Did we really go to the moon?

I think the wind blew the flag in my back yard..

What’s the point in faking that?

I believe it happened because someone would have called out the US a long time ago if it did not. Some researchers in other countries, former USSR personnel involved in the space race, etc. Someone would have publicized an authentic story that would have caught on if it did not happen.

I am rolling my eyes.

Not at you. At the subject.

Yes, it happened.

I’m gonna’ have to say ‘yes’.

@Asmonet, I guess this is another one of your newb annoyances, right? :P

if I remember correctly Mythbusters did a special on it and concluded that the pictures and video that were said to have been faked, were capable of being taken on the moon

How else would we know that the moon wasn’t made out of cheese if we didn’t land there?!?!?

Here’s a possibility.

The short answer is that we did and “discovered” shit that NASA et al don’t want released to the general public. Hence, the seeming inability to repeat the experiment.

Yes, we landed on the moon.

And yes, terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania.

And no, there is no secret society plotting one world government.

This flagpole is about 30 ft tall, has a flat surface to cast a shadow on, and absolutely nothing around it… Would a similar image (if possible) taken of the moon really dissuade those who believe it was a hoax?

Also, for what it's worth, here's some actual shots, with links to more - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html

Discover Magazine’s Bad Astronomy blog explains the numbers why using Hubble to view the flag and landers can’t really work:

Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble.

And I like how he wraps up the piece:

Moon Hoax believers have made it their mission in life to deny the veritable tsunami of evidence that the landings were real. That includes all the pictures taken by the astronauts themselves. Do you really think they’d believe more pictures returned by NASA?

I sure don’t.

@jon: Nah, you’re good. I’m just a math, physics, astronomy nerd who has a bit of a sore spot for moon landing conspiracy theorists.

I slapped one once.

@kevbo: Richard Hoagland? Really? That dude is whacked.

He is whacked, but to me he makes a convincing case, and he does it old school with original slides and prints from that era. To me, a lot of his arguments make more sense than conventional wisdom with a side of head scratching.

This is really a philosophical question about knowledge: how do we know anything?

It goes to the issue of credibility of evidence. I suspect that people think the moon landing is a hoax, don’t really have a good idea of what evidence is good evidence.

About the Hubble Telescope point- it really doesn’t have that level of resolution at the magnification level necessary to see the lunar landers from Earth orbit- it just has really good light gathering capability (the stuff it sees isn’t that small, just really dim)

http://vidslib.com/social/china.html

@dumbass, if you’re not going to even bother to read the previous quips, then why should anyone else read all your blather?

I have no desire to take you on point for 33 points, but I already tackled #29.

Furthermore, I’d be much more inclined to take you seriously if you could frickin’ spell correctly (“Skeptics” is misspelled five times in your quip—try using a different web browser than IE6, for cryin’ out loud).

Wow! I must be doing something right to have someone take on my name and try to make me seem silly. This is a first for me.