Moonlanding

cheater

The moonlanding conspiracy theory, anyone have any opinions?

meglome

What's your opinion?

For me I don't think there's any great conspiracy here. If you're asking me might NASA have touched up or enhanced the photo's or videos in places then I think that's plausible, simply to make them look better. But I've yet to have anyone explain the dust falling in the videos, which can only happen in a vacuum.

oscarBravo

I can't remember where I saw it, but I've seen a pretty detailed explanation of why it would have cost more to fake the landings convincingly than to actually carry them out.

cheater

I've always been fairly fond of this conspiracy theory, it seems the most plausible out of a number of conspiracy theories, to actually have the element of truth behind it. Just as there has been no answers to the dust falling there also hasn't been any answers to the best of my knowledge to a number of questions suggesting, it was infact staged by the americans..

I'm not saying whole heartedly that I am 100% certain that it was a hoax by the americans but the reasons which lead me to believe it could be would be:

1.The Americans wanting to be the superior super power in the world and out do the Russians by claiming they landed on the moon

2.The Russians abolishing plans to send a shuttle into space citing, the danger/cost etc. of the proposed journey. If the Americans had already completed a succesful voyage would that not have eased some of the Russians worries?

And then after that there are the various questions regarding.. The flag blowing, a number of astronauts mysteriously dying in the weeks leading up to the launch, photographs with astronauts and space buggys supposedly being superimposed onto the moons landscape, which incidentally appears to be identical in a number of photographs etc. etc.

As I said before I'm not saying I am of the belief that it was a conspiracy just looking for peoples opinions and input on it, feel free to agree or disagree.

Skeptic_Desu

cheater wrote: »

1.The Americans wanting to be the superior super power in the world and out do the Russians by claiming they landed on the moon

2.The Russians abolishing plans to send a shuttle into space citing, the danger/cost etc. of the proposed journey. If the Americans had already completed a succesful voyage would that not have eased some of the Russians worries?

So how come the Russians never cried foul?
Surely if they wanted they would show how the moon landing was faked years ago.
And what exactly stopped them from trying it themselves?

cheater wrote: »

And then after that there are the various questions regarding.. The flag blowing, a number of astronauts mysteriously dying in the weeks leading up to the launch, photographs with astronauts and space buggys supposedly being superimposed onto the moons landscape, which incidentally appears to be identical in a number of photographs etc. etc.

These are really common accusations from haox believers and have been answer many many times, just no one seem to bother to look.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html


Lucky the Mythbusters are here to debunk such nonsense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JbaM1xNIis

cheater

Very good! Being honest I remember seeing that show referred to in one of the links posted and I was bored at work and decided to see what people thought of it, like all conspiracy theories that website seems to have quashed all possibility of it being a hoax.

Are there any conspiracy theories that you feel might have some substance behind them?

Skeptic_Desu

cheater wrote: »

Are there any conspiracy theories that you feel might have some substance behind them?

Ha ha...... loaded question!

If you are talking about the usual conspiracy theories like the moon landing 9/11 JFK holocaust denial and stuff, usually the arguments are so glaringly obviously bad even if I'm not too familiar with the evidence for or against.

But I'm sure there are more subtle conspiracies we just don't hear about. Mainly cause they don't involve big important stuff like 9/11 or JFK.

Flamed Diving

I reckon an element of truth lies within every CT. Unfortunately this is buried under a mountain of paranoid lunacy.

oscarBravo

What's the element of truth in the moonlanding conspiracy? (Or the flat-earth conspiracy, for that matter?)

Flamed Diving

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the element of truth in the moonlanding conspiracy?

Well as someone said above, some of the genuine videos/pictures may have been doctored to make them more... realistic? People may view this as 'evidence' for their CT. See what I mean?

oscarBravo wrote: »

(Or the flat-earth conspiracy, for that matter?)

Thats not a conspiracy, thats just religious superstition gone nuts.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't remember where I saw it, but I've seen a pretty detailed explanation of why it would have cost more to fake the landings convincingly than to actually carry them out.

Yeah.. that's really helpful.

Anyway, if the moon landings were actually carried out, they were an almost suicidal mission. I'm also skeptical that the moon lander could have worked due to the thin aluminium foil skin and the Van Allen radiation belt should have killed all the astronauts. The space suits had zippers too... which shouldn't work too well on the moon. Starfish prime (the detonation of a nuclear weapon in orbit in 1962 probably didn't help radiation levels up there either....

I think I probably fall further on the side of 'it didn't happen', since I don't think it would have succeeded first time around in 1966. (EDIT: 1969!)

Kernel

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

So how come the Russians never cried foul?
Surely if they wanted they would show how the moon landing was faked years ago.
And what exactly stopped them from trying it themselves?

They carried out a study and concluded that it was much too dangerous. The Van Allen radiation belt being one major obstacle. The soyuz rocket would have had to carry a spacecraft lined with lead, and would have been too heavy a payload. Then there's the problem of trying to get the cosmonauts back.... As to why they never cried foul, I have no idea.

Flamed Diving

Kernel wrote: »

As to why they never cried foul, I have no idea.

This is fairly vital to the CT cause, wouldn't you think?

Kernel

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is fairly vital to the CT cause, wouldn't you think?

Not necessarily. Perhaps they also believed the television coverage back in 69. I doubt the Soviets were experts in making movies.

Duff

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Already posted this in a thread in Paranormal but just incase anyone missed it or wants a read..

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Not necessarily. Perhaps they also believed the television coverage back in 69.

You don't think the Soviets didn't had the means and technology to follow the source of the transmission signal, and not just pick it off CBS? Jesus.

Weirdly yes the Soviet Space Mission were one among many of the independent observers around the world who tracked the Apollo Missions.

In order for this conspiracy theory to work, every radio telescope in the World has to be in on it. Including the ones in Soviet hands. Radar tracked the module on it's journey and return.

Indeed amateurs even took images of the Apollo missions.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Oh hell as the above link shows a pilot on a Pam Am flight routing towards Australia maneuvered his plane to give his passengers a view of the injection burns.

Suggesting that the only evidence of the Moon Landings is what NASA presents, displays a profound ignorance of this subject matter.

I doubt the Soviets were experts in making movies.

Never heard of Sergei Einstein? Andrei Tarkovsky? Nikita Mikhalkov?

Honestly...

Mahatma coat

I remember reading something a few years ago about this,

after operation Paperclip the americans asked Von Braun how long it would take to put someone on the moon, Von Braun responded 'well I'm busy this weekend how does tuesday sound'

the americans were overjoyed at this , until Von Braun pointed out that it would be a one way trip.

so I do not doubt that men have walked about on the moon, whether the videos etc presented by NASA are genuinely what happened tho is something that has generated a lot of debate over the years, these I'm not so sure of, its not implausible to think that they did have something set up just in case the mission failed so that they could save face

THEHEDGEHOG

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't remember where I saw it, but I've seen a pretty detailed explanation of why it would have cost more to fake the landings convincingly than to actually carry them out.

I don't think cost would matter, if something cannot be done, it cannot be done.

So we had, what was it 5 perfect moon landings and returns in the late 1960's. And yet no one has ever gone into space since, why?

Diogenes

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

I don't think cost would matter, if something cannot be done, it cannot be done.

Why couldn't it be done?

Imagine the costs of creating the visual effects shots, faking Zero G in the LEM, transmitting the signal from space, and the thousands of people watching, and observing from earth.

You think thats more plausible?

So we had, what was it 5 perfect moon landings and returns in the late 1960's. And yet no one has ever gone into space since, why?

Astronauts go into space regularly.

You mean "why aren't we going back to the moon"? The cost of the moonlandings far exceeded the return in scientific information. The propaganda victory over the Soviets had been won with the Apollo missions.

At the same time the economic slump in the US in the early 70s, made the Moon missions not economical viable, and impractical.

NASA then concentrated it's resources on the space shuttle, a better and more practical orbital space craft that can be reused, it starts to go into use in the late 70s/ early 80s. This allows NASA to combine serious and important scientific research, like building the International Space Station, and the Hubble Telescope (which a incredibly strong case can be made for Hubble as the most important scientific instrument ever created). Alongside work which has important economic and military value, allowing NASA to justify it's operational budget.

But as it happens NASA have announced plans for a new Moon mission. In fact they've gone as far as testing the new booster rocket Orion, which will take astronauts to the moon in 2014, and a colonization of the moon by 2024, part of a long term ambition of a Mars Mission.

Mahatma Coat wrote:

its not implausible to think that they did have something set up just in case the mission failed so that they could save face

Mahatma repeat after me; "Capricorn One was not a documentary." "Capricorn One was not a documentary."
"Capricorn One was not a documentary."

cheater

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

Also as THEHEDGEHOG said above, why hasn't there been anymore moonlandings since?

EDIT: Answer to THEHEDHOGS question above

THEHEDGEHOG

Diogenes wrote: »

Mahatma repeat after me; "Capricorn One was not a documentary." "Capricorn One was not a documentary."
"Capricorn One was not a documentary."

High occult tradation, revelation of the method.


And another thing, has anyone her actually looked into the origins of NASA. They were set up as a "military of space". Look into this for yourself, and the have not failed on this front. As the plebs were watching all the "good guy" pieces, they were arming space with weapons and surveillance equiptment. Great scam.

Tar.Aldarion

Recently they staged finding water on mars, muthafukas.
I mean why would they fake it, they had the technology to do it?

Diogenes

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

High occult tradation, revelation of the method.

What? Seriously? What?

And another thing, has anyone her actually looked into the origins of NASA. They were set up as a "military of space".

Then I'm sure you'll be able to present this evidence, rather than demand I wander across the internet trying to prove your own spurious claims.

Look into this for yourself, and the have not failed on this front. As the plebs were watching all the "good guy" pieces, they were arming space with weapons and surveillance equiptment. Great scam.

What weapons have NASA put into space?

Yes as I mentioned NASA is charged with the updating and launching the US military and intelligence communities Spy Satellites. They do this alongside commercial and scientific work.

What alternative do you suggest? That the US military set up there own, completely separate, space program, at great expense, rather than make use of NASA?

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

I'm also skeptical that the moon lander could have worked due to the thin aluminium foil skin and the Van Allen radiation belt should have killed all the astronauts.

Basically, this is just an appeal to incredulity, unless you can explain (a) exactly how much radiation there is in the Van Allen belt, (b) exactly how much radiation the astronauts could be exposed to without significant physiological harm, and (c) exactly how much or little the external skin of the spacecraft would have attenuated the radiation.

I think I probably fall further on the side of 'it didn't happen', since I don't think it would have succeeded first time around in 1966. (EDIT: 1969!)

Question for those of you who believe it was faked: do you really think the Russians didn't have the technology to DF the Apollo radio transmissions, and use Doppler techniques to measure the speed of the transmission source?

oscarBravo

cheater wrote: »

Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age?

Pretty difficult to image something a couple of metres across from a distance of nearly 400,000km. Besides, even if such images were produced, what's to stop CTers from calling them fakes?

THEHEDGEHOG

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretty difficult to image something a couple of metres across from a distance of nearly 400,000km. Besides, even if such images were produced, what's to stop CTers from calling them fakes?

Mate,

If I were to collect a list of official government stances on all topics and then place oscars opinions beside such a list, would I find any differences??????

Flamed Diving

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

Mate,

If I were to collect a list of official government stances on all topics and then place oscars opinions beside such a list, would I find any differences??????

Rattled to within an inch of his life.

oscarBravo

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

If I were to collect a list of official government stances on all topics and then place oscars opinions beside such a list, would I find any differences??????

Stellar contribution as always, casey.

/in before siteban

THEHEDGEHOG

oscarBravo wrote: »

Stellar contribution as always, casey.

/in before siteban

I heard a good one the other day. Someone described me as "non communitarian" based on the fact that I don't flow with the rabble. She seemed to take exception at my jumping the turnstile at the dart station.

I replied " I am not all in this togeather" at which point she threatened to call the boys in blue.

SkepticOne

cheater wrote: »

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

There would also be the large landing stage of the lunar module left behind. One thing left behind was reflectors that bounce laser beams back in the direction they come from. These have been used to determine the distance between the earth and the moon to a high degree of accuracy. I suppose it is possible (though far-fetched) that a secret unmanned mission could have planted them in the position the manned missions were supposed to have been.

I think the best argument against the conspiracy theorists is the russian tracking problem already mentioned on this thread. What is their answer to that?

@lantis

cheater wrote: »

Are there any conspiracy theories that you feel might have some substance behind them?

For people who enjoys good conspiracy theories, I recommend that you watch http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com a 2 hour long "documentary" (in lack of better words) that at least will get your mind going...