of that block of cheese! Science, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories aside, I suggest (if you are interested in this sort of thing) that you check out a book by Jim Marrs titled Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us . It suggests that the moon is actually a space station that aliens utilize to spy on us. Now I don't buy into nonsense like that, but some people do. While I do believe that aliens exist, I also believe that our moon is only a moon and nothing more. Furthermore, I believe that in 1969, some brave, pioneering astronauts landed on that moon and taught us that space exploration wasn't a load of mumbo jumbo hocus pocus, but instead an endeavor that could take us farther than we ever could have imagined.

 

[Beauregard]

I'm holding out my veiw until I've read the book, and judged the evidence. I will let you guys know when the book comes out.

Beau

 

[That Announcer]

To Jinx: I have "judged my evidence" and am not a "crackpot scientist." I have some friends who hold odd views about the terrorist attacks, but I try to steer clear of that stuff. And most folklore does not directly involve an extremely powerful organization with absolute ties to the government. So there is actual research going on here. I will however give you credit that there is clearly more evidence to support actual landings on the moon than fake ones. So, anyway...