Landing on the moon a hoax!

[Birchy]

I've always wondered if the landing on the moon thing was a hoax as there has been lots of speculation over the years. Does anyone out there have an opinion on this? I must admit that some of the evidence against the ligit of it all is convincing.

As a youngest I thought space and the solar system was amaizing and was very interested, especially at school. Even wanted a career in that kind of thing but I don't think I was ever bright enough to be honest. And the landing on the moon was a fantastic thing for everyone, went down in history forever. But if it was all a hoax and no one has come forward and admitted it yet that is well bad.

[pressld2]

Personally I find the idea that it was all a hoax to be completely and utterly ridiculous, put about by people who lack the technical knowledge to understand how it was done and the imagination to see what a fantastic achievement it was. Little people with nothing better to do than belittle the achievements of others.

Leaving aside the fact that pulling off a hoax on that scale would have been about a thousand times more difficult than actually going to the moon, not to mention a great deal more expensive, there is also the little matter of radar. The apollo spacecraft were tracked all the way from launch to touch down on the surface by every country in the world with the technological capability to do so. This included both the USSR and China. As this all happened at the height of the cold war I think they might have mentioned it if they couldn't pick up the spacecraft on their radar.

Dave P.

[stirling]

Hi Birchy,i think there were to many people involved for it to be a hoax,someone would have let it out before now.

Best from mike.

[Naz]

I think it's disgusting that these Space agencies around the World can spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds/dollars/rubles sending disfunctional robots to the ends of the solar system when the money could be better spent rectifying the problems here on Earth.

Ignoring of course the money spent on floating our various satellites ... after all, none of us could live without the Discovery Channel, could we?


... Sorry to distract from your original question, but yes, I do think we were stupid enough to send someone to the moon.

[sometimes]

Originally Posted by Naz Nomad

.......the money could be better spent rectifying the problems here on Earth.

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.

[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 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.

[Naz]

Originally Posted by pressld2

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.

Thanks ... I've been in places where an opinion is frowned upon, so this is very new to me


I did see a good advert for Epson (I think) printers once, that emphasised how clear their prints were ... it showed a moon-landing, and on the backdrop was a 13 amp socket ... I laughed, anyway :-)

[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.

[Dan Salter]

Originally Posted by 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.

This kind of "ghosting" is in keeping with the camera technology of the era...tv shows did much the same thing ..particularly when filming movement ..plus the contrast with black white/ bright images was all over the shot.

[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.

[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.

[carlos_dfc]

Hi
Yes we did REALLY go to the Moon.
A few things:

For a start-off, the main reason for USA to go to the Moon in '69 was to get one over on the Russians. the russians obviously didn't want this, so they were tracking what was happening VERY carefully. If they didn't go, the Russians would have known, and they'd have been screaming about it.

These 'cospiracy-theorist' followers put forward several reasons why they say the footage was faked - but the problem is that many of the things they pick on actually SUPPORT the footage being genuine.
The Moon-Hoax theorists put forward reasons why the footage is fake, but they do it in such a way as to mis-inform the layman, who doesn't really understand the mechanics behind a low-gravity, no atmosphere, environment.
They say that - for instance - the flag waved in a breeze, and quite rightly that there wouldn't be a breeze on the Moon.
BUT - if you watch that footage carefully, the flag has a bar at the top (to hold it up) - and when that bar moves, it sets up a 'wave' down the flag.
This is a PROPER wave - similar in concept to a radio wave, or light wave - except that the movement is passing through the medium of fabric.
When a flag moves in the wind - It is not a wave - calling it a wave is actually not a good description - a flag moving in the wind is a 'flutter'.
The movement of the flag on the Moon was a proper 'wave'
For a good de-bunking of the Hoax-theorist's statements, look here:
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Introduction to Bad Astronomy
And for more in-depth de-bunking, that site also offers links to more technical articles.

One more - Mirrors
No - it wasn't done with mirrors
There are mirrors on the Moon - that were installed by astronauts.
These mirrors are mainly used for bouncing lasers off, to measure the distance of the Moon, VERY accurately.
Many people have seen this done because they do it at public outreach events sometimes.
The thing is that in 1969, the total computung power of the whole lunar lander, was roughly equivalent to a ZX spectrum computer from the 80s
To land a craft softly, then install mirrors, and align them accurately enough to bounce lasers off it - HAD to be done by a human - In 1969 it was impossible to make a robot capable of such a thing.

Buzz Aldrin - aged 81 at the time, actually chinned a 37yr-old Hoax theorist when he approached him angrily, calling him a Liar and a Coward

[bloozeboy]

Originally Posted by carlos_dfc

Buzz Aldrin - aged 81 at the time, actually chinned a 37yr-old Hoax theorist when he approached him angrily, calling him a Liar and a Coward

Way to go Buzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Naz Nomad

I think it's disgusting that these Space agencies around the World can spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds/dollars/rubles sending disfunctional robots to the ends of the solar system when the money could be better spent rectifying the problems here on Earth.

An interesting viewpoint, but consider...

American spending on space research 2007 : $16.8 billion
American spending on the military 2007 : $339.5 billion

So if I were looking for places to stop wasting money NASA wouldn't be my first target.

And although it's been said so many times it's starting to sound cliched, space exploration has brought massive benefits to the entire planet. You can see a few of them listed at Ethical Atheist - Benefits of the Space Program. One that should be of particular interest to this forum is:

"10. Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring quality of our oceans and fresh water."

The Discovery Channel makes the list at 47

Dave P.

[Dan Salter]

The hoax theory thing seems to go round in Waves...(another kind of wave ....or should it be circles?) ...anyway what seems to happen is the younger generation or just people finding out the theory...maybe from a book they see in an old book shop or just word of mouth...then spend a couple of years telling people its a hoax...or just believeing it and bringing it up from time to time...i was also one of these and fully believed in the hoax theory mainly because i dont like Yanks...
But it takes most people a good year or so of "believing the hoax" before they then find out there have been several excellent debunking documentaries that explain away all the hoax theories as carlos just explained below...the main clincher for me was the laser mirrors.
So im ashamed and sad to say ...yes...they really did go to the moon...id rather they had put the money into exploring the deepests depths of our oceans though

[epops]

Buzz Aldrin - aged 81 at the time, actually chinned a 37yr-old Hoax theorist when he approached him angrily, calling him a Liar and a Coward perhaps the truth hurt also why would anyone want to go to the moon we've done enough damage to this planet without starting on others

[stripee]

Aren't the US planning another trip there? Or was it Russia? I remember something about setting up a quarry there and transporting moon rock back to earth..this was a while ago so can't remember exactly

[Birchy]

Originally Posted by stripee

Aren't the US planning another trip there? Or was it Russia? I remember something about setting up a quarry there and transporting moon rock back to earth..this was a while ago so can't remember exactly

I think I recall that the US are planning another trip, correct me if am wrong but I thought that China was next to have a go.

[Adam Cheeseman]

I'm sure someone can explain this one to me, but if Neil Armstrong was the first person to set foot on the moon, how was it possible for him to be filmed climbing down the outside of the capsule from what seemed to be a distance away from the capsule itself. It certainly wasn't far enough, and too steady, to be filmed by the third astronaut in orbit.

Cheers,

Adam