I can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released.
To read the rest of the article with all the proofs, visit Science-Core | einstein wrote: |
| I can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released. |
All of this has been comprehensively refuted many times.
If you can give dozens of reasons and provide details of radiation and extreme temperatures then do so!
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf75-81.htmlDon't take the bait, Bikerman!
| einstein wrote: |
I can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released.
To read the rest of the article with all the proofs, visit Science-Core |
Lets assume that the Moon landing was a hoax. If such was the case, don't u think America's enemy at the time, the communists USSR would be monitoring the freqency of the messages sent back.
Don't you think the USSR would have said its false and madeup?.
It would have certainly been in USSR interests to do so.Yeah I have read about this.
If this is true then Louis Amstrong and the other guy are loser of the time.... in the history i guess
| budiman wrote: |
Yeah I have read about this.
If this is true then Louis Amstrong and the other guy are loser of the time.... in the history i guess |
First Jazz on the moon ?I am sure that they landed on the moon! I know that there are many proves against it. They could impossible keep it hidden from the people working at the project, and I know that if they had payed them something for keeping their mouth shut, it would not had helped,, because all those people where dreaming about getting there, and why should they cheat about it then?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| einstein wrote: | I can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released.
To read the rest of the article with all the proofs, visit Science-Core |
Lets assume that the Moon landing was a hoax. If such was the case, don't u think America's enemy at the time, the communists USSR would be monitoring the freqency of the messages sent back.
Don't you think the USSR would have said its false and madeup?.
It would have certainly been in USSR interests to do so. |
You are right, the USSR must have looked for some evidences that could prove it was fake, and they have probably also watched Apollo on its way making sure nothing suspicious should happen.I can tell you that as a schoolboy in 1969 the Moon landings were so exciting. I heard the theories years later and I absolutely refuse to believe it. Its almost like those people who say they have seen a UFO. No-one else tends to believe them. I guess that 90% of you were not alive in 69 and I can tell you that the excitement shared by the people (From any country) was amazing.
Now much much more interesting than this is why did they stop in "72"??
But I digress!! 
i also heard that we human beings hadn't land on moon yet,
and many scientist point out there're lots of Loophole in the film provide by NASA,such as the Astronauts Shadow and the flag breeze
wile I don't know while I can't visit http://science-core.blogspot.com/2006/12/did-man-really-land-on-moon.html
I hope if we haven't land moon yet
I'd be the first 
after all,wether we landed on moon or not ,we have done lots of things for this I agree, I think man haven't landed on the moon. Some years back I was watching the special footage about this matter on the fox news channel. And they proved it in a several different ways like. In the video, the flag of the united state was moving, while this is impossible as there is no air on the moon. I think this landing on the moon was a setup to show USSR that they have achieved some thing that they have not. They are other reason too, but i sorts of forgot them as I watched this footage back in the 2003.
The footage showed more than this to prove that the man haven't actually landed on the moon.
mutouren, pashmina, please read the previous posts and check out the links.
What is it which people and this complete faith they have in there conspiracy theory's?
Here, I'll go though the the "problems" .
1. "Theres no stars in the pictures."
Heres an idea, go into a brightly lit parking lot on a clear night and see if you see stars. It simple, the stars are very, very dim, now your eyes will adjust to the brightest light there is where you are, now if your out side at night and theres a bright light(s) on, your eyes will be adjusted to the bright light and you would not be able to see the stars, the same goes for a camera set on day time settings as the cameras on the Apollo missions where set. Look at these pictures of the space shuttle in space, theres no stars in them.
Original image (Edit by Bondings due to size)
2. "the flag waving, a flag cant wave in a vacuum."
If you move it it can, Things in motion tend to stay in motion, thing at rest will tent to stay at rest, the astronaut was moving the fag around while putting it on the pole.
3. "The shadows were not parallel."
The ground was not parallel! And the sun wasn't the only source of light, just go out side during a full moon, you will see everything eliminated by the light from the moon (if you live in a place with alot of bright lights, go to a place where there isn't allot of bright lights and you'll see it) and the earth is allot bigger than the moon.
4. "Radiation from the Van Allen Belt would have killed them"
Even Van Allen himself has said this is crap. Its simple, there were not in it that long and theres not as much radiation as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
Then theres the major flay in the hoax theory, the mirrors placed on the moon and Russia, the Soviet Union could and did ease drop on the transmissions between the earth and the lander, if there was no transmissions between the earth and the moon, the Soviets would have known that the US didn't get there and would have made a huge deal about it, but they didn't cause they listened in on the live transmissions.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
I know you people like to think that there are vast conspiracy's going out there but guess what, if there more than 5 people in on it odd are some one is going to talk and give it all away. | Quote: |
3. "The shadows were not parallel."
The ground was not parallel! And the sun wasn't the only source of light, just go out side during a full moon, you will see everything eliminated by the light from the moon (if you live in a place with alot of bright lights, go to a place where there isn't allot of bright lights and you'll see it) and the earth is allot bigger than the moon. |
i don't know what you mean by that!!! also, if the ground is uneven, just think about it.....the shadow from the other astronaut has to go in the original direction of light at one point or the other, so you just can't emphasize on that point!!! it'll ake two long an explanation to make some people understand that point, cos it can only be explained practically...
also, the camera reels(or rolls) would not have withstodd the high temperatures on the moon (250 F or something)!!!
and in case of stars, it is impossible that not even ONE star is visible, because i agree on that point that the light is dull......but not fom all of them!!!
looks like most of you support NASA landing, but i am damn sure that it was FAKE!!! | einstein wrote: |
| Quote: | 3. "The shadows were not parallel."
The ground was not parallel! And the sun wasn't the only source of light, just go out side during a full moon, you will see everything eliminated by the light from the moon (if you live in a place with alot of bright lights, go to a place where there isn't allot of bright lights and you'll see it) and the earth is allot bigger than the moon. |
i don't know what you mean by that!!! also, if the ground is uneven, just think about it.....the shadow from the other astronaut has to go in the original direction of light at one point or the other, so you just can't emphasize on that point!!! it'll ake two long an explanation to make some people understand that point, cos it can only be explained practically...
also, the camera reels(or rolls) would not have withstodd the high temperatures on the moon (250 F or something)!!!
|
I thought you were interested in science but it appears you have little knowledge or interest or you would not be making rather silly statements like this.
| Quote: |
and in case of stars, it is impossible that not even ONE star is visible, because i agree on that point that the light is dull......but not fom all of them!!! |
Silly argument. If stars are not visible because of the lighting then of course all of them are not visible. | Quote: |
looks like most of you support NASA landing, but i am damn sure that it was FAKE!!! |
We do not 'support' NASA landing we understand the evidence for the landings and understand why the 'evidence' you present is flawed. | Bikerman wrote: |
| einstein wrote: | | Quote: | 3. "The shadows were not parallel."
The ground was not parallel! And the sun wasn't the only source of light, just go out side during a full moon, you will see everything eliminated by the light from the moon (if you live in a place with alot of bright lights, go to a place where there isn't allot of bright lights and you'll see it) and the earth is allot bigger than the moon. |
i don't know what you mean by that!!! also, if the ground is uneven, just think about it.....the shadow from the other astronaut has to go in the original direction of light at one point or the other, so you just can't emphasize on that point!!! it'll ake two long an explanation to make some people understand that point, cos it can only be explained practically...
also, the camera reels(or rolls) would not have withstodd the high temperatures on the moon (250 F or something)!!!
|
I thought you were interested in science but it appears you have little knowledge or interest or you would not be making rather silly statements like this.
| Quote: |
and in case of stars, it is impossible that not even ONE star is visible, because i agree on that point that the light is dull......but not fom all of them!!! |
Silly argument. If stars are not visible because of the lighting then of course all of them are not visible. | Quote: |
looks like most of you support NASA landing, but i am damn sure that it was FAKE!!! |
We do not 'support' NASA landing we understand the evidence for the landings and understand why the 'evidence' you present is flawed. |
sorry, if i said something wrong, can you please explain it to me!!!On a side note.....Conspirator, could I please ask you to replace the link to the shuttle photo with this one that I have resized (in order to make the thread more readable)?
http://bikerman.info/resources/mywork/shuttle.png | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Look at these pictures of the space shuttle in space, theres no stars in them. |
Except that those space shuttle photographs were probably created by a Hollywood special effects team just to "prove" that there don't have to be stars in space photos | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Look at these pictures of the space shuttle in space, theres no stars in them. |
Except that those space shuttle photographs were probably created by a Hollywood special effects team just to "prove" that there don't have to be stars in space photos |
*snicker*
Even as we speak! NASA scientists in collaboration with the guvver-ment are working on developing big-ass fans that they will secretly launch and ship to the moon so that when we do finally arrive, there will be wind!
Of course, they are also working on building giant nukes big enough to destroy stars, so that when other countries send satellites into space, by then NASA will have destroyed all the stars so there won't be any in their pictures either!
Aside from all the questions that have been asked before pointing out how completely stupid this conspiracy theory is, what about these new ones. What the hell do you think is going to happen now? i mean, come on, eventually someone - maybe the Chinese - is going to get to the moon and find out there are no footprints, right? What, NASA is just going to keep lying even though pretty much the entire generation that allegedly pulled the hoax is all nicely retired, thus implicating an entire new generation which has to cover the lies of the old?
i'm not really in the habit of calling ideas really, really stupid, but there are a lot of really, really stupid conspiracy theories out there. This one, though, has to be the stupidest.Man! Of course he did... Its not only one rocket that has land on the moon.
Everyone comes with stopid theories like this, but why do you care?
Hasnt also other peoples walked on the moon after the first guy? Well I dont know, but who cares...
| Indi wrote: |
| Of course, they are also working on building giant nukes big enough to destroy stars, so that when other countries send satellites into space, by then NASA will have destroyed all the stars so there won't be any in their pictures either! |
I hate to break it to you, but I'm afraid to say that your theory doesn't hold water. I don't think the US would start blowing up the stars with missiles as long as there are still things to blow up on Earth with missiles.There was one argument I did like for being quite convincing and that 's the size of the lunar lander. I have been in it, and it's tiny. The point is that the gas tank looks about the same size as the one on my BMW.
So if the thing needed a rocket the size of the Empire State building to get off the earth, how come a bathtub of diesel is enough to lift it off the moon which has at least a 6th of the Earth's gravity?
I know the answer, but it is a pretty convincing argument when you see the thing.
| Bru, stuffce wrote: |
There was one argument I did like for being quite convincing and that 's the size of the lunar lander. I have been in it, and it's tiny. The point is that the gas tank looks about the same size as the one on my BMW.
So if the thing needed a rocket the size of the Empire State building to get off the earth, how come a bathtub of diesel is enough to lift it off the moon which has at least a 6th of the Earth's gravity?
I know the answer, but it is a pretty convincing argument when you see the thing. |
If you know the answer then you would not find it convincing.
On Earth the escape velocity (the speed needed to overcome gravity) is 11.2 kilometres per second. On the moon is is only 2.4km/s. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bru, stuffce wrote: | There was one argument I did like for being quite convincing and that 's the size of the lunar lander. I have been in it, and it's tiny. The point is that the gas tank looks about the same size as the one on my BMW.
So if the thing needed a rocket the size of the Empire State building to get off the earth, how come a bathtub of diesel is enough to lift it off the moon which has at least a 6th of the Earth's gravity?
I know the answer, but it is a pretty convincing argument when you see the thing. |
If you know the answer then you would not find it convincing.
On Earth the escape velocity (the speed needed to overcome gravity) is 11.2 kilometres per second. On the moon is is only 2.4km/s. |
Not to mention that he's not taking into account the non-linearity of the problem.
The lander needed enough fuel to accelerate the mass of the lander (and occupants) from 0 to 2.4 km/s.
The launch rockets needed enough fuel to accelerate the lander (and occupants), the command module (and occupant), the service module, the fuel in the lander, and the big fuel tanks and rockets in the three launch stages from 0 to 11.2 km/s.
On top of that, the system is non-linear. You seem to suppose that if i were to launch a payload with a mass of 1 kg and it needed 100 kg of fuel, then if i were to launch a mass of 2 kg i would need 200 kg of fuel. Not so. The mass of the fuel itself comes into the equation, too.
Honestly, all of the "evidence" purporting to show that we didn't land on Moon takes the same flawed form. People use "common sense" to point out that things that they have experienced in day to day life don't match what they see in the Moon landing photos and videos. "Common sense says the flag won't wave without wind", "common sense says that when the lander rockets fired you should have seen more than just a puff", "common sense says that you can see stars in pictures taken at night, so you should see them in Moon pictures" and so on. The problem is that your "common sense" doesn't apply because the situation is so far outside of your normal day-to-day understanding that you can't draw parallels. i remember the first time i saw a smashed machine tool - these things are like two storeys tall. The damage was so ridiculously phenomenal that i assumed that this thing must have flown off it's tracks at an incredible speed, like over a hundred kilometers an hour, based on what i knew from "common sense" experience of auto wrecks. In fact, it had not been moving that quickly, but the force of the impact was so far beyond the yeild strength of the metal that for calculation purposes you could treat it like a fluid, like toothpaste. Your "common sense" estimates are fine for common situations, including the ranges of speeds, forces, temperatures and so on that you commonly experience. But don't assume they apply to cases where, for example, the speeds are over 200 times what you commonly experience. Come on. | chasbeen wrote: |
| Now much much more interesting than this is why did they stop in "72"?? |
Ooh ooh! I'll take this one. It's EASY: "$."
It turns out, the $20-25 billion spent on the Apollo program works out to about twice the current NASA budget in per year cost over the same time period based on today's costs. The program also ran into a financial wall called "Stuck in Vietnam."
Do you think it would be scary to stand on the Moon? So far from Earth depending on a machine to work to near flawless perfection to save you from utter isolation from all of humanity?It's comfortable, I'm sure, for a lot of people to remain within the boundaries to which the human imagination has traditionally been confined. But the fact is that the collective knowledge of our species is increasing, and the knowledge of our potential increasing with it, and everyone is going to find their own ways to make sense of it all and cope with it.
heard all that rumors about the fake pictures and so on..the uncompatibility with the physics law and so on..
Maybe the thing that we learnt here such as the Newton' Law doesn't even applied in the situation at the moon.So maybe thats why the picture looks really pretty modified
| creezalird wrote: |
heard all that rumors about the fake pictures and so on..the uncompatibility with the physics law and so on..
Maybe the thing that we learnt here such as the Newton' Law doesn't even applied in the situation at the moon.So maybe thats why the picture looks really pretty modified |
No....Newton's laws apply fine. The difference is with the value of g (local gravity), but the basic equations (force = mass x acceleration, for example) all work, as far as we can tell, anywhere in the observed Universe, with the exception of very extreme places like Black Holes. We have to modify them by applying Einstein's replacements in some situations (high velocity & high gravity for example), but otherwise no problem. | creezalird wrote: |
heard all that rumors about the fake pictures and so on..the uncompatibility with the physics law and so on..
Maybe the thing that we learnt here such as the Newton' Law doesn't even applied in the situation at the moon.So maybe thats why the picture looks really pretty modified |
Oh, Newton's laws apply there, insofar as they apply anywhere. The problem isn't a failure of physics, it's a failure of human understanding. We don't apply physics when we attempt to understand the world, we apply experience. When we are trying to guess what will happen when someone walks on the Moon, we usually start from the experience we have gained from walking on Earth and go from there.
On Earth, in the usual realm of our day-to-day lives, that experience works just fine. i don't need to calculate friction coefficients and momentum equations to know roughly how far a car is going to skid when i slam on the brakes - my experience serves me just fine and allows me to make fairly accurate guesses. if i were to calculate it using physics, i would be accurate, too... but who needs to when i can guess it so well?
But space and the Moon are such wildly different environments from what we are used to that our experience fails us. If i were to attempt the same guess of how far i would skid on the Moon, i might be off by hundreds of meters... maybe even more. But if i were to calculate how far i would skid using physics laws... i would be right (provided i used the right equations and values, of course).
All of these so-called bits of "evidence" purporting to show that the Moon landings were faked fall into that same trap. They ask you to use your experience to make a judgement in an environment that you have no experience in. Not surprisingly, it fails, and things just look "wrong".
But when you use the actual laws of physics to work things out, they work out just fine. In fact, often they work out so well that things that most people wouldn't have predicted at all show up... making it highly unlikely that the landings were faked.I think we did. There are a lot of facts both supporting and not supporting it. The main factor is our technology. However, I still believe that we were capable, even back then, that long ago, of leaving out tiny home.
It's interesting to think about when they say some calculators have more technology than the space ship... I think that's amazing, however, they did say they had to often reprogram it, so I guess that explains that...
What do y'all think?
| American wrote: |
I think we did. There are a lot of facts both supporting and not supporting it. The main factor is our technology. However, I still believe that we were capable, even back then, that long ago, of leaving out tiny home.
It's interesting to think about when they say some calculators have more technology than the space ship... I think that's amazing, however, they did say they had to often reprogram it, so I guess that explains that...
What do y'all think? |
There are no 'facts not supporting' that I know of....perhaps you could name one?The technology to actually convincingly fake the moon landing, while available at the time, would probably have cost more than the actual moon mission itself. Other than the few possible issues that have been raised, the rest of the footage is extremely convincing. Which would have been unbelievably difficult to create. Even with todays technology it is very obvious in a big budget hollywood movie where the effects begin and the real footage stops, even for the arm chair enthusiast.
I've seen on discovery channel about arguing that human never land on moon. The US government just lied to the world.
Well, don't know who telling the true, but the evidence on TV seems good to me to prove that US government never before succeeded landing on the moon.
May be the TV show was some kind of cold war, many things to think of
Moon landing, must have happened.
No sense in so much fraudulence.
It would be beyond the realm of anybodies concept of a good leader, lying so massively to your populace. I believe that however misguided they are the leaders of the USA are quite sincere in their desire to do good by their people.
Moon landing, must have happened.
No sense in so much fraudulence.
It would be beyond the realm of anybodies concept of a good leader, lying so massively to your populace. I believe that however misguided they are the leaders of the USA are quite sincere in their desire to do good by their people.
| einstein wrote: |
I can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released.
To read the rest of the article with all the proofs, visit Science-Core |
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard? Why is it that man has this inability to accept the spectacular for truth? If the government could have orchestrated such an elaborate plot? Why wouldn't it be able to send a man to the moon. The chance that no one who was part of the plot has revealed it makes me certain it wasn't a plot. \
Do you believe in the Kennedy assassination? | dwinton wrote: |
| Why is it that man has this inability to accept the spectacular for truth? |
Technically, isn't the conspiracy theory more spectacular than the truth in this case? ^_^; (And in most cases.)
Conspiracy theorists are just lazy. They can't be bothered to process and assimilate complex scientific, economic, political and/or logical explanations for the event, and rather fall back on very primitive thinking: if something happens, there must be an intelligence out there making it happen (example: if there is thunder, there must be something up there stomping around or growling or something).
In this specific case, people that just can't wrap their heads around the science of the Apollo missions, and the socio-economic/political reasons for why we haven't gone back to the Moon in 30 years, insulate themselves from having to think about any of it in any depth by falling back on that same manner of primitive thought: if they are unable to make semi-regular trips to the Moon now yet claim they were able to in the late 60's/early 70's, then "obviously" they must have been lying back then.
Once you start down that road, natural human cognitive malfunctions take over from there. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, you are forced to create seemingly logical and cohesive narratives, and "explain" everything in ways that keep the original (broken) idea intact. Confirmation bias helps to make sure that you will continue to find more and more "evidence" in favour of your theory, and very little against.
By the time a conspiracy theorist builds their "theory" to the point where it's ready to present to the general public, they're already so far gone in a spiral of cognitive glitches that you're probably not going to be able to talk them out of it calmly and rationally. Calling them stupid won't help either. There's really not much you can do for them, but you can prevent the spread of the meme by educating the general public about proper logic and science - battling ignorance with "common sense", if you like.
As for the already infected conspiracy nut, leave them be. The best you can do is hope that eventually they will be confronted with a powerfully enough cognitively dissonant argument that the tangled web they wove will be snapped, and they will be forced to start thinking from scratch. Hopefully they will get it right this time.Truth is stranger than fiction as the saying goes. Looking at the political history of the time it is conceivable that the US government of the day would try to mislead the Soviet Union even if it meant lying to the whole world.
On the other hand, a moon landing was also possible, and I would go with this point of view.
Someone said that it was too expensive an excersise. If so, that's why they only did it once and haven't been back since. They certainly have the technology now, so why haven't they been back? It is very expensive and they have other priorities. At that time, their priority was to show the Sviet Union that they could do it, even if they could only affrod to do it once.
Besides, the matter could be settled once and for all by looking for Armstrong's footprints and anything else they left begind. I'm pretty sure the moon landing did happen, but it will probably be a while before it happens again.
I hate the people who says that the man has neve been on the moon.
The man has been on the moon, just great men can chieve what Neil Armstong and his partners did, and all the people here in Earth.
This sounds more like the argument I read some time back about the twin towers and the whole bombing as an hoax. It is said, people can also argue that Jesus never lived on this earth!
Evidences can always be found for anything you want! If not you can always make them. It is highly unlikely that a hoax would have occured. Not at this level! The US had the capability + motivation to do the job. It is the same as calling the Russian mission to Arctic depths as a hoax.
To find a government lieing so badly is highly improbable.
I disagree - it is very easy to find a government lying so badly.
What is nigh impossible is for someone in that government not to tell the truth.
As has been pointed out sooooo many times, all the 'evidence' {snigger} that has been presented to try and show the moon landing was a hoax is totally and utterly stupid. Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of physics can easily refute any of the allegations (and by slightest understanding I mean a 5 year old).
1. The flag was waving and there is no air. So the theory is that nothing moves in a vacuum? Nothing has any momentum? Nothing? Please!
2. No stars. Ever had a torch flashed in your eyes? And whilst it is tried to see the stars?
If anyone can come up with any more (I'm sure there are hundreds of 'facts')
Here is some supporting evidence:
1. The dust from the wheels of the buggie was a perfect parabola. On Earth, and in any atmosphere, if you drive through dust the wheels will throw up particles and they will swirl about. You do the same through a vacuum and the dust will form a perfect parabola. As in no swirl. That means that the buggie footage was filmed in a vacuum. And since the 'set' looks pretty big thats a huge vacuum to try and maintain. Any conspiritist managed to find any hint of a massive, airtight film set? No? funny that.
2. When someone shouts you can turn your head in the direction the shout came from, yes? In a similar way if someone is transmitting a radio signal you can use direction finding equipment to find the direction (lifeboats use it to home in on distressed vessels) or you can point your satellite dish until you find the signal (the dishes are very uni-directional). Watch the film The Dish and you will see how the big dish lost the signal and needed to be redirected to find it again. Not saying the film is proof but gets the concept across that the Russians, Australians, British, and any US institute with any form of receiving antenna that could be pointed towards the moon, was pointed towards the Moon.
Now think of how many people across the globe, (especially the Soviets) who were tracking that spacecraft as it made its way from the Earth to the Moon. Now think of the chances of every single one of those keeping quiet about the fact that there was no transmission.
Not one single person who was involved has come forward and said, Guys, it was a hoax and I can prove it. Not one! In all this time! The US did not and does not now have the kind of influence worldwide to stop EVERYONE from telling the 'truth'.
The notion that it was faked is ridiculous in the extreme. To make it happen the US would have had to have the agreement of every major power at the time, and since the whole excercise was designed to show that the US were better than the Soviets, do you think they would have been willing to help them, cover it up?
David.
