Did man fly to the moon??

[Skyryder]

Has anyone watched the History Channel on this. Saw it the other night. Sorta thought that these guys had a case. The photo that got me was the suns shadows in two different directions and when they superimposed two photos that were taken in two different locations on the moon, they matched perfectly. Then just after this they did a programme on going to the moon and one of the flight controlers remarked that they could not tell the difference between a simulated flight and the real thing.

Skyryder

[merv]

Yeah documentaries on this have been around a while and knowing the Yanks anything is possible from the land that gave us Torque the movie.

[Deano]

Most of the arguments Ive seen for a fake landing I think have been adequately countered - remember a documentary is likely to be slanted in favour of the writer's viewpoint.

But I have one question - why, after 25 years since the first landing hasn't anyone gone back ? Surely technology would make it much easier nowadays.
Is there nothing more to learn from the moon ?

[Motoracer]

After seeing Zed's comment on the back problems thread, I was gunna mention this but I didn't wana hijack the thread.

It is questionable... According to the Russian scientists, they would have never even made it to the moon with out suffering from high levels of radiation... Other things were pretty legit as well...

If it was a fake, we'd be living in a sad sad world.

[Marknz]

If it was a fake, we'd be living in a sad sad world.

Then it's a sad sad world

[doc]

If the world can be lead to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction as a reason to risk another war.
Surely the movie "Capricorn One" could be believable, at least the yanks can make real motorcycles engines cos real engines have pushrods.

[k14]

I don't think that weather or not we have landed on the moon is the topic of these documentaries. What they bring into question is weather or not we first landed on the moon on the date that we actually did (I think it was 35 years ago today actually, apparantly).

I have seen one doco about it and it does have some valid points, but I don't really care if we did or not. Doesn't affect us does it?

[Deano]

Surely the movie "Capricorn One" could be believable, at least the yanks can make real motorcycles engines cos real engines have pushrods.

Whats that ? Real old engines........lol.

[El Dopa]

Most of the arguments Ive seen for a fake landing I think have been adequately countered - remember a documentary is likely to be slanted in favour of the writer's viewpoint.

But I have one question - why, after 25 years since the first landing hasn't anyone gone back ? Surely technology would make it much easier nowadays.
Is there nothing more to learn from the moon ?

Why would they want to go back? The only reason they went in the first place was to show that their 'apparatus' was bigger and better than the commies. Now there aren't any commies to kick around they make do with ay-rabs instead, who don't have a space programme. Watch and see what happens when the Chinese start getting a bit more organised, though.

Did they go to the moon? Well, its a bit odd how with all of these conspiracies no-one has been able to produce a conclusive smoking gun. It's difficult keeping people quiet, and to fake something on that scale is quite a big task. You would have thought that at least one disgruntled technician would have come forward by now to say 'yeah, I built the rocks, and those damn cheapskates never paid me, either'. It's very handy to blame it all on a cover-up 'oh, they won't come forward cos they've been paid off/intimidated'. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Skyryder]

Why would they want to go back? The only reason they went in the first place was to show that their 'apparatus' was bigger and better than the commies. Now there aren't any commies to kick around they make do with ay-rabs instead, who don't have a space programme. Watch and see what happens when the Chinese start getting a bit more organised, though.

Did they go to the moon? Well, its a bit odd how with all of these conspiracies no-one has been able to produce a conclusive smoking gun. It's difficult keeping people quiet, and to fake something on that scale is quite a big task. You would have thought that at least one disgruntled technician would have come forward by now to say 'yeah, I built the rocks, and those damn cheapskates never paid me, either'. It's very handy to blame it all on a cover-up 'oh, they won't come forward cos they've been paid off/intimidated'. Sorry, I don't buy it.

The documentary showed some photos of Area 51 with craters just like the moon. These craters were in one patch of the desert. I tend to agree that the Americans are not very good at keeping secrets but if they get out they are very good at ridiculing any other view. These guys that claim the landing was a hoax are not your everday nutter. They are experts within their field. For example they had this guy from Hasselblad, who stated that the astronoughts while wearing their spacesuits were unable to see the camera's viewfinder, yet the Astro's took perfectly framed photo's. As someone said where are the stars in the sky. Just made me think a bit more about this than in the past. Apparently the Japanese are going to launch a photo probe to the moon in the next two or three years. I wonder if they will find the flag that was left there.

Skyryder

[marty]

i don't reckon they went. try holding a 35mm camera 12 inches from your face and looking thru the viewfinder - it is impossible. i reckon the radiation one is the biggie - why doesn't the shuttle orbit the moon? surely there are valid research reasons to do so. also, in 2002 i went to the uk, and went to jodrel bank http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/, which is a huge radio telescope near manchester. the principle research scientist there was from cambridge nz, and we got talking to her about this subject, as the doco had just been on over there. she has control over the hubble telescope, and she is not allowed to point it at the moon, even though she could use it to take a pic of a footprint on the moon's surface, or maybe because she couldn't take a photo of a footprint on the surface....

as for apollo 13? my theory is that they tried to go past the radiation band with this machine, and failed terribly, and they then hid it behind a failed trip to the moon (which it was to some extent)

[MikeL]

C'mon, guys, what's with all this conspiracy paranoia? You just gotta have FAITH...

[Wenier]

there were alot of valid points to say it didnt happen, one being that the + that is on the camera lense so they no it was taken up there wit it was on the wrong side of the flag being behind it. Since it was ingraved to the lense it should be on top of everything now how did that happen if it wasnt jus added by computer.

[El Dopa]

The documentary showed some photos of Area 51 with craters just like the moon. These craters were in one patch of the desert. I tend to agree that the Americans are not very good at keeping secrets but if they get out they are very good at ridiculing any other view. These guys that claim the landing was a hoax are not your everday nutter. They are experts within their field. For example they had this guy from Hasselblad, who stated that the astronoughts while wearing their spacesuits were unable to see the camera's viewfinder, yet the Astro's took perfectly framed photo's. As someone said where are the stars in the sky. Just made me think a bit more about this than in the past. Apparently the Japanese are going to launch a photo probe to the moon in the next two or three years. I wonder if they will find the flag that was left there.

Skyryder

Weeell, the moon's a big place, so if the Japanese didn't find anything I wouldn't be surprised. Needles, haystacks and all that.

Yeah, there's a lot of questions that need answers: The radiation (van allen) belt, shadows, cameras etc etc. I read somewhere that NASA got so sick of people querying it, they released a specially compiled report rebuffing most of the questions raised, with reasons rather than ridicule. However, I can't be arsed with looking around for it on the interweb right at this moment. I've also heard that one of the astronauts (I think John Glenn?) has been known to take a swing at people who tell him to his face he didn't actually go there.

I tend to try and apply the Occam's razor principle to most conspiracy theories (the simplest and most straightforward answer is usually the right one, crudely). Most conspiracy theories tend to start from a result, and then work backwards to reach the conclusion the theorist wanted in the first place, no matter how elaborate or fanciful the reasoning needs to be to get there.

To me, it would be just as logical to say, for example, that they got through the radiation belt by using stolen alien technology that they keep in a hanger in Area 51, and they're still keeping it secret because it's so useful and beyond what we are able to create from scratch today. I don't believe that either, but it makes as much sense.

The reason the shuttle orbits the earth and doesn't go to the moon is because the moon is a HECK of a lot further away than a near-earth orbit is. Officially, space starts about 7 miles away from where you're sitting now. The moon is 384,400 km (mean distance, it varies), quite a bit further. The shuttle can do useful stuff orbiting the earth (repair satellites etc), but there's not much use/profit in going any further, which is why the technology hasn't been developed.

I just find it hard to believe they'd try to pull the hoax of the millenium, and then screw up such simple stuff. The programme makers have an agenda (shock value = controvosy = ratings), and it has nothing to do with getting to the truth. They will be at best disingenious and at worst downright dishonest in the way they portray the 'facts'. There are probably very simple answers to all the questions they raised, but it doesn't fit in with their agenda to actualy provide boring stuff like answers.

If that sounds too paranoid and conspiracy-like, try this one: I have yet to see science/physics portryed accurately with any consistency, whether in print media or on telly, by a REPORTER. Most of them don't have a science/engineering background, and will swallow any old bollocks as long as it's fed to them with a straight face. For evidence of that, you need look no further than 'Dr Cyborg' or whatever his name is, who was in the Herald a week or so back. The guy's 'facts' have been roundly discredited by everyone doing any serious research in the UK, but it didn't stop the Herald swallowing it bent bar, oil drum and steel hawser when he came over here.

[Kickaha]

They were in the middle of a space race with the Russians,I am sure the Russians would have monitored the American attempt very closely and if the Americans hadn't made it they would have had great delight in proving it to the world.