Was the Moon landing a hoax?

People who think that it never was achieved need a brain implant.

 

There are mirrors on the moon, someone must have brought them there I guess.

 

Yep.
The moon-landings PRESENTED on TV were hoaxed by Stanley Kubrik: http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo and http://news.discovery.com/space/faked-moon-landings-and-kubricks-the-shining.html

 

to keep up such a hoax for 40+ years would be
far more expensive to nasa than the real thing, imho..

 

If the moon landing was a hoax, it was a multinational effort! Even the USSR would have had to be behind it, simply because they wouldn't have 'allowed' such a hoax to take place, and the US would not have risked it. Basically if you are saying the moonlanding was fake you are saying the Cold War was fake. There were spies on both sides that knew pretty much what each side was doing.

Also the moonlanding was received through the Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia. Initially they switched between feeds but apparently by far the best signal was received by 'The Dish'. This inspired the fictional comedy film 'The Dish', although certain aspects of the movie were true, such as the weather conditions at the time of the moonlanding.

At the time of the moonlanding, it was estimated that the success rate of putting a man on the moon and safely returning him to Earth (which was their goal) to be 50 percent. If the same feat were undertaken today, the estimations would have to be considerably closer to 100 percent (effectively conceivably 100 percent), and this feat is very much considerably more complex. Another issue is money, the budget they could allows for such a thing today is no where near what they were allows to spend in the 60's.

So you ask, 'If we went to the Moon, why not Mars?'. Well, Mars is around 600 times further away meaning it takes considerably longer to get there and back. So, you need a more substantial craft and living quarters. Mars has much greater gravity than the moon, meaning any relaunch off the surface needs to be considerably more powerful (and you would have to overestimate, no second chances!), meaning taking a considerable amount of fuel with you. Then there's the detrimental affect to the body with extended periods of zero gravity, which mostly consists of muscle wastage and bone density decrease. In this sense then, the moon is 'easy' compared to Mars.

 

im not sure, maybe they didn't,

 

I'm not so sure we went to the moon because knowing human nature if we really have the technology we would have wanted to colonize the moon or have an outpost from which to work in order to reach farther out into space it does not make sense that over all this time we did not do more on the one place in space we could put a man.....think about it you know the government lies to serve their own agenda and you know we are not told the truth about space or alien life NASA is a scam

 

I guessed all those recent Nasa photos of Mars are fake too.

 

In relation to putting a man on Mars, in the Moon landing era it was all about being the first to do something, it was USA vs USSR. Now you really don't have that much competition, USA pretty much dominated everything. Also, if it doesn't have some benefit beyond "being the first" then the enthusiasm isn't as much as in the past. However we most likely are heading to the Era of the Space race for resources so there might be some different incentives to make a run for Mars.
In relation to if the Moon landing was real, I believe it was real. One of the reasons I believe it to be real is caused by the strange reports that were given after by Aldrin and Armstrong about aliens on the Moon. If they knew to themselves that they didn't go to the Moon it would not make much sense to claim that they saw UFO's. You can find logs here.

 

That's why I said that the moon-landings presented on TV were hoaxed.

 

I Totally agree with Computers Plus here

 

Link

 

Many people travelled in space after Armstrong but no one ever mentioned of any encounter with aliens or UFO's. I think they faked it for being the first to land on moon.

 

Because they were instructed not to and all astronauts now sign an NDA (non disclosure agreement). Why is that if "nobody's out there"?

 

The purpose of the Soviet space programme

Well, not quite so... The Soviets did not really pursue manned landing on the Moon. Obviously, they were the first in space, they had the 1st man in space as with their Vostok programme... but then the interest faded.
One must understand that the Soviets were first simply because they needed be. To have space superiority was simply a defence priority for them, one of the highest defence priorities, actually—it was a necessity. Because the U.S.A. and their allies were constantly threatening them: first with NATO, then with the deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in West Germany, etc.
The U.S.S.R. had no other option but to achieve military superiority esp. in space and rocket technology and in nuclear technology (the Tsar Bomba). After all, that is why they even developed the so-called Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, where a missile could be placed in a low Earth orbit an then de-orbited at any time and made hit any target on the Earth from anywhere—it could be placed on a polar orbit as well.
However, after the Soviets signed the Outer Space Treaty, which banned nuclear weapons in space, it was no longer of such a great military value to them...

Mind you, the Soviets simply needed to have this technological superiority and the resulting advantage in order to overcome the Americans' forward base advantage, where Western Europe (in the political sense) and Asia Minor served as their launch bases.

And so they had it. The Vostok programme was, in fact, closely related to their defence purposes, to reconnaissance satellites, etc.
But a manned lunar programme...?! "What could it be good for??!" The same question was asked by Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev before he deprioritized any such aims (along with their financing).
It is quite logical: while it may have been a nice propaganda stunt, it was of little military value—so he was not interested.

Remember that he was the man who had prioritized the Soviet space programme and helped achieve the Soviet "space race victory". {I remember a scene from a documentary, where a scientist on behalf of a group of scientists came to him and explained him all the goodies of a space programme... And Comrade Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev promised him that he should have all they wanted.}

So... all in all, there was no real "Moon race" (as some sensationalists like to put it)... rather, all such races, even the initial "space race", it was mostly a by-product of military initiatives—at least in the Soviet Union. While the Americans probably viewed it as such (cf. Man In Space Soonest), the Soviets certainly did not.
(After all... anything they could get from the Moon could be obtained by robotic probes, which were much cheaper and on which they concentrated in their scientific projects instead.)

Besides... the whole mission was essentially a gamble, as mentioned in this thread as well... But so was the 1st manned orbital flight... ;-)

Sorry, mate, but I'd strongly believe that the manned lunar landing was a hoax, rather than even weakly accede that there were aliens on the Moon, much less the U.S. space travellers saw them or their ships.

 

it never happened.

that's the reason NASA "lost" the schematics to the Saturn 5 rocket. if the schematics were made public it would be clear how NASA never had the technology to reach the moon.

here's some videos that you all need to watch:

(skip to 2:13) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNOyRnOziPc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duijen-flwk

only sheep believe they actually went to the moon...

 

"Evidence" can be fabricated...