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 :bye:

[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.

[boris]

NO THEY DIDN'T.
But i just hate the yanks.

[moko]

Well, its a bit odd how with all of these conspiracies no-one has been able to produce a conclusive smoking gun.

Maybe not on the same scale but locally 900 American Troops were killed of of the Devon coast in a war-time series of disasters that included being killed by "friendly fire from both each other and the british navy during exercises with live ammo and being bush-whacked by german E-boats on another occaission.All of this was covered up until a local guy tried to buy a tank he found in just off the coast from the U.S. government.Hundreds of locals knew about it,thousands of troops took part in the exercise as well as several Royal naval vessels,Eisenhower was even an eye-witness to one of the friendly fire incidents.All got brought to light mainly by chance by this guy as it was covered-up at the time and he`s been able to tell families where their loved ones ended up.Now it`s out in the open there are memorials by the tank at slapton Sands in Devon but the question is how many times was that sort of thing repeated in other places?Thousands of people knew what happened and no-one blabbed for 40-odd years until it became obvious that the truth was going to come out anyway,the civilians were threatened with prison if they said a word.Why would they fake the Moon landing?Dont forget the "space race" of that era,massive propaganda coup plus it was partly a pissing contest between the U.S. and Russia,no doubt the underlying message also given the Cold War was "hey look where we can stick a missile base if we want to".Remember only recently T.V. pictures of U.S. Marines in action in Afghanistan which the Pentagon had to admit were faked on a film set,and the Sky T.V. reporter sacked for a report he totally fabricated from one of the Brit navy vessels at the start of the Iraq war?Millions of Brits,me included,saw that report and believed it,the truth only came out weeks afterwards.

[Oscar]

Every claim I've seen about the landing not happening is (so far) easily explanable. Two shadows? No problem: one is from direct sunlight, one is from the sunlight reflecting off the Earth. Moon crater mock-ups? Practice areas...






Please remember that we're talking about a Nation that can't keep secrets, people. Their President can't get a blowjob without the whole world knowing, a situation invovling two people. A conspiracy of this size would involve thousands of people - why don't we have any direct witnesses?

[vifferman]

Dont forget the "space race" of that era,massive propaganda coup plus it was partly a pissing contest between the U.S. and Russia..."Partly a pissing contest"? No, it was almost entirely a pissing contest.
The Murkns were more than a bit pissed off that the Soviets had so many 'firsts', and the race to become first on the Moon was such a big one that they were prepared to spend an enormous amount of money and resources to achieve it.

[Hitcher]

One point conspiracy theorists seem to overlook when promulgating theories about moon landings, area 51, Roswell, Kennedy assassinations, etc, is that the good ole US of A has a proven track record in being unable to keep anything big secret for very long. The "truth" always finds them out and embarrasses their leaders at the most inopportune moments.

Even if the moon landings were fake, their were thousands of people who were party to the lie. The logistics involved in keeping them all mum for 35 years beggars belief.

[Drunken Monkey]

Moko, I understand the "Sands of Devon" was the 'cover up' that was never a cover up.

Taken from: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER

To keep the Germans from possibly learning about the impending Normandy Invasion, casualty information on Exercise TIGER was not released until after the invasion. On August 5, 1944, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force released statistics on the casualties associated with the Normandy Invasion, which included information about the German E-Boat attack on April 28. This information was also published in the August 7 issue of The Stars and Stripes, the daily newspaper of the U. S. Armed Forces in the European Theater. The Textual Reference Branch, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, holds the originals of both these sources. Over the years, details on the training exercises and the resulting losses have appeared in such published sources as Samuel Eliot Morison's The Invasion of France and Germany, 1944-1945 (1957), volume XI of his 15-volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, and Roland Rupenthal's Logistical Support of the Armies (1953) and Gordon Harrison's Cross-Channel Attack, which are both part of the multi-volume series United States Army in World War


Thus, since August 1944, information about the training exercise also commonly called Operation TIGER has been available to the public. The naval records relating to Operation TIGER, which are declassified, were transferred to the Modern Military Records Branch, Naitonal Archives and Records Admiistration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Before transfer, the Operational Archives Branch had placed all the naval action reports from this exercise on microfilm reel, NRS-601. To order a duplicate film for the cost indicated on the fee schedule, please complete the duplication order form and send it with a check or money order made payable to the Department of the Navy, to the Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060.


Other Resources:
Greene, Ralph C. and Oliver E. Allen, "What Happened Off Devon," American Heritage 36, no. 2 (Feb./Mar 1985): 2635.

MacDonald, Charles B. "Slapton Sands: The 'Cover-Up' That Never Was," Army 38, no. 6 (Jun. 1988): 64-67.

[Oscar]

Moko, I understand the "Sands of Devon" was the 'cover up' that was never a cover up.

Taken from: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER

To keep the Germans from possibly learning about the impending Normandy Invasion, casualty information on Exercise TIGER was not released until after the invasion. On August 5, 1944, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force released statistics on the casualties associated with the Normandy Invasion, which included information about the German E-Boat attack on April 28. This information was also published in the August 7 issue of The Stars and Stripes, the daily newspaper of the U. S. Armed Forces in the European Theater. The Textual Reference Branch, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, holds the originals of both these sources. Over the years, details on the training exercises and the resulting losses have appeared in such published sources as Samuel Eliot Morison's The Invasion of France and Germany, 1944-1945 (1957), volume XI of his 15-volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, and Roland Rupenthal's Logistical Support of the Armies (1953) and Gordon Harrison's Cross-Channel Attack, which are both part of the multi-volume series United States Army in World War


Thus, since August 1944, information about the training exercise also commonly called Operation TIGER has been available to the public. The naval records relating to Operation TIGER, which are declassified, were transferred to the Modern Military Records Branch, Naitonal Archives and Records Admiistration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Before transfer, the Operational Archives Branch had placed all the naval action reports from this exercise on microfilm reel, NRS-601. To order a duplicate film for the cost indicated on the fee schedule, please complete the duplication order form and send it with a check or money order made payable to the Department of the Navy, to the Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, 805 Kidder Breese SE, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5060.


Other Resources:
Greene, Ralph C. and Oliver E. Allen, "What Happened Off Devon," American Heritage 36, no. 2 (Feb./Mar 1985): 2635.

MacDonald, Charles B. "Slapton Sands: The 'Cover-Up' That Never Was," Army 38, no. 6 (Jun. 1988): 64-67.

The reason it was suppressed was it's proximity to D-Day.
Any release of information would have raised questions about what they were training for. Additionally, suppression of bad info. in wartime was not uncommon, the full story of many Allied set-backs and defeats were down-played and censored at the time.

[greenhorn]

I saw Elvis at Pak n Save yesterday

[Motu]

I saw Elvis at Pak n Save yesterday

I was just picking up some peanut butter and bannas...oh,and some olive oil,got to look after the old weight y'now,no more goose grease for me.

[pete376403]

i don't reckon they went. try holding a 35mm camera 12 inches from your face and looking thru the viewfinder - it is impossible.

Hasselblad is not a 35mm, its a medium (645) format camera. They come with all manner of interchangeable viewfinders, and that doesn't take into account Hasselblad may have built some special items just for the lunar expedition

[greenhorn]

OK i have to come clean, my conscience is bothering me...
I did not see Elvis i made it up.

Seriously though, i reckon everyone should watch a "documentary" that was done a few years back hosted by Patrick Duffy. It was all about Elvis still being alive. They basically built a whole hour around a miniscule portion of dubious "evidence" and a fried banana and peanut butter sized dose of conjecture.
I watched it more out of amazement that they could actually do it and at the end of it have people convinced that Elvis was still alive.
Now if they can do that with a subject like Elvis is still alive! i can imagine the proffesional job they can do on a subject of did we go to the moon. I guess my point is never ever ever form an opinion solely on a tv "documentary".

Elvis was great, i reckon Buddy Holly could have been even better if he didnt die in that plane crash.

[moko]

I think I know where you got your info from Oscar(Naval Historical Center web-site?),just had a flip through Google and found the stuff you quoted.I hadn`t seen that before but only finished Ken Smalls book a couple of weeks ago,he tells of a lot of American families who had no idea where their loved ones had been killed let alone buried,dosn`t tie in with the sources you`ve quoted but that`s not to say they`re wrong,actually a good read if you can lay your hands on a copy.Ken Small has met the families of loads of these men over the years and virtually calls the old dear who claimed to "know all" a liar in his book,the Historical Center Site does not make this clear,rather unfairly I`d have said as it seems to me to imply that he believed her.Also the reaction of the Farmer to the media is understandable if you read the book,assuming they found the right guy,if so that would go against what Small says yet again as either he or the Farmer would have to have told them,read the book and neither is likely.Small met literally hundreds of relatives of the deceased who,official publications or not,knew nothing of the incident.Small had a friend who was actually there,coincidentally a personal friend of friends.This guy,Manny Ruben,is quoted extensively in the book,he spoke of a cover-up,not only to Small but to friends of mine who as a retired Baseball coach in the states he was helping get kid`s Baseball off the ground in Plymouth.Sadly i never met Manny but he was much loved and respected by those that knew him,he told people the Slapton story once and once only,I believe Ken Small was the only one he`d gone into it regularly with for the purposes of the book.Slapton Sands is a real beauty spot,known to a couple of ex-pat KB`ers,there`s the sea on one side of the road and a freshwater lake and wildlife reserve the other,the Tank and memorials are all the more poignient for being in such a calm and beautiful spot.It`s a favourite with local fishermen and also a brilliant ride out from Plymouth.Famous author Leslie Thomas was local to the area and wrote a fictional account of the area and the incident called "The Magic Army".

[Skyryder]

Hasselblad is not a 35mm, its a medium (645) format camera. They come with all manner of interchangeable viewfinders, and that doesn't take into account Hasselblad may have built some special items just for the lunar expedition

The programme had this guy from Hasselblad who was in charge of the camea photography etc and he said that the Astronaughts could not see the view finder with the suits on. This was guy who was involved with Nasa.

Skyryder

[El Dopa]

My last word on the matter, unless anyone wants to try to knock down these eminently sensible and very believable explanations.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

[maybe]

Maybe they didn't fly to the moon.....they walked :spudbooge :whocares:

[toads]

I saw the doco and I really did think it was quite probable that it was a hoax, the ongoing " my one is bigger than your one" that went on between the states and the former soviet union is my biggest reason for believing the points put forward in the documentary. Knowing the potential for land grabbing the powers that be have, why haven't they been out there setting up shop on any of these planets?, low gravity, and oxygen problems aside, if it were possible, it surely would have been done repeatedly, the russians with their love of nuclear stuff and radiation are far more likely to have done it, than the yanks who at least have a little more regard for human life.

[greenhorn]

Elvis is alive... he now lives on the moon. :eek:

[El Dopa]

Maybe not on the same scale but locally 900 American Troops were killed of of the Devon coast in a war-time series of disasters that included being killed by "friendly fire from both each other and the british navy during exercises with live ammo and being bush-whacked by german E-boats on another occaission.All of this was covered up until a local guy tried to buy a tank he found in just off the coast from the U.S. government.Hundreds of locals knew about it,thousands of troops took part in the exercise as well as several Royal naval vessels,Eisenhower was even an eye-witness to one of the friendly fire incidents.All got brought to light mainly by chance by this guy as it was covered-up at the time and he`s been able to tell families where their loved ones ended up.Now it`s out in the open there are memorials by the tank at slapton Sands in Devon but the question is how many times was that sort of thing repeated in other places?Thousands of people knew what happened and no-one blabbed for 40-odd years until it became obvious that the truth was going to come out anyway,the civilians were threatened with prison if they said a word.Why would they fake the Moon landing?Dont forget the "space race" of that era,massive propaganda coup plus it was partly a pissing contest between the U.S. and Russia,no doubt the underlying message also given the Cold War was "hey look where we can stick a missile base if we want to".Remember only recently T.V. pictures of U.S. Marines in action in Afghanistan which the Pentagon had to admit were faked on a film set,and the Sky T.V. reporter sacked for a report he totally fabricated from one of the Brit navy vessels at the start of the Iraq war?Millions of Brits,me included,saw that report and believed it,the truth only came out weeks afterwards.

Yeah, I know about the Slapton Sands disaster. I've read 'The Magic Army' (is that the right title?)

If you're into war/thriller type books, I think I remeber reading one of Jack Higgens's ones that takes this incident as a starting point. 'Night of the Eagle', I think. Funny coincidence that one of his other books with the same characters is called 'The Eagle has Landed', given the subject of this thread.

I think the crucial difference between the two is that there was probably a genuine consensus amongst the military and the civilians that they should keep Slapton Sands quiet. The civilian population in the UK in WW2 put up with quite a lot (the 'blitz spirit' etc) and was generally happy to do thier bit ofr the war effort. Then after the war it was just one incident amongst many, and there wasn't much motiviation for people to go looking for it. When it did come out, it was sort of by accident. But it did come out, and there wasn't (after the war) much attempt at a cover up.

On the other hand, people seem to have been looking specifically for a smoking gun for the moon landing for a long time, and haven't been able to find anything to prove their theory. They slap together a product to sell, pull a few smoke and mirrors tricks to put together a mole hill of flimsy 'evidence', whilst ignoring the mountain of positive evidence just off to one sde.


For example, NASA has rocks which geologists agree can't have come from earth because they have odd or no wear/erosion patterns on them (amongst other things), and which aren't meteors. They say they came from the moon. If they didn't, where did they come from? These are the sort of things that get conveniently ignored by docos like this.