Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?

Do you have any proof that "Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon"?

There was a TV programme on this subject, and to be honest I don't think it happened at all.

Oh no, not that old conspiracy again!!! They were there alright - there's just too much proof against the hoax theorists. And one of the strongest pieces of evidence comes, surprisingly, not from NASA, but from the fact that their deadly rivals, the USSR, actually tracked the Apollo mission.... I somehow think that if the Russians could've provided even the slimmest evidence that it was a hoax, they would've definitely been the first to tell the world. But.... I still haven't found out what sort of cheese it's made from!

Strange piece of evidence, that - hardly proves it! Won't stand up in court, Rob!

I could have sworn I posted something in here! Maybe that piece of evidence doesn't prove it, but it is certainly a very compelling argument. A fierce 'war' between the US and USSR with millions spent on it, huge amounts of espionage. They tracked the mission very very closely and if they had one shred of evidence it had not taken place without doubt they would have voiced it. However, what IS evidence are the many, many tests done to disprove the conspirators - the waving flag, the bootprints, the lack of a camera in reflections etc. They've all been tested in vacuum chambers etc, and all proved to be the correct. Now, I think it's likely they would have taken 'mock' photos etc prior to the mission, just in case equipment failed etc. but that they actually went there is highly probable.

Lack of oxygen to the brain with that ribbon being pulled so tight Rob Now I thought UFO or even Button Moon you would have thought of too.

The Russians would claim anything just so they did not seem to be left out. Question. Considering the problems that Hawker had with the P1127, and the fact that US pilots had great difficulty flying them, how come that it was so simple to land and take off a ONE burner 'vehicle' on the Moon. Saturn 5's are streamlined and have MULTIPLE boosters. Question. The Hubble telescope can get images of galaxies which are billions of light years away, but the best it can manage of the moon landing site (or ANY telescope for that matter) is an image that looks like a Matchbox 'Model of Yesteryear' from the top of the Eiffel Tower?

I can't believe anyone could seriously question this. The reason a single rocket can lift off from the moon is simply that the moon is much smaller than earth, therefore the gravity pull is significantly less, plus the payload was much smaller, plus there's no air resistance to overcome, also it only needed to get into orbit, not reach escape velocity. The best telescopes, including Hubble, can resolve details of perhaps 0.02 arcsec but to capture any detail of a lunar lander it would need to resolve 0.002 arcsec. Distant galaxies are much bigger than this so can be seen easily. Nevertheless, here's some of the images taken of the hardware left on the moon by the Apollo missions, taken when the sun was low enough to create sufficiently long shadows: Edited by member, 29th Oct 2013 8:58 pm

I can't believe anyone could seriously believe it Your link is to NASA info - they would say that, wouldn't they? Here's one site with a list of questions, answers to which I haven't seen - I watched a programme recently in which a NASA rep tried to squirm his way out of answering similar posers, without any conviction that he could disprove the theories

You missed the detail in my post. I am not talking about gravity. My reference is to stability. Hawker had to really work at the prototype Harrier which has four nozzles, and even then, the operational Harriers were a handful. The Saturn 5 has weight distribution and five nozzles which keep it basically 'upright'. The module which supposedly left the base of the lander would be as stable as a firework rocket with no stick in the tail. The nozzles around it, presumably for steering would be hard pressed to supply enough force against almost no 'heavy' air such that straight flight could be maintained accurately or maybe at all. Like the Kennedy and 911 stuff, there are many more questions than answers.