Landing on the moon a hoax!

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by sometimes

There are no problems on earth that man didn't cause in the first place through greed, jealously and over exploitation and you think we should throw more money at them? Interesting viewpoint.

I think they went, though I know for certain they wouldn't try to do it again in the same way.

IM not sure that leukaemia is the conclusion of greed, jealousy or over exploitatation allthough, there are thoughts in the USA that certain pesticides may have contributed to accelarate certain strains. But are you sugesting that that is a good reason not to throw money at its research ? Now thats an interesting veiwpoint.

[Naz]

These are only personal views, and I apologise if mine weren't the same as some of yours ... excuse me for having an opinion.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Rob T

IM not sure that leukaemia is the conclusion of greed, jealousy or over exploitatation allthough, there are thoughts in the USA that certain pesticides may have contributed to accelarate certain strains. But are you sugesting that that is a good reason not to throw money at its research ? Now thats an interesting veiwpoint.

More than a quarter of the benefits from the space program listed at the link I gave earlier are improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Including cancers, although leukaemia is not mentioned specifically. The fact is that any intensive research and development program, if conducted properly, is pretty much guaranteed to reap benefits far and wide, not just in the application that was originally being researched. The space program has produced the second highest level of technological advance in the history of mankind. And the highest? Warfare!

Dave P.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Naz Nomad

These are only personal views, and I apologise if mine weren't the same as some of yours ... excuse me for having an opinion.

You expressed your opinion and I expressed mine. We both did it calmly and politely and neither of us ever said the other wasn't entitled to their view or to express it. So no apology necessary

Dave P.

[greenyonder]

sigh!,i guess we will never know the truth.........will we?,what bugs me is why havent they done it since?,what with all the new tecnology and that,imagine the quality of the film footage and pics we would see!,its been a long time,"hey mister nassa"why not! for old times sake!.......lets see man on the moon one more time!!!.

[zharca]

Hi, I dunno about the moon landings being faked, but i have seen NASA lunar excursion pictures that I know absolutely are forgeries.

The Hassleblads that they used on the moon put fine crosses all over the negatives as they were exposed, to grid the pictures up. I've seen one well-known picture where part of one of the lunar buggy things OVERLAPS the graticule cross. It must have been comp'd together, it cannot be genuine. In another case, the same rocks appear in pictures of what are supposed to be two different missions. I dunno much about rockets, but I've worked thirty years with images and faked up a lot myself, so I can spot a wrong 'un when I see it. Many others I'm sure are most likely real.

My theory is that there were rather a lot of staged lunar landing pictures created for publicity purposes - maybe to get them out to magazines in time. maybe so that they could be released if the real ones were crummy, or the more sinister motive that they could be used to cover up a mission failure.

Whatever the motive, a few obviously faked photos are out there and were widely used at the time, and I think these fuel conspiricy theories. I guess it's still just too embarrasing for NASA to come clean and say that they put out fake pictures simply because the real ones weren't available on time.

[paulchandler6]

I feel the U.S. did get to the Moon as well, mainly for the reason carlos gave. To get international prestige over the then USSR.
There are many reasons why certain governments spend billions on space exploration. My guess would be primarily for miltary & economical purposes and secondly for anything else.
However there are always breakthroughs in this pioneering exploration that will benefit mankind in general. It depends in how we use it.

Paul

[badger426]

have you nticed on the "One small step for a man" footage you can see through Neil Armstrongs body? that is to say you can see the lunar landscape through his body.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by zharca

My theory is that there were rather a lot of staged lunar landing pictures created for publicity purposes - maybe to get them out to magazines in time. maybe so that they could be released if the real ones were crummy, or the more sinister motive that they could be used to cover up a mission failure.

I wouldn't be at all surprised about the first two reasons, PR being practically the whole purpose of going to the moon in the first place. I'm less prepared to believe your third reason given that on both occassions when a catastrophic failure occurred - the Apollo 1 fire and the Apollo 13 explosion - absolutely no attempt was made to cover either one up.

I myself, being a bit of a space buff, have watched "documentaries" about the space program where the images from one mission have been over-dubbed with the soundtrack from a different mission. There's one that shows footage of the Apollo 11 lift-off while the soundtrack is Pete Conrad's "We've had everything in the world drop out!" comment. Pete was commander of Apollo 12 and was referring to the complete loss of all on board electrical systems when the space craft was hit by lightning as it cleared the launch tower. There's even one travesty out there that's supposed to be about the moon landings which shows astronauts exercising on board Skylab! The last moon landing was in 1972 and Skylab wasn't launched until 1975. These are not official NASA releases however, but documentaries put together by TV companies for commercial release.

Dave P.

[zharca]

Hi, I wasn't suggesting that pictures were actually used to cover up a tragedy, but that maybe someone had a contingency plan. I think the truth is more that they weren't convinced that the astronauts would come back with publicity-useable pics and had backups ready. Gene Kranz, the famous mission controller, has written that they didn't think that the astronauts would be able to work the Hasselblads properly when they were in their suits. The cameras didn't have viewing screens, they just had to point them in the right direction and guess. They also had to guess the focus, so some of those pictures are suspiciously good.

The real tragedy is that some fakes were definitely circulated and published and this has diminished the real achievement.

I have a lot of respect for the Apollo Engineers of the 'sixties who had to take very imperfect and untried technology - they called it the "quick and dirty method" - but who still managed to minimise the dangers and work out very good procedures for operating very bad systems.