Moon landings fact or fake?

[M31]

I have always had a fascination with space and astronomy and even though there is probably more literature produced on these subjects than could be housed in an aircraft hanger I think most people (me included) still regard space as something that we really know very little about.

I went to a lecture last night given by a very eminent and will remain unnamed astrophysicist who is convinced (and now I am very unsure) that the moon landings did not take place.

His arguments were built upon the following;

1. The technological requirements for such a venture were unobtainable. Just as the Space Shuttle relies on technology first produced in the late 1970's so Appollo technology was built upon very inneficient rocket technology from the 1930's and 1940's much of it gleaned from the German V2 programme.

2. Given the inneficient technology and the pinpoint accuracy required to land particularly in the Sea of Tranquility region of the moon the stakes would have been 1,000,000 to 1 against a successful landing being achievable.

3. Then there is the actual film and camera footage from space. He produced a whole raft of information from astronaut shadows facing the wrong way, doctored photographs, even pictures of the stars and stripes fluttering on the moon surface which is a windless environment.

4. Then there is the issue about how do you cover it up. His argument is that in essence this is easily achieveable. There is no doubt that the Appollo rockets did take off so there you are able to cut alot of people out of the loop. Then you only need a small team of people to create blurred images in a makeshift studio at somehwhere like Area 51 the obvious choice for something like this to be created

I would dearly love to have my (up until now) lifelong belief that the moon landings took place. at present I have big doubts.

What do the collective minds here think?

[Speed_NYC]

I too have seen and heard the arguments. I believe we went when all said and done. However, of all the arguments for/against, the inability of man (in 60's built spacecraft) to travel through/return and survive the Van Allen Radiation belt was most interesting! If we did go...why the F__k have'nt we been back. Space station or moon base? I know what I'd choose.

[Zone-MR]

Quote:

Originally posted by M31@Apr 9 2003, 09:22 AM
I have always had a fascination with space and astronomy and even though there is probably more literature produced on these subjects than could be housed in an aircraft hanger I think most people (me included) still regard space as something that we really know very little about.

I went to a lecture last night given by a very eminent and will remain unnamed astrophysicist who is convinced (and now I am very unsure) that the moon landings did not take place.

His arguments were built upon the following;

1. The technological requirements for such a venture were unobtainable. *Just as the Space Shuttle relies on technology first produced in the late 1970's so Appollo technology was built upon very inneficient rocket technology from the 1930's and 1940's much of it gleaned from the German V2 programme.

2. Given the inneficient technology and the pinpoint accuracy required to land particularly in the Sea of Tranquility region of the moon the stakes would have been 1,000,000 to 1 against a successful landing being achievable.

3. *Then there is the actual film and camera footage from space. *He produced a whole raft of information from astronaut shadows facing the wrong way, doctored photographs, even pictures of the stars and stripes fluttering on the moon surface which is a windless environment.

4. Then there is the issue about how do you cover it up. His argument is that in essence this is easily achieveable. There is no doubt that the Appollo rockets did take off so there you are able to cut alot of people out of the loop. *Then you only need a small team of people to create blurred images in a makeshift studio at somehwhere like Area 51 the obvious choice for something like this to be created

I would dearly love to have my (up until now) lifelong belief that the moon landings took place. at present I have big doubts.

What do the collective minds here think?

What do I think? That you are being confused by paranoid conspiracy theories

People have been cligning onto a lot of apparent inconsistencies in the photographs. You may find this site useful: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html . It details each of the popular claims about the photographs being falsified, and shows in-depth technical explanations as to why they are in fact correct. You mentioned for example that the flag is waving. Look closley at the original photograph (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5874.jpg). It can be clarly seen there is a pole perpendicular to the mast keeping the flag from simple shrivling up. The material is creased and wavy, but there is no evidence to suggest wind. The page I mentioned had detailed explanations of the shaddows you mentioned, etc.

As for proof, that's easy. The Apollo program has left laser reflectors on the moon (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...olloLaser.html). These reflectors have been 'pinged' by many organizations independent from NASA and the U.S. government, including schools and government programs in the U.K., France, Japan, and even the former Soviet Union (what reason would they possibly have to back up false U.S. claims?), Canada and others. Anyone with the money to rent a properly equipped telescope and the necessary laser equipment can verify this. Including the skeptics.

[Darkwolven]

Quote:

Originally posted by Speed_NYC@Apr 9 2003, 04:44 AM
I too have seen and heard the arguments. I believe we went when all said and done. However, of all the arguments for/against, the inability of man (in 60's built spacecraft) to travel through/return and survive the Van Allen Radiation belt was most interesting! If we did go...why the F__k have'nt we been back. Space station or moon base? I know what I'd choose.

We haven't been back because Nasa has always been plagued with budget cuts and second guessing. Even recently, Bush cut the Nasa budget by millions of dollars. One expedition to the moon is hugely more expensive than several trips into the orbit of Earth in the Space Shuttle.

Don't worry though, because Nasa is ramping up to land a manned space craft on MARS because we just can't get sufficient data to analyze with robots as to whether there was life on Mars at any point. According to all I have read recently, there is new and plausible evidence that there was at least Microbe forms of life that was on Mars. We do know for sure that there WAS water at one point. This definitely points to the possibility that more evolved life could also have existed, but robots can't get to the proper locations to get real evidence, because we need material from rock and crater, not loose soil. This, if all goes well, is planned within the next 20 years!

Cool, huh?

[Berlin2]

To not go back for 10 years is reasonable, but 30 years? Naaa. I don't think so. There must be someone there already. The incredible amount of secrecy in the Space program says it all really. Regular trips to the Moon with todays technology would be easy, and in any case, such moon trips would be a neccesary preparation for the Mars mission. U think we are going to Mars? No chance, IMHO

[Darkwolven]

Quote:

Originally posted by Berlin2@Apr 9 2003, 11:02 AM
To not go back for 10 years is reasonable, but 30 years? Naaa. I don't think so. There must be someone there already. The incredible amount of secrecy in the Space program says it all really. Regular trips to the Moon with todays technology would be easy, and in any case, such moon trips would be a neccesary preparation for the Mars mission. U think we are going to Mars? No chance, IMHO

Oh really? I had a bit of information that this has been in planning for several years. You don't have to believe me, but it's pretty well documented that there is an effort to prepare such a mission right now.

[~*McoreD*~]

This was recently in our Channel 10 News .

Quote:

Voice One ? 43 seconds
But was it a giant lead for mankind or an elaborate Luna lie ? a Hollywood hoax ? showing America has won the moon race. Let?s examine the evidence.

The fluttering flag ? there is no breeze on the moon. So it must have been faked. No! Run the tape back ? and you can see the astronauts have to twist the flag pole into place. On the moon there is no air, so it carries on rippling and waving.
Other space oddities ? there is no stars! Did the director forget to put them in? No! The surface is so bright, they simply can?t be seen.
Oh! And the shadows are supposedly all wrong. NASA can refute everything. But some yet says it never happened.

Voice Two (Marcus Allen, Nexus Magazine) ? 7 seconds
Evidence as presented by NASA is all we have to go on. And that evidence in my view is seriously flown.

Voice Three ? 26 seconds
But if all this talk of fakes and hoax has got you doubting after all this Luna module at science museum is a replica, and there one incontrovertible bit of evidence ? a tiny piece of moon rock. Now this has been checked out by scientists all over the world. And it matches exactly, samples that were brought back by unmanned Russian probes. If Moscow is not on it too, there was no conspiracy. Man really did walk on the moon.

I am gonna fully read http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html. Thanks Zone-MR.

[AnneJay]

Personally, I'm always open to a government conspiracy - JFK, global mind control, the CIA cover up of UFO existence (here in British Columbia we routinely have the most sightings of any province in Canada; then again we grow the best marijuana in the world - correlation? - hmmm )

See: http://www.abovetopsecret.com

Ever hear of reverse technology done on alien spacecraft:

Quote:

In 1997 (Ret) Colonel Philip J. Corso?s book hit the UFO book market with a splash. The Day After Roswell contained some eye-opening revelations. The Colonel divulges how he spearheaded the Army?s super secret reverse-engineering project that ?seeded? extraterrestrial technology at American corporations such as IBM, Hughes Aircraft, Bell Labs, and Dow Corning - without their knowledge. He describes the devices found aboard the Roswell craft, and how they became the precursors for today?s integrated circuit chips, fiber optics, lasers, night-vision equipment, super-tenacity fibers (such as Kevlar plastic armor), and classified discoveries, such as psychotropic devices that can translate human thoughts into signals that control machinery, Stealth aircraft technology, and Star Wars particle-beam devices. He also discusses the role that extraterrestrial technology played in shaping geopolitical policy and events; how it helped the United States surpass the Russians in space; spurred elaborate Army initiatives such as SDI (Star Wars Projects), Project Horizon (to place a military base on the Moon), and HARP; and ultimately brought about the end of the Cold War. *

source: http://www.skywatch-research.org/RE.htm

You never know.. maybe the truth really is out there.

However, no one will ever convince me the moon landing didn't happen. As a youngster I watched it on television - everyone did - we were glued to our television sets. It was practically the only the subject people talked about; we saw Neil Armstrong first step on the moon - history unfolded before our eyes - it's a wonderful childhood memory.

Hey, there's still folks out there who believe the earth is flat - hmm another conspiracy - pictures like this kind of prove them wrong:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...1earthrise.jpg



PS: For more info on The Flat Earth Society (who coincidentally believe the lunar landing was created by Hollywood studios) see:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

[Berlin2]

I agree on the planning for a Mars mission, Darkwolven, afterall what else is there to do? If I thought there was decent chance of getting to Mars, never mind getting back, I would go myself. The best plan would send 2 spacecraft, with 5 crew on each, then the 2nd crew could rescue the first if need be.
The problem is that there is no convincing reason for leaving the Moon unvisited for 30 years. What a testing ground that would be! We didn't take advantage of that. Lack of money? Not a good enough reason. In 30 years, aircraft technology went from cloth & wood toy planes to jet travel. Space travel has gone from Sputnik to the failure of the Shuttle. Somethings not right, and we are not being told. Trip to Mars? Me thinks not. I wish it would happen, but 50% of unmanned probes fail so far. Why? It's not the distance, its something else. Someone there already?

[Zone-MR]

The way I see it, we didnt go back to the moon as weve been there, done that, collected samples. And I don't think theres a reason to spend enourmous amounts of money, take the risks associated with it, just to go again and say 'hello' to a bit of rock.

I dont see it as a valid argument that there was no re-visit as the first trip was unsuccessful and a huge conspiracy. If the first time round had not been successful, dont you thing as technology improved people would have been inclined to try again?

I agree that rather than wasting time and money on missions with no purpose, it is better invested in exploring new frontiers such as mars, which are enourmous challenges and landmark events.