I agree with one thing in the topic-initiating post, that this has been talked about a lot at ATS.

The Apollo 11 mission was not faked. But it really is sad how little progress in manned space exploration there has been since the few lunar landings.

Kind of makes you wonder why that stuff has to be so horrendously expensive, and whether there ought to be some budgetary diversion to these programs in co-operation between nations, away from stupid and corrupt crony capitalism in military spending where for example the Pentagon can lose one trillion dollars (US$1,000,000,000,000) over a couple of years.

And as far as any photo editing that may have gone on, I think one has to keep the times in mind. Take a good look at Magazine ads and articles from the 60's and 70's. There was a lot of enhancement going on. This was due to the quality of cameras and film development back then. And it was all done by hand, so none of it was perfect.

Like the image of the American Flag on the lunar lander, I think the flaws picked out in the photos are simply results of photo enhancement.

Here's another picture for you Monk.
Note that there is no burn crater under the Apollo 11 craft despite the fact that the craft weighed 17,000 lbs. and was descending at a rate of one to two feet per second and the engine was putting out ten thousand lbs. of thrust.

[img]C:\Documents and Settings\LAWRENCE GILL\My Documents\Space Anomalies[/img]

I havn't really looked into this subject. But I do know why the stars never appear in the photo's.

The camera they used didn't give enough exposure time for the light from the stars to effect the film.

Its the same if you point a normal film camera into the sky at night, the stars won't come up in development, unless you have a timed exposure option.
I know one time when I was younger and I took some photos of a lunar eclipse and the moon didn't even come out in the photos. I was very dissapointed

But the rest of the arguments are pretty interesting

Take it outside when there is good moon out...look at it through the telescope...you can see the American flag on it...if you have a high enough power. Condition on the moon are totally different than here on earth...like no atmosphere on the moon....light...the soil condition...etc...are all going to behave differently. I think it was atronaut Glenn who lately punched a "non-believer" for confronting him about it being faked. If it was faked...where did the astronauts go then?....just made some laps around the earth for a while?...come on. My mother watched the first lunar landing live on TV...and if you were tell her that it was faked...she would probably punch you too...haha.

Originally posted by xenongod
Take it outside when there is good moon out...look at it through the telescope...you can see the American flag on it...if you have a high enough power. .

You are joking, right? If not, that's one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum!

Lol. U cnt see the flag with a telescope. Cos there is none there! and u wouldnt be able to anyway. Am i abit late?

Remember that it takes multi million dollar (or billion dollar) spy satellites to see things on the surface of this planet. You can't even see the Great Wall of China from orbit without a telescope (much to China's chagrin). Apply that to a $100 telescope that is fixed on earth's surface trying to look at an object that is quite a bit further away than in standard earth orbit. You won't see jack crap on the surface of the moon. In fact, I'm not even sure our largest observatories could scope out any moon landing spots. The Hubble Telescope would be your best bet, but I don't think they will ever try to look at the moon landing spots with it (evidence for faked landings?! dun dun dun! )

Facts are you won't see anything on the surface of the moon using standard earthly consumer telescopes.

I think a thorough investigation of the Saturn V rocket would prove that we could not have not gone to the moon.

Explain your theory please. Just saying that doesn't represent a thorough argument.

Originally posted by Byrd
The "fake" here is people who want to get rich selling you this conspiracy theory. We did go, and when we go back, we can photograph the landing sites and the footprints.

The last I heard, conspiracy theories were free as the air you breathe. Now, the videos and t-shirts will cost you extra...

Oh come on, conspiricies aren't so simple the genergal public can figuire them out.

NASA is smart, they do know there are stars in the sky, they do know about air resistance. They're just not stupid.

Has anyone considered the possibility of Apollo 11 being faked, but later missions actually carried out successfully?

Conspiricies are usually to do with the big
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This one, i think more to do with the space race.

Has it occured to you, that by now NASA may have actually reached the moon? not back then, but maybe later from that. what you think..?

mabe they have reached the moon and replaced the picture (yes I know i'm being controversial to what i said earlier today)... look and try to find different versions of the same picture with little details different to prove that theory

I think a lot of the lighting arguments can be resolved if people will just remember a little thing called AMBIENT light. Meaning that the light is being reflected off the surface of the moon and onto the objects. Like the part about Neil's suit being too well litl and the flag on the side of the LEM. Yes there's one light SOURCE... but it reflects of the almost white surface of the moon and light up things from other directions.

Like I said in the closed thread, the Soviets were monitoring the entire mission and would have exposed any fake. The moon mission was real.

As i said in the other thread, i have a virtual magnifier and it looks like someone holding up a camera...Honestly