Did we land on the moon?

**Deviant Esq** · 11th January 2007, 06:44

Have a read: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The gist:

In 2001, Fox TV made a TV show called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
Now, I don't know about any of you, but I didn't see this program. I have heard about it though, and remember people saying vague things a while ago about the theory that the original moon landings were faked. I remember thinking around the time "What utter bullshit. People will come up with a conspiracy theory for anything". Well, I found an article that not only agrees with what I thought, it sets out to disprove the claims made that the whole thing was a hoax. Oh, and by the way, I wasn't actually looking for one, I stumbled across it looking for scenery photography with the moon in it. I love that stuff.

Anyway, the article is quite long, so maybe save it for later if you don't have time, or hey, there's even 'don't bother' if you can't be arsed. But it's a pretty darned good read, and worth a look if you've heard about the theory. It seems even more crazy after reading the article.

**Kendog** · 11th January 2007, 06:57

I will believe it happened when they land there (again?) and show us the flag , lander thingy and the footprints.

It seems amazing they haven't landed again, surely they have the technology now to do it if they were able to that long ago.

Also, why don't they just take some pictures of the moon surface with the flag on it. They can take amazing pictures of further away places than the moon. Not sure if the flag is on the other side and can't be seen from earth, but even so they take photos from rockets in space as well.

**elle-f** · 11th January 2007, 07:00

It seems though that everything these days is a conspiracy theory. I saw the documentary about 9/11 being a conpiracy as well.......i wonder if MacDonalds is just to get people fat!

**What?** · 11th January 2007, 07:06

Actually landing men on the moon was a conspiracy. Most of the theorists would be better diverting their attention to learning the English language.

**RantyDave** · 11th January 2007, 07:22

Originally Posted by Kendog

It seems amazing they haven't landed again, surely they have the technology now to do it if they were able to that long ago.

Because NASA used to be a well funded organisation of only the best and the brightest with a very singular goal. Now it's a well funded organisation completely stifled with beauracracy, internal politics and with the best interests of it's vendors at heart.

Originally Posted by Kendog

Also, why don't they just take some pictures of the moon surface with the flag on it.

For the same reason they didn't take pictures of flags in people's back gardens from the moon - it's too far. Also you can't just point the hubble telescope at the moon because it's too bright.

Originally Posted by Kendog

they take photos from rockets in space as well.

Nobody actually goes into space, as such any more. They generally pop up to a low earth orbit (a few hundred K) or a geostationary orbit (35,000K) at most ... drop off a satellite or two and come back. It's all very boring.

Anyway, you don't need to see the flag - they placed a mirror on the surface of the moon and people bounce lasers off it (to measure the distance from here to the moon).

The other conspiracy that's fun concerns the van allen belts - strips of intensely nasty radiation that you'd need to pass through in order to go to the moon. Theory is that someone passing through would be exposed to this radiation unless they wore a lead lined suit (too heavy to take up with you), leading to health problems and quite probably cancer in later life. So, conspiracy theorists, tell me this - when's the last time you saw Neil Armstrong?

Dave

**Deviant Esq** · 11th January 2007, 07:23

What: Did you actually bother to read the article? It was the whole point of this thread, so if you haven't bothered to read it, why bother posting? If you had read the article, you wouldn't be in the group of people still saying the whole thing was a hoax" unless you weren't entering the thing willing to listen to reason.

RantyDave: The article does cover the Van Allen belts aspect of it too. Really is quite a good read, really does cover all the bases quite nicely and shows how willing people generally are to believe in conspiricy rubbish.

**Squeak the Rat** · 11th January 2007, 07:36

If it was the TV show I'm thinking about they debunked a lot of the myths. One of the funny ones was the plan to turn the lander on it's side and hide underneath it in the event of a solar flare.

The one thing that did not get answered on the show to my satisfaction is the travel through the Van Allen belts. The article says that the ship would shield them, and it would be travelling too fast anyway.

So why is the travel through the Van Allen belt something that needs to be resovled before space elevators can be build???? The metal of a spaceship shields you - simple!

Any one can debunk a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean they're right either...

**SimJen** · 11th January 2007, 07:48

Noone ever seems to ask conspiracy theorists to prove the conspiracy, they always put it in the hands of the people that did it to prove they actually did it.
Who gives a fuck I say, all the supposed experts who argue against the moon landing, are mostly struck off scientists with either inadequate qualifications or some agenda against either the US or the NASA space program.
I especially like the one about the photos of the astronauts on the moons surface, where they say that no stars are visible in the shot. Anyone with an interest in photography knows that the metering of the shot is set to the brightest foreground objects eg the astronaut and moon surface, stars as we all know are quite dim in the night sky and take a few moments for the eye to pick up, so consequently will not show in a photo unless the astronaut etc is extremely over exposed (rendering the photo unusable).
Conspiracy theories are a heap of over publicised media bollocks......and the way for simple people (who don't know shit) to explain away otherwise complex situations.

**Ronin** · 11th January 2007, 07:53

Originally Posted by elle33f

It seems though that everything these days is a conspiracy theory. I saw the documentary about 9/11 being a conpiracy as well.......i wonder if MacDonalds is just to get people fat!

9 out of 10. Spelling is getting better

**Ronin** · 11th January 2007, 07:55

Originally Posted by RantyDave

So, conspiracy theorists, tell me this - when's the last time you saw Neil Armstrong?

Dave

Last I heard he was beating the snot out of a Japanese reporter who claimed the moon landing was a hoax.

**Hitcher** · 11th January 2007, 08:00

1. Is this a troll thread? If yes, "Must try harder".

2. It's a repost.

3. Any further discussion worthy of being relegated to "Religious Ravings" in the Pointless Drivel forum.

**Deviant Esq** · 11th January 2007, 08:13

Hitcher: Is the stupid arguements part a repost, or is the actual article I linked to discussing why the moon landing wasn't a hoax a repost?

If the link to the article discussing it is a repost, then I apologise unreservedly. I did do a search, and found a thread here started by Skyrider opening it (the conspiricy theory) for discussion, but I didn't spot a link anywhere to this article. Have you seen the article before?

And no, it's not a troll thread, or wasn't meant to be. I just thought the article would help dispell a few myths. *Shrug* Didn't know it was such a sensitive issue!

**Kendog** · 11th January 2007, 08:29

Originally Posted by Deviant Esq

Kendog and What: Did you actually bother to read the article? It was the whole point of this thread, so if you haven't bothered to read it, why bother posting? If you had read the article, you wouldn't be in the group of people still saying the whole thing was a hoax" unless you weren't entering the thing willing to listen to reason.

RantyDave: The article does cover the Van Allen belts aspect of it too. Really is quite a good read, really does cover all the bases quite nicely and shows how willing people generally are to believe in conspiricy rubbish.

Why do you think I did not read the article?

My comments were not covered in the article or the TV show, just want to see evidence today that it actually happened.

RantyDave gave some constructive answers to my questions.

Originally Posted by RantyDave

For the same reason they didn't take pictures of flags in people's back gardens from the moon - it's too far. Also you can't just point the hubble telescope at the moon because it's too bright.

But satellites can read newspapers on earth from space. Even the free Goggle earth can see peoples back yards.

I am skeptical because I can't believe that in over 30 years we haven't advanced enough to prove without doubt they landed on the moon.

Does America need to prove it actually happened? Probably not, but like I said I will believe it when I see it.

**Deviant Esq** · 11th January 2007, 08:33

Originally Posted by Kendog

I will believe it happened when they land there (again?) and show us the flag , lander thingy and the footprints.

This was the bit that made me think you hadn't read the article. But I didn't read it quite right, sorry about that, edited your name out of my earlier post. Must admit I was a bit surprised, you've always come across as thoughtful and logical in the past, and did this time as well, I just didn't interpret it the way you meant it. Still, the article doesn't convince you?

Another reason it'd be really tough to view the flag from earth, is looking out through the earth's atmosphere causes major problems with being able to see anything very well in space, which is why the Hubble Space Telescope came about, and the other reason is looking from the earth the flag wouldn't be side on, in profile, but end on and with a very small cross section, against a really bright background.

**ManDownUnder** · 11th January 2007, 08:36

Originally Posted by Hitcher

1. Is this a troll thread? If yes, "Must try harder".

2. It's a repost.

3. Any further discussion worthy of being relegated to "Religious Ravings" in the Pointless Drivel forum.

Someone get hit with the grumpy stick this morning?