Throughout the English speaking world, excluding USA, the majority of
people have been convinced by the evidence that NASA have never landed
on the moon.  For example AOL surveys in the UK indicate that most
people do not believe they did.  How far into this century are we
likely to go before this substantial probability is taken seriously in
the USA, rather than palmed off as an urban legend or conspiracy
theory?

Hi garyd,

You very wisely ask a question, not about the probability that there
were lunar landings, but how long (if ever) it'll take for the general
population to believe such landings occurred.

Well, no amount of research can predict the future, especially when
the topic in question is what humans will believe or accept as true.
We CAN turn to past human reactions to other theories.

For example -- Is the earth flat or round? Despite all the evidence to
the contrary, there are still individuals who believe the earth is
flat, and there are societies dedicated to proving it's flat!

"In the small town of Grass Roots, MO, one of our members has
successfully infiltrated the public education system. By being hired
on as a teacher in the district, she was able to gain a foothold that
has allowed us to "replace" nearly every lower grade teacher in the
entire town with loyal Flat Earthers. The students are now undergoing
deprogramming measures and are expected to be released when they reach
their mid-thirties."

umm... That should give you something to think about when it comes to
human nature, eh? My jaw dropped when I read the above quote. How on
this ROUND earth do they expect these lower grade pupils' parents are
going to react when their 32 year old children are still in grade two
or three, I have no idea. (I'm typing 'tongue-in-cheek,' here.)

The Flat Earth Society -- Home
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Now, we don't need any research to dig up the fact that Columbus
'sailed the ocean blue' in 1492, but that was over 500 years ago ... 
several explorers circumnavigated the globe since that date.

circumnavigate. Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. ...
http://www.bartleby.com/62/27/C0252700.html 

"VERB: To pass around but not through: bypass, circumvent, detour, go
around, skirt."

Try to 'go around' something's that's not 'round.'

-----------------------------

"On July 20 [1969] at 4:18 p.m. EDT, the Lunar Module touched down on
the Moon at Tranquility Base."

The First Lunar Landing 
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/cover.html

My point is that if 500 years isn't sufficient time for the round
earth theory to be fully accepted, then there is NO way that less than
40 years will be adequate enough to convince people that men actually
walked on the moon.

You can see just from the comments to your question that there is a
wide range of opinions about the lunar landing. You could pose the
question, substituting the round earth theory, the Darwin theory, the
Bermuda Triangle theory, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for a five-star question, Gary. It's been fun!

I wish you well,
revbrenda1st












Search strategy:

" flat earth "
://www.google.com/search?q=flat+earth&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

" circumnavigate "
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=circumnavigate&btnG=Google+Search

" first lunar landing "
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=first+lunar+landing&btnG=Google+Search

Well, NASA thinks that the subject is worth a short book:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_704268.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery

"Nasa plans book to address moon landing doubters"

"Nasa is to answer conspiracy theories that the US moon landings never
happened.

The space agency says it will address anomalies which have been
identified by cynics in a short book.

The main issues will be the absence of stars in the background on TV
footage and the fact that the flag the astronauts plant in the surface
is fluttering.

Former chief historian Roger Launius told Guardian Unlimited that
schoolchildren are intended as the prime audience."


As for surveys, 1 in 5 Americans believe in angels as well:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/angels1.htm

"A joint study conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and the E.W.
Scripps School of Journalism and Ohio University reveals that
substantial numbers of Americans believe in supernatural entities
which visit earth."


There have been many responses to the moon landing hoax theories,
including NASA, etc. but "The Straight Dope" sums it up nicely:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html

"There will always be people who claim a conspiracy for just about
anything. Facts will be ignored, rational people will be amazed and
dismayed."


See also:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html

Dear ocean,

No answer, only a statement from my own, highly subjective point of
view: In my humble opinion, AOL users can not really be regarded
representative for Western Civilization.

Have a perfect day,
Scriptor

I have looked at some of the evidence, and found reasonable
explanations for most. There are thousands of clues that USA did go to
the moon 6 times. We went is my tentative conclusion, but I remain
open minded.   Neil

I must agree with scriptor. A number of aol users email me about my wb
site every day, and the average intelligence of these queries is
significantly lower than that of the other emails I receive.

To quote Buzz Aldrin, "Them's fighting words."

"Throughout the English speaking world, excluding USA, the majority of
people have been convinced by the evidence that NASA have never landed
on the moon."

Who or what authoritative/reliable body conducted the survey?

To those who insist that moon landings happened, please answer a few
questions:

a) In photos, the US flag that the astronauts "planted" on the moon
can be seen waving in the wind. Which requires an atmosphere. Which
there isn't on the moon. Why is the flag waving?

b) The astronauts had cameras that were fixed to the front of their
suits. No aiming, only a shutter button. Even the inventor of the
camera says most of the shots should be off centre or completely
unaimed. How is it that the astronauts were able to take thousands of
perfectly centred pictures with a camera mounted on the front of their
suits?

c) Why didn't the Van Allen (sp.?) radiation kill them?

d) Why didn't the exhaust from the landing module as it took off
obliterate the footprints, etc. at the landing site?

e) Why is it that in some "moon" photos, shadows can be seen pointing
in several directions, when the sun was their only light source for
the picture?

f) How is it that there are pictures with the sun in the background,
that are NOT merely a sillouette of the subject? Where is the light
coming from to illuminate the front of the astronaut?

g) How is it that photos were taken of subjects that are in "dark"
areas, such as in shadow, or in the dark area, etc. that have the
subject visible in the dark patch. Where's the light coming from?

sparky4ca-ga

To those who insist that moon landings happened, please answer a few
questions:
 
>a) In photos, the US flag that the astronauts "planted" on the moon
>can be seen waving in the wind. Which requires an atmosphere. Which
>there isn't on the moon. Why is the flag waving?

I'm not looking at any photos. Can you point me to some photos,
preferably on NASA's site, where the flag is "waving"? The flag they
used, IIRC, was made of metal, and did not "wave".
 
>b) The astronauts had cameras that were fixed to the front of their
>suits. No aiming, only a shutter button. Even the inventor of the
>camera says most of the shots should be off centre or completely
>unaimed. How is it that the astronauts were able to take thousands of
>perfectly centred pictures with a camera mounted on the front of
their
>suits?
 
Any idiot with an xacto knife can crop a poorly-aimed picture.

>c) Why didn't the Van Allen (sp.?) radiation kill them? 

I'm answering these off the top of my head. I don't remember what this
even is. Why didn't a stray bit of dark matter kill them all, either?
 
>d) Why didn't the exhaust from the landing module as it took off
>obliterate the footprints, etc. at the landing site?
 
The force exerted by the landing crafts is barely ANYTHING. There is
very little gravity, and as such, very little force is required to
escape the moon's gravitational field. They didn't have to use a three
stage disposable booster rocket to get back home.

>e) Why is it that in some "moon" photos, shadows can be seen pointing
>in several directions, when the sun was their only light source for
>the picture?
 
How is the sun the only light source in the universe? Last I checked,
there are other stars out there, and their brightness on a satellite
with no atmosphere to speak of is probably quite impressive compared
to what you'd see under the cover of the atmosphere we live in day to
day. Additionally, have you ever gone outside during a particularly
close full moon? No sun, but it can be bright enough to take a
photograph with no flash in the right conditions.

Which photos are these, exactly? Again, can you point me to copies on
NASA's site that display several shadows that are obviously shadows
and not just dust of a slightly different hue?

>f) How is it that there are pictures with the sun in the background,
>that are NOT merely a sillouette of the subject? Where is the light
>coming from to illuminate the front of the astronaut?
 
How is it that the full moon can be so bright when it is not a light
source? It reflects light! So does Earth. Imagine how much light Earth
reflects on the moon compared to how much light the moon reflects onto
the Earth.

>g) How is it that photos were taken of subjects that are in "dark"
>areas, such as in shadow, or in the dark area, etc. that have the
>subject visible in the dark patch. Where's the light coming from?
 
See above, again.

-brightshadow

This page has some good Moon Hoax links:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

The author of the above page has a book out called Bad Astronomy:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471409766

There's a chapter in it that covers some of the specific items that
sparky4ca mentions.  The book as a whole was pretty entertaining
reading.  And I also learned a thing or two (or three or four).  I
guess this isn't the place for it, but I recommend checking out the
book sometime.  Gives some good insight into why people have certain
misconceptions.

where would this presumable forgery of the moon landing have taken
place? how would this have been kept secret from the tens of thousands
of people employed in the space industry at the time? presumably the
government would need to go about PRETENDING to run a full fledged
moon landing program, at enormous cost, only as cover for the fake
landing project. why go to all the trouble? it's much simpler to
actually do it for real, if you ask my opinion. it's not that hard,
really, just very very expensive. remember, the russians landed an
unmanned spacecraft on the moon even before the americans. or do you
claim that was also forged? and what about the entire american space
program? surely that exists for real, doesn't it? why bother faking a
moon landing when you're actually developping real spacecraft at the
same time?

Moon hoax theorists don't have a leg to stand on. Even when their
questions are answered, they don't accept the answer as proof that
they're wrong. They can't even see that their reasoning is faulty.
My personal favorite is the interview of Bart Sibrel, the moon hoax
"expert" Buzz Aldrin punched, by the Daily Show's Stephen Colbert.
Even though the punch was caught on tape, Colbert was taking the
stance of the skeptic making up evidence that didn't exist, basically
using Sibrel's own logic against him. He didn't like it too much...
I've been searching Comedy Central's video archives and the web for a
transcript. If any one could find it, I'd love to see it again.

I just found out that the Daily Show interview aired Oct. 16, 2002.

As a resident of the English speaking world outside the USA, I have
never met anyone who doubted the moon landings.  Maybe its your
statistics that are fabricated.