Did Man Land on the Moon?

[clacher_holiday2]

Considering the trouble the Chinese and US are having even landing a robot safely on the moon between 2007 and 2008 I think its ridiculous to suggest they actually did it back in the 60's.  NASA managed to land a 15kg transmitter on the moon and called it the greatest advancement in space exploration since 1969 last year.

Theres too much evidence against it IMO and I wont be listening to any crap from those who say it did happen purely because itd be too hard to cover up.  It's too easy for a chunt like me to say this but I honestly believe there will be a generational divide on this one, those of us who didnt live through an era where global meltdown was on the cards every other day or appreciate the importance of the times political posturing will always have a different view on the event.

From a physical point of view, the length of time it takes to fly the distance to the moon and to then orbit the thing till you can theoretically land the right way up on it is comp0letley out of synch with modern space flight, they wouldve had to orbit the moon for a week before landing ffs..

Could man goto the moon in my lifetime?  They probably could and if they do I belive theyll be the first ones to do so.

[Hamish]

Considering the trouble the Chinese and US are having even landing a robot safely on the moon between 2007 and 2008 I think its ridiculous to suggest they actually did it back in the 60's.  NASA managed to land a 15kg transmitter on the moon and called it the greatest advancement in space exploration since 1969 last year.

Theres too much evidence against it IMO and I wont be listening to any crap from those who say it did happen purely because itd be too hard to cover up.  It's too easy for a chunt like me to say this but I honestly believe there will be a generational divide on this one, those of us who didnt live through an era where global meltdown was on the cards every other day or appreciate the importance of the times political posturing will always have a different view on the event.

From a physical point of view, the length of time it takes to fly the distance to the moon and to then orbit the thing till you can theoretically land the right way up on it is comp0letley out of synch with modern space flight, they wouldve had to orbit the moon for a week before landing ffs..

Could man goto the moon in my lifetime?  They probably could and if they do I belive theyll be the first ones to do so.

I think if you look into it in a bit more detail, the arguments for it having occurred are a bit stronger than it being too hard to cover up!  :rolleyes02: There are lots of scientific and technical reasons why it 99.9999% DID happen - it's not too hard to take the 'conspiracy' blinkers off and be objective by looking at some well researched and referenced information on the subject. Not just made up 'facts' that populate most of the conspiracy theory websites... It was an amazing achievement and done in such an incredibly 'low-tech' that it perhaps helped in achieving success.

[TheresNoEsInBlack]

Theres too much evidence against it IMO and I wont be listening to any crap from those who say it did happen purely because itd be too hard to cover up. 

The fact that it would be so hard to cover up is the only reason I could be bothered to mention because if I mentioned all the evidence for landing on the moon I'd be writing a book on the subject.  The evidence for is overwhelming if you look beyond the gash hoax websites.

I'd be interested to hear some of the things you believe that make you think it was a hoax.  Can you give some examples, clacher?

[GATEPOST]

Wtf??!

Of course they went to the moon. Why wouldn't they? it would be infinatley easier to go than stage it all.

What a stupid disscusion.

[clacher_holiday2]

You want me to prove the Americans didnt goto the moon and lied about where a hundred billion dollars were spent?

Sounds like a challenge...  lets roll....

[clacher_holiday2]

Nicked from one of those lunatic moon hoax websites...  keep the faith lads.

1)  Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3)  There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.  Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4)  Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5)  Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.  The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6)  The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7)  Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10)  How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11)  In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death.  In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13)  Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14)  Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15)  If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn.  The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours.  Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17)  The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper.  There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18)  The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable.  The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20)  The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges.  They never did.

21)  During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22)  With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

[Hamish]

Clacher,

I just had a quick look through those 'facts'... You do realise that most of them are just NOT TRUE! Advice: don't accept as fact everything you read online! If you chosse to ignore this advice then, remember that 1000 pounds you owe me?  :001:

[TheresNoEsInBlack]

Clacher mun,

Sure, listen to what everyone on all sides have to say but always question their motives for saying something and never believe any of it because its only somewhere in the middle that you're going to get the truth.  When someone tells you something (anything at all) it's only their version of what they believe to be the truth that you're getting.  You have to find your own version of the truth and you won't find it from a conspiracy theorist, dude.

Peace out.

[Govan Jaggie]

Has anyone seen the film about a Mars landing?  I belive it was called Capricorn 1.  Great film with more than a hint of questioning the moon landing.  I cant understand why nobody has ever been back?  If we are so far advanced from the sixties then we should be visiting the moon regularly.

[GATEPOST]

I cant understand why nobody has ever been back? 

Because its its just a big dusty rock?!

Why spend billions going to a floating stone, what would they do?

[Hamish]

Has anyone seen the film about a Mars landing?  I belive it was called Capricorn 1.  Great film with more than a hint of questioning the moon landing.  I cant understand why nobody has ever been back?  If we are so far advanced from the sixties then we should be visiting the moon regularly.

Going to Mars is a FAR more daunting prospect than the moon. A lot of the 'facts' above in Clachers post are actually more relevant to a Mars mission (e.g., the radiation issue). Regarding why there have been no missions back to the moon, there are some planned. But it's taken so long I think 'cos it's been done (bit like climbing Ben Nevis - very few do it twice!). It cost a hoor of a lot of money too!

[starchief]

For me, the only real question mark is the lack of stars.  I know the argument about perspective but I find it very difficult to believe. I could go through most of the points but most of them are down to a matter of belief, e.g. the flag 'fluttered' due to it being constructed with wires inside giving the impression of fluttering.  See - you either believe it or you don't!

Funnily enough though, the 'not frozen in space but roasted' is still a debate in science.  No-one is still quite sure what would happen.  There are rumours of an astronaut having to enter a shuttle without a spacesuit a la Space Odyssey 2001 (can't remember why) but it's only a rumour.

[CaleyD]

The thing I find amazing is the people who say "don't believe everything you read on the internet"....the phrase which has taken over from "don't believe everything you read in the press".

I have only one question for these people.....for your argument that it "did" happen....where did you get your information.  Unless you were there to witness the event then your sources are no more or less credible than the others in all honesty.

[Hamish]

The thing I find amazing is the people who say "don't believe everything you read on the internet"....the phrase which has taken over from "don't believe everything you read in the press".

I have only one question for these people.....for your argument that it "did" happen....where did you get your information.  Unless you were there to witness the event then your sources are no more or less credible than the others in all honesty.

The 'it didn't happen' info comes from conspiracy theory websites. That's all I need to know...

[+The_Sponge]

There are those that believe in the moon landings & those that don't.

Both these groups believe that they are right.

Neither group will admit they are wrong.

The End.

[CaleyD]

Oh come on Hamish...your an educated man, surely you know that not all the information provided to support the theory of a hoax comes from conspiracy theorists.

Personally I don't care whether or not they put a man on the moon 40 years ago and if I was pushed to give a decision as to whether I thought it happened or not then I would be very hard pushed to decide one way or the other.

However, whether they did or not, there's very little doubt in my mind that at least some of the footage being passed of as being shot on the moon is faked.....and this only serves to add weight to the hoax theory.

As with any two sided argument based around an alleged hoax it is always far easier to dismiss/discredit the hoax hypothesis over the apparent real hypothesis.  We see it happening just about every day on this forum where you have one group who are quick to dismiss every rumour through lack of evidence or credibility of source, and the same happens whenever you have more than one source for information as opposed to a single outlet.

In terms of the Moon Landing, we have NASA's Hypothesis which comes from a single source and never waivers which is pitched against an abundance of Hoax Hypothesis from many many different sources.  In order to discredit those claiming a Hoax and defend the alleged "real" scenario you will very often find that they totally ignore much of what an individual says and instead focus on how one may differ, even in the minutest fashion, to another.  In effect you end up pitching all the Hoax Hypothesis against each other and remove all focus from your own...thus removing the pressure of having to prove anything.

NASA have never done anything to prove their version of events other than churn out an endless stream of "experts" to say "It's real" and until such time as they invite some of the Hoax Theorists to look first hand at the evidence then the conspiracy claims will continue.  If I, and the many others who think the same, are right in saying that much of the footage/evidence produced is faked....then it matters not a jot if they put a man on the moon unless they admit to that fact and have other irrefutable evidence to support the claim.  However, we all know it would be cause major meltdown in the USA if NASA were to turn round and say...well we kinda lied to you all these years about the footage and stuff we showed you, but honestly we did put a man on the moon.

There's nothing to be gained from proving it one way or the other so why bother?  What's important is what we are capable of doing today and in the future and how that serves mankind, not what might or might not have happened 40 years ago when the Americans were having a **** measuring contest with the Russians.

[starchief]

NASA have already admitted to faking photos.  Some of the quality was a bit ropey, so they were altered.  They can be spotted as the camera cross-hairs are actually behind the subject.

[Hamish]

Oh come on Hamish...your an educated man, surely you know that not all the information provided to support the theory of a hoax comes from conspiracy theorists.

Personally I don't care whether or not they put a man on the moon 40 years ago and if I was pushed to give a decision as to whether I thought it happened or not then I would be very hard pushed to decide one way or the other.

However, whether they did or not, there's very little doubt in my mind that at least some of the footage being passed of as being shot on the moon is faked.....and this only serves to add weight to the hoax theory.

As with any two sided argument based around an alleged hoax it is always far easier to dismiss/discredit the hoax hypothesis over the apparent real hypothesis.  We see it happening just about every day on this forum where you have one group who are quick to dismiss every rumour through lack of evidence or credibility of source, and the same happens whenever you have more than one source for information as opposed to a single outlet.

In terms of the Moon Landing, we have NASA's Hypothesis which comes from a single source and never waivers which is pitched against an abundance of Hoax Hypothesis from many many different sources.  In order to discredit those claiming a Hoax and defend the alleged "real" scenario you will very often find that they totally ignore much of what an individual says and instead focus on how one may differ, even in the minutest fashion, to another.  In effect you end up pitching all the Hoax Hypothesis against each other and remove all focus from your own...thus removing the pressure of having to prove anything.

NASA have never done anything to prove their version of events other than churn out an endless stream of "experts" to say "It's real" and until such time as they invite some of the Hoax Theorists to look first hand at the evidence then the conspiracy claims will continue.  If I, and the many others who think the same, are right in saying that much of the footage/evidence produced is faked....then it matters not a jot if they put a man on the moon unless they admit to that fact and have other irrefutable evidence to support the claim.  However, we all know it would be cause major meltdown in the USA if NASA were to turn round and say...well we kinda lied to you all these years about the footage and stuff we showed you, but honestly we did put a man on the moon.

There's nothing to be gained from proving it one way or the other so why bother?  What's important is what we are capable of doing today and in the future and how that serves mankind, not what might or might not have happened 40 years ago when the Americans were having a **** measuring contest with the Russians.

I don't have the time to compose a 500 word reply but I do agree that there's very little point in the discussion. From my perspective on the issue, those that buy into the conspiracy theory will find an argument against any evidence to the contrary...

[MissICT]

oh my!!!

yes the men went to the moon.... and should have taken the rest with them!  :023:

!!!

so true!!

[Guest TinCanFan]

When you think about it, the US government have lied before.  Look at the Iraq Weapons and they stole the election for Bush (possibly twice!), so there is the possiblity that they did it with the moon as well. 

[tm4tj]

Yes man landed on the moon.............he was on the back of the Loch Ness Monster.