8 Moon Landing Myths Busted

If the moon is real then why isn`t there any Burger outlets. They get everyplace so that would be the ultimate proof. :-)

Even the most hardcore lefty/commie/American hater can be whipped into a spittling frenzied rage by questioning the moonlanding. I do it for sport.

Just curious, did it explain why the flag was fluttering when there shouldn't be wind or air in space? Never found an answer to that one.

It waggled a bit just after they planted it - things still have mass and momentum on the moon - that's all it'd need to waggle.

@sukai: Mythbusters have the answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4

Sukai: Yes. Just click the link.

Mythbusters did an entire show on the moon hoax bit. They addressed most of the ones listed in this list. They even looks at the lighting sources and shadows. Pretty well done.

I'm no lefty/commie/America hater but I do have my doubts. After all we are talking about the government here. The "myth busters" at Nat Geo seem to have a contridiction within their facts. They say the moon is covered by a thin layer of fine dust when talking about the footprints, yet when talking about the lander being pristine clean they say it's because when landing it didn't kick up any of that fine dust. I'll give you that there might not be a crater, but absolutely no dust to be seen on the lander? The pictures bother me since the cameras are attached to the chest of the spacesuit and the astronaut can't see where it's aimed. Try taking pictures that way and look at your results. Are your pictures centered? In focus? Nat Geo didn't tackle the biggest problem I have with the whole moon landing scenario and that's radiation. The technology to protect the astronauts on the trip to the moon just wasn't there. Even the spacesuits weren't adequate to protect at the levels of radiation that are on the moon. It's not just one thing it's the whole package that bothers me.

Yea, the radiation problem still couldn't be solved with todays technology...you would need lead cameras to protect the film to start with, and there is no way the shuttle reaches orbit with everything made out of lead.

OK, so let's say, against all odds, the US *did* fake the landings. Hollywood production values, etc, etc. Who could and would tell (besides the thousands of people actually in-the-know, of course)?

The Soviets, who were hotly on our tails in the space race, were undoubtedly tracking Apollo 11 on radar and optically the entire way there and back. If it had been faked, you can bet they would have called us on it.

xlnt point, Xinavera.

Xinavera its no use.

They will always believe what they believe.
This won't even help which just came out.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

They will just say the photos were touched up by NASA

Xinavera I never said an unmanned craft couldn't have gone to the moon and back. The deception was in the manned landing.

D Bozko:

"The pictures bother me since the cameras are attached
to the chest of the spacesuit and the astronaut can’t see where it’s aimed. Try taking pictures that way and look at your results. Are your pictures centered? In focus?"

Uhmm, yes? There is a lot of photographers that regulary shoot this way as a style. Off course the astronauts had a lot of immense training to shoot with their equipment and in this way. And off course they would shoot some pics off center or not focused, but imagine all the pics they did they and then had to choose from when releasing to the media, of course they choose the best ones.

I remember my brother using an old B&W camera as a kid that he could hold against his chest. The viewfinder was on top of the camera.