conspiracy theory -did we land on moon

[StringJunky]

The sceptisism amongst some members of the general public towards the authenticity of the moonlanding is indicative of their general scientific illiteracy and unwillingness (for whatever reason) to corroborate the facts.

 

I think some of these people probably have a paranoid complex that the U.S. government had a hidden agenda at that time e.g, they invented some good news ( the moonlanding) to obscure or hide some bad news (The US bombed Cambodia for fourteen months without the knowledge of Congress or the American public, in 1969, for example) to such an extent that they can't accept what they see before their eyes, whatever the evidence.

[iNow]

Count me in. Almost. I have a slightly more aggressive idea: Anyone who posts a "we didn't go to the moon" type message gets banned immediately.

 

See! Aha!!! Proof that you are lying and are forced to censor dissent. If we really did land on the moon, you'd be able to show evidence, and you Can't! All you can do is ban people who are seeking the truth.

[D H]

I am hopeful that your tongue is firmly implanted in your cheek. We don't accept posts 911 wackiness, period, and posts claiming evolution to be false are closed rather quickly.

 

The fact is there is no arguing with kooks who believe the moon landing never happened or that 911 was a government conspiracy. They are immune to logic and evidence.

[John Cuthber]

See! Aha!!! Proof that you are lying and are forced to censor dissent. If we really did land on the moon, you'd be able to show evidence, and you Can't! All you can do is ban people who are seeking the truth.

 

You raise a valid point; people will say that.

 

But only once.

[dichotomy]

Originally Posted by dichotomy

Or am I wrong here?

 

You are wrong. We went to the Moon. To quote Bascule,

Originally Posted by bascule

Yes, we landed on the f*cking moon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking tard. Good day.

=============

 

Originally Posted by John Cuthber

I have an idea.

we set up a new rule.

Anyone can post a "we didn't go to the moon" type message provided that they supply evidence for it as proof.

If, however, they post a "proof" that has been discredited before they get permanantly banned from the site.

 

Count me in. Almost. I have a slightly more aggressive idea: Anyone who posts a "we didn't go to the moon" type message gets banned immediately.

 

Hmm, okay, no need to devolve and get all reptilian here DH. I thought science was about inquiry, proof and logic, the scientific method, etc, and not the hostile immature emotions of a god fearing 15 year old. And after all, this is the speculations thread . I could just as immaturely state that, "we have no f*cking proof of walking on the moon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking tard. Good day". But I find it ineffectual in getting solid evidence. And I could go to other science forums that engage in exactly that kind of consistently pissy response to questions if I was so pointlessly inclined.

 

So I take it, from your response and references, that a radio signal coming from the moon is enough to prove to the Russians that men can indeed 'walk' on the moon? Although in the reference you generously supply I see nothing that actually states this as fact. What it proves to me is that the Russians where tracking radio communications coming from the direction of the moon, that astronauts where in space at the time, and that a space craft accomplished flight around and landing on the moon. This puts me at about a 90 percent level of accepting astronauts actually walking on the moon and driving about in a moon rover.

 

To quote -

"to develop the special control radio-technical complex, with the aid of which it would be possible to assume signals from the American spacecraft of the program "of Apollo", which accomplished flight around the moon and landing on its surface." No statement of men walking on the moons surface.

 

None the less, I do appreciate the Russian scientific references you supplied and hope that you, or someone else, can come across one that shows the Russians accepting the fact of an actual homosapien walking on the moons surface.

 

Cheers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, we did broadcast television signals back from the Moon live. They could have listened for that. I don't know if the link D H gave says they did; Google translations are annoyingly difficult to read.

[dichotomy]

See! Aha!!! Proof that you are lying and are forced to censor dissent. If we really did land on the moon, you'd be able to show evidence, and you Can't! All you can do is ban people who are seeking the truth.

 

If it wasn't so close to the truth I'd laugh! This is SFN and not North Korea is it not?

[rockman]

This is all funny as hell!!!

 

I have a buddy who is dead set that we did not land on the moon.

 

Same buddy says there is an alien base on the backside of the moon! LoL!! The aliens were there when the astronauts were...

 

...oops!!! LoL!!

[dichotomy]

Well, we did broadcast television signals back from the Moon live. They could have listened for that. I don't know if the link D H gave says they did; Google translations are annoyingly difficult to read.

 

Well, at least DH gave me something (scientific references) as opposed to the nothing I got thus far from aussie science forums. The best that was provided was western newspaper reports of the time. Hardly scientific method stuff I'm affraid.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is all funny as hell!!!

 

I have a buddy who is dead set that we did not land on the moon.

 

Same buddy says there is an alien base on the backside of the moon! LoL!! The aliens were there when the astronauts were...

 

...oops!!! LoL!!

 

 

This is all funny as hell!!!

 

I have a buddy who believes every single detail of what governments and the commercial sector say.

 

Same buddy says that Vietnam is a good war and that thalidomide is a wonder drug.

 

...oops!!! LoL!!

 

 

 

see how juvenile it is?

Edited August 10, 2009 by dichotomy
Consecutive posts merged.

[GutZ]

dichotomy,

 

I don't know if you notice...but you are full of shit lol, and I think you know it.

 

You are picking apart unreasonable SINGLE examples of proof and making it seem as if it discredits the moon landing as a whole or at least places it in an unknowable "for sure 100%" category...FINE. Then after people get frustrated at other peoples inability to take scientific, logical, and rational approach, REPEATEDLY using the same method, you condemn them but not the other people?

 

If you want to look at assumption why do you dismay that if there is indeed a suggestive nature to the technology used than, why the Russians would just let it go? How much money and effort did they spend in the space race? Why would they based on inconclusive evidence just accept that USA beat them.

 

how do you account for that line of logic, because what you are suggesting is that at best is that a shuttle made it to the moon. What evidence do you have that there were no people on that flight?

 

You are clearly not in anyway taking the proper road scientifically. you can question all you want but you are not taking the path you think you are taking.

 

I don't see how 99% chance of something being correct is in anyway worse than the 1% if you accept that you can never be 100% certain of anything. It's ridiculous and I am certain if you allow yourself to be unbiased you would see it as well, but I think you get more entertainment this way.

 

I suggest everyone just stop replying to this non sense.

 

(after me of course )

Edited August 10, 2009 by GutZ

[rockman]

What was I thinking???

 

Those chemtrails are starting to take effect.......

 

I can feel it now....

 

Of course we never went to the moon!!!!!

Vietnam was an evil war where we went and killed people!!! Horrible!!

All man made drugs will kill you!!!....Dead!!!

The Bush Administration was evil!!! And caused 9-11!!!!!!

But Obama is good and will save us all!!!!

 

Yea Baby..it's all clear now!!!

 

I see the light!!!!!!

 

I see the light of the moon!!!!!

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

 

If it was provable that we did not go to the moon it would be worldwide headlines.

 

Unless of course, you believe the U.S. Government controls everything in the world

[dichotomy]

dichotomy,

 

I don't know if you notice...but you are full of shit lol, and I think you know it.

 

 

You are picking apart unreasonable SINGLE examples of proof and making it seem as if it discredits the moon landing as a whole or at least places it in an unknowable "for sure 100%" category...FINE. Then after people get frustrated at other peoples inability to take scientific, logical, and rational approach, REPEATEDLY using the same method, you condemn them but not the other people?

 

Like I stated, I stand at 90% convinced of a moon walk, which I think is pretty damn reasonable considering I'm Joe Average from the suburbs that doesn't have close contacts in any of the superpowers political and military hierachies. Although I'm 100% sure that Micheal Jackson has done it.

 

 

If you want to look at assumption why do you dismay that if there is indeed a suggestive nature to the technology used than, why the Russians would just let it go? How much money and effort did they spend in the space race? Why would they based on inconclusive evidence just accept that USA beat them.

 

Russian state TV news recently gave a lot of attention to a hoax manned Apollo 11 Moon landing. I can provide a link to the limited story if you wish.

All I'm asking for are Russian, and or Chinese scientific references stating that an astronaut can walk on the moon, which would crystalize it as a 100% scientific fact in my mind anyway. Is this too much to ask? Honestly, I thought it would be slightly easier than NASA demonstrating it as a fact by actually doing it again today? All I'm attempting is to build evidence in support of a moon walk, just as the 'scientific method' recommends. Why is this such a touchy subject? If I lived in a remote community that never saw an aircraft, I'd be asking for credible scientific references outside of my community to establish aircraft as a 100% scientific fact, even though I've never seen one.

 

 

What evidence do you have that there were no people on that flight?

None,that's where independant superpowers step in, because they have the resources and I simply don't. Look I'll make it real simple, all superpowers agree that pluto, manned space stations and space probes exist, therefore I do. Do you see the logic? All superpowers agree that these are facts. If I was a russky, I'd be seeking a U.S. reference for Russian scientific claims that are difficult to prove/replicate. Come on, I'm 90% convinced that a hoax busting reference exists, don't make it 20%.

 

You are clearly not in anyway taking the proper road scientifically. you can question all you want but you are not taking the path you think you are taking.

 

You must have ESP.

 

I don't see how 99% chance of something being correct is in anyway worse than the 1% if you accept that you can never be 100% certain of anything.

 

You are obviously not into probability.

 

I suggest everyone just stop replying to this non sense.

 

(after me of course )

 

Hello! this is the S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S thread. I suggest someone attempt to find a russian reference to shoot this bullshit down in flames. Honestly, it's beginning to seem like asking a religious nut for a credible reference to prove a deitie's existance. It just shouldn't be that big a deal.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If it was provable that we did not go to the moon it would be worldwide headlines.

 

I'm not asking for proof against a moon walk, I'm asking for what I see as damned solid proof for a moon walk, by the supply of a simple scientific reference from the independant superpowers. Knock, knock, knock. Hello! anyone home.

 

Keep looking under your bed for a red, stay in fear, stay in fear, buy, buy consume, consume. (see I can stoop to my more primitive brain regions too ).

[padren]

Lets just examine the claim of "it could have been faked" which, is a claim put forward to reconcile the claim "we did not land on the moon" with all the ticker tape parades and media coverage of us landing on the moon.

 

1) That is a horrendous undertaking, with a huge portion of the GNP going straight into the efforts. Money wasn't dropped off in dump trucks at NASA, it was all spent on stuff to go to the moon, made my people all over the country - stuff that would be useless to anyone not going to the moon. Why fake a moon landing when it doesn't make you any money, just gets you a bunch of stuff you could use to go to the moon?

2) This is at a time when the USSR had a pretty decent spying program going on over here. The cold war wasn't exactly friendly and winning the ideological race to the moon was worth a heck of a lot when it came to winning minds - enough to spend the kind of money it takes to go to the moon. They didn't get a lot of information out of us they would have liked to during the Apollo program, but considering their aptitude and the sheer scale of conspiracy required to fake something like that you really are asking for a huge leap of faith.

 

 

In other words: pulling off not landing on the moon would require huge amounts of work and tons of luck at a time when the whole world is watching you land on the freak'n moon. Some parts of that world spying on you and hating you vehemently.

 

Consider the magnitude of effort required to pull off the hoax, and remember that for a moment.

 

Now consider how hard it is to actually go to the moon:

 

Seems really difficult, but according to our understanding of the laws of physics, you can do it with say, a Saturn V rocket. According to our understanding of these great scientific laws, you can protect yourself from the radiation levels we detect out there with... say the shielding in the lunar module. You can get back off the moon again with the thrust of say, the assent module.

 

In fact, you can study rocket science at many Universities and actually confirm all this data. It's out there - mass, fuel, distances, gravity, thrust, radiation levels - and if science says it would take everything in the Apollo program to go to the moon, and we are having all these people around the world build all the things needed for the Apollo program... why the heck wouldn't we just go to the moon?

 

Not to mention - if they didn't go to the moon, and had to make up information they claimed to observe, do you really think no one would have noticed for 40 years that the numbers didn't add up?

 

Satellites wouldn't work if the radiation was way higher than we said it was. We have a lot of satellites in really high orbits and even all the way out to the other planets. We have civilian satellites in geosynchronous orbit - if we faked radiation level data to make it seem like our astronauts wouldn't fry, those satellites would have been built to withstand much lower levels than are out there and they would have fried. People with money would be looking for answers. But, the satellites work, because the data we came up with forty years ago is still sound. You try faking something that good, and having physics agree with you forty years later.

 

And like I said before - if we did have all the numbers right, then it really isn't that hard to go to the moon! Not with all the stuff we built, and according to the math, we needed exactly what we built. That was why we built it in the first place. Schools teach the math that says this works, and lots of other things wouldn't work if that math didn't work.

 

 

So - you can say you aren't convinced we went to the moon and wonder why we wouldn't challenge such a claim, and all I want to know is how you could think such a cumbersome 'fakery' theory is feasible, let alone more elegant, than the theory of us actually using the science we developed 40-50 yrs ago that still stands today and actually do it.

[StringJunky]

Dichotomy: I see your point about absolutely solid evidence, it's not possible unless you were actually there, but surely the subsequent moon missions confirm the authenticity of the first?

 

You can't honestly believe NASA faked it SIX times (Apollo !!, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17)?

 

It's a no brainer. that Apollo 11 happened.

 

I find it difficult to believe that anyone, these days. would want to dishonour these pioneering astronauts, and their team on the ground, by denying it ever happened.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anybody that tries to start a thread again on this subject in the future should have it shut down immediately by a moderator.

[Sisyphus]

dichotomy, I think a 10% doubt is very unreasonable, for reasons gone over in this thread.

 

However, I'll try to provide what you're asking for. I can't find online archives of Soviet or Chinese newspapers from 1969 (let alone English translations), but the very first Google result for "Soviet newspapers moon landing" is this interview with Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita) from Scientific American about Apollo 11, including how it was portrayed in the state-run media. It was not and has never been contested.

[StringJunky]

The Russians had an mission called Luna !5 going on at the same time, which landed 800km away from the Apollo mission.The American's when they found out about this, up until then secret Russian mission, they were very worried that the Luna spacecraft orbit would interfere with the Apollo mission . The Russians some hours later confirmed that their mission would not interfere with that of Apollo.

 

Here's an extract from an article I found:

 

Luna 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24

 

Automated lunar sample-return craft, three of which were successful. Luna 15 entered lunar orbit two days ahead of Apollo 11, and on the day Apollo 11 began circling the Moon lowered its own orbit to 9 by 203 km. At this point there was concern in the United States that the Russian probe would somehow interfere with the manned mission. However, assurances were quickly given by the Soviets that this would not be the case. On Jul. 20, just hours before Apollo 11's scheduled landing, Luna 15 carried out another maneuver to put it in a 16- by 110-km orbit. The next day, while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface, the little probe made its last retrorocket burn and began to descend to what was supposed to be a soft landing. Unfortunately, it made contact instead at 480 km/h in the Sea of Crises. Almost twenty years would pass before the Soviets officially admitted that Luna 15 was a failed sample-return attempt. Whether, if all had gone well, it could have beaten Apollo 11 is unclear. Even if its landing attempt had succeeded, it would not have returned to Earth until the day after Apollo 11 splashed down. On the other hand, Lunar 15 did spend one day longer in lunar orbit than was typical of later sample missions. If the probe had made it down in three days instead of four, or if Apollo 11 had failed to return samples, the Soviets might just have pulled off an outrageous coup.

 

The Russians were up there with the Americans.via their unmanned spacecraft..I don't think I've ever read anywhere that the Kremlin ever denied the NASA acheivement.

[insane_alien]

when you post an extract of an article you really should provide the source whether it is a link or the publication it was found in.

[Sisyphus]

I don't know if it would have been an "outrageous coup," really. They had already put probes on the moon. The big deal was the manned mission. If Luna 15 had succeeded before Apollo 11, it's only significant "first" would have been that it was the first mission to retrieve physical samples. A great achievement, but it would have still been completely overshadowed by the Americans actually walking around on the surface (despite being a much more efficient mission).

[StringJunky]

when you post an extract of an article you really should provide the source whether it is a link or the publication it was found in.

 

Sorry IA, here's the link:

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Luna.html

 

The point I was trying to make was that the Russians had a presence and awareness of what was going on, on the moon, at the same time as the Americans i.e it would have been extremely difficult for the US to make up their achievement when the Russians had their communication and monitoring systems concentrated on that area.

 

After all, this was a space race between the two countries and either side would have monitored the other to ensure fair play!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't know if it would have been an "outrageous coup," really. They had already put probes on the moon. The big deal was the manned mission. If Luna 15 had succeeded before Apollo 11, it's only significant "first" would have been that it was the first mission to retrieve physical samples. A great achievement, but it would have still been completely overshadowed by the Americans actually walking around on the surface (despite being a much more efficient mission).

 

America won in the end, but if they had failed in their mission the Russians would have won by bringing back the first moon samples. I think the loss of confidence that the US would have experienced in the propaganda war that was going on between them at that time (they were politically and militarily at a very heated stage in their relationship} would have been significant on the international stage.

[swansont]

What type of proof?

 

Neither had the capability to track the Apollo missions all the way to the moon, nor do I believe they currently have cameras in orbit around the moon to resolve the landers.

 

 

Yes, they do (to the latter) — just barely.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

 

 

Also, check this out

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23205/

 

The students analysed an mp3 recording of the conversation between Neil Armstrong on the surface and ground control in Houston in which he utters his famous "one small step" speech. The recording is available on the NASA website.

 

They noticed an echo on this recording in which sentences from Earth are retransmitted via Armstrong's helmet speaker through his microphone and back to Earth. They used the open source audio editing program Audacity to measure the echo's delay which turned out to be 2.620 secs and used this to work out the distance to the moon as 3.93 x 10^8 metres.

 

Faking that level of detail would be pretty impressive.

[StringJunky]

I found a wikipedia source that lists the third-party evidence that the Apollo moon missions

happened;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm not asking for proof against a moon walk, I'm asking for what I see as damned solid proof for a moon walk, by the supply of a simple scientific reference from the independant superpowers.

-Dichotomy

 

What you are asking is impossible...nobody else was physically up there except Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong. Not even the Russian Scientists could give you that definitive proof...the best they would have was the position of the American spacecraft and not the individual astronauts..

 

You'll have to live with you 90% certainty amd I'll be content with my 99.999999999999999999999999%

 

The only things that are 100% certain are death and taxes. :

[One of the Few]

This may have already been mentioned...the quality of the camera was so poor because it was the sixties, and as wee ALL know video recording was in its infancy, of course it was so crummy.

[Pangloss]

I've always thought that was one of the most impressive technical achievements of the moon landing -- just the simple fact that it was watched by the entire planet, live.

[dichotomy]

Yes, they do (to the latter) — just barely.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

 

Come on guys! You are science people, not god botherers. This supposed photographic proof in the year 2009 is totally laughable. If the Russians have sent multiple unmanned craft to take moon samples from 1969, if mars rovers are currently sending back data, then surely we could get some detailed high resolution image evidence today. From someone? I know the Japanese recently tried and failed with there probe.

 

 

It’s interesting; they point out astronaut’s footpath etc, but where are the lunar rovers and their tracks? They are my personal favourites. Besides, they would have been quite an added weight to the spaceflight. Very risky I would have thought, considering you have mens lives in your hands.

 

 

Also, check this out

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23205/

 

Faking that level of detail would be pretty impressive.

 

In theory, faking a correct echo would be easy if you sent an unmanned craft to the moon to video broadcast the whole moon landing/walk thing. Even easier, if the echo effect was pre-recorded in a studio and broadcast from a space probe/satillite. Granted the echo would be impressive detail if faked, but not beyond intelligent chess playing men.

 

Anyway, this is taking up far too much of everyone’s time. I’ll now be content to patiently wait for the scientific reference (not non- peer reviewed tabloid newspapers) I’ve asked for. Even though the Russian scientists where not up there to see it first hand, I’d take their word for it (that it’s been done), when combined with Nasa’s and the Nixon administrations existing claims. Just remember, when a group of scientists are broken up into enough different specialized areas they all won’t know what the head/s (the administration) are doing. If I was a betting man I’d still say it (a manned moon expedition) was indeed done. But my small inner scientific man tells me, “with every speculation there is a risk”.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What you are asking is impossible

 

What!? the other superpowers independent scientific reference/s? Come on, it's not rocket science!

 

The only things that are 100% certain are death and taxes. :

 

You got that bit right brother! Oh, and change...

[insane_alien]

Come on guys! You are science people, not god botherers. This supposed photographic proof in the year 2009 is totally laughable. If the Russians have sent multiple unmanned craft to take moon samples from 1969, if mars rovers are currently sending back data, then surely we could get some detailed high resolution image evidence today. From someone? I know the Japanese recently tried and failed with there probe.

 

the lunar landers are relatively small and such high resolution cameras have never been deemed necessary to fulfill scientific missions hence none have ever been sent till now.

 

the satellite that took that photograph isn't in its final orbit yet. those pictures are from about 3 times further away than the design altitude.

 

It’s interesting; they point out astronaut’s footpath etc, but where are the lunar rovers and their tracks? They are my personal favourites.

 

Apollo 14 did not have a lunar rover.

 

Besides, they would have been quite an added weight to the spaceflight. Very risky I would have thought, considering you have mens lives in your hands.

 

it was well within design specifications. also, it wasn't that heavy. on the lunar surface a human could lift it up(fair enough, the dimensions would make it awkward and difficult to get off the ground but it wasn't weight that was the problem.