Conspiracy theory - Did we (USA) land on the moon?

[grahamc]

I've always wondered why in other photos you can't see stars in the background "sky".

 

nice... I believe the official explanation on that is the mode the camera was set to. Camera shutter stays open for a very short amount of time, due to the glare...

[Gazboy]

Put it in google, there is loads of pictures, including Hubble.

 

Your other point of ease- fill three Wembley stadiums and tell them the single biggest secret in modern times and never tell a soul- fancy your chances?

 

As we are playing games, could you show me the location of the 'hoax' please, who filmed it, and when? Also could you explain where those Saturn 5 rockets went each time a global audience saw them launch for the moon? Also explain how the Russians also played along when they were staunch enemies of the Americans at the time.

[Gazboy]

I've always wondered why in other photos you can't see stars in the background "sky".

 

Can you see stars outside right now?

[RedM]

The worst part of the hoax nonsense is the implication that some very brave men lied for the remainder of their lives.

 

I think it was Buzz Aldrin who was the most recently interviewed and the look on his face when asked about the whole hoax aspect (a mixture of anger and sadness) should tell you all you need to know.

[grahamc]

Put it in google, there is loads of pictures, including Hubble.

 

Your other point of ease- fill three Wembley stadiums and tell them the single biggest secret in modern times and never tell a soul- fancy your chances?

 

As we are playing games, could you show me the location of the 'hoax' please, who filmed it, and when? Also could you explain where those Saturn 5 rockets went each time a global audience saw them launch for the moon? Also explain how the Russians also played along when they were staunch enemies of the Americans at the time.

 

I did google it... It shows pics of a BIG moon with a small x, which means absolutely nothing.

 

WIKIPEDIA states "The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across." Once again, see my quote from WIKI.

 

I filmed it, in my basement .... who cares!! When I did I say that the launch and every space flight was faked My questions are specifically arund the lunar landing. So that elimates what 299 950 odd people from your 300 000. 50 people is quite easy especially when you kill 10 of them.

 

Stanley Kubrick is accused of having produced much of the footage for Apollo 11 and 12.[101] It has been claimed, without any evidence, that in early 1968 while 2001: A Space Odyssey (which includes scenes taking place on the Moon) was in post-production, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. In this scenario the launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would have remained in Earth orbit while the fake footage was broadcast as "live" from the lunar journey. Kubrick did hire Frederick Ordway and Harry Lange, both of whom had worked for NASA and major aerospace contractors, to work with him on 2001. Kubrick also used some 50mm f/0.7 lenses that were left over from a batch made by Zeiss for NASA. (However, Kubrick only acquired this lens for Barry Lyndon (1975). The lens was originally a still-photo lens and required modifications to be used for motion filming.)

 

And finally the Russians.......

Bart Sibrel said, in response, that "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled."[88]

[Tannhauser]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

 

So you think that sending people 384,403 km to the moon and landing a space ship there is a simpler answer than it was faked? Interesting....

 

Careful with that razor....

 

As I understand Occam's razor, it's the principle that other things being equal, we should accept the 'simplest' theory. This means the theory that requires us to generate the fewest number of unverifiable assumptions.

 

For example, two rival theories about how leaves appear in my garden would be: (a) they fall off the trees (b) Pixies put them there. Occam's razor prefers theory (a), because we don't have to postulate a new entity (Pixies) and the theory fits in with observed phenomena (leaves falling).

 

With the two theories about the moon landing, I would say the hoax idea would be rejected using Occam's principle, as this requires one to postulate: (a) a large scale secret plan (b) a secret studio location © hypothetical reasons for the faking of NASA independent observers of the spacecraft from various countries and so on.

 

Because most of the conspiracy claims involve proposing the existence of things that have not been seen (e.g. the master plan, the actors and technicians involved in the shoot), they have to be regarded as 'postulates'.

 

Occam's razor can't prove anything right or wrong, it can only suggest a method of choosing. But in my view, it doesn't support the moon landing conspiracy theory.

[grahamc]

Careful with that razor....

 

As I understand Occam's razor, it's the principle that other things being equal, we should accept the 'simplest' theory. This means the theory that requires us to generate the fewest number of unverifiable assumptions.

 

For example, two rival theories about how leaves appear in my garden would be: (a) they fall off the trees (b) Pixies put them there. Occam's razor prefers theory (a), because we don't have to postulate a new entity (Pixies) and the theory fits in with observed phenomena (leaves falling).

 

With the two theories about the moon landing, I would say the hoax idea would be rejected using Occam's principle, as this requires one to postulate: (a) a large scale secret plan (b) a secret studio location © hypothetical reasons for the faking of NASA independent observers of the spacecraft from various countries and so on.

 

Because most of the conspiracy claims involve proposing the existence of things that have not been seen (e.g. the master plan, the actors and technicians involved in the shoot), they have to be regarded as 'postulates'.

 

Occam's razor can't prove anything right or wrong, it can only suggest a method of choosing. But in my view, it doesn't support the moon landing conspiracy theory.

 

I liked the 1st line Completely agree though, could get dangerous

 

I was merely questioning a statement made.

[Gazboy]

Do you have any more reliable sources than wiki?

[Scott]

Man cannot go to the moon again for 2 reasons. Firstly its impossible and 2nd it would cost far too much money to actually do it. The russians were wayyyyyyyy ahead of the US in the space race and they gave up when they found out about the radiation. They said it was impossible to cross so left it at that. Next thing the yanks are saying they are going to the moon and they even have some pictures and bricks to back it up.

 

Loads of theory's involving how they pulled it off but i like the brainwashing and hypnotism idea

 

The russians were always ahead of the yanks during the space race. When the US spent millions developing pens that could be used in 0-gravity the russians used pencils.

[MrRalphMan]

This now smacks of the Plane/Rotating belt syndrome...

Who is arguing because they believe or just to wind everyone up...

 

Or are the Americans in our forum trying to direct attention to their faked landings???

[MrRalphMan]

Man cannot go to the moon again for 2 reasons. Firstly its impossible and 2nd it would cost far too much money to actually do it. The russians were wayyyyyyyy ahead of the US in the space race and they gave up when they found out about the radiation. They said it was impossible to cross so left it at that. Next thing the yanks are saying they are going to the moon and they even have some pictures and bricks to back it up..

 

 

Nice answer from this site.

 

About 20 miles about [sic] the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

 

In fact, the Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! And they pass through it twice, once outbound, and again on their return. They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft. Here is a link to a webpage that describes the radiation environment and physiological effects on the Apollo astronauts.

 

Also, the belt is toroidal in shape (like a donut) and the trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft were designed to avoid the worst part of the Van Allen belts. Even the discoverer of the Van Allen belts, Professor James A. Van Allen, has noted that the belts would not have been dangerous to the Apollo astronauts given their trajectories and their spacecraft.

 

PS - Anysite that is promoting their side of the story will be biased in the evidence provided. I bet there are hundred of sites, both for and against the CT. Each if read on it own seems to solve the riddle and rings true.

 

Although lets see what the poll above says, it's bound to be true... and in a couple of weeks I'll post one title 'Did we really REALLY go to the moon.'

[Tannhauser]

Bart Sibrel said, in response, that "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled."[88]

 

Bart Sibrel is an absolutely vile s*itbag, he really is a piece of work. One of his favourite tactics is ambushing Apollo astronauts and demanding that they swear on a Bible that they went to the Moon. If they swear, he doesn't report it (it may have been Ed Grissom? I'm not sure). If they won't play, that's further evidence for him.

 

He wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the arse and he certainly doesn't know enough science to make a call on this. Buzz Aldrin had the right idea when he punched him in the face.

 

OK, about the tracking. Tracking was difficult for everyone, but independents (including the soviets) listened in on radio broadcasts from Apollo. To do that, they had to point the dish to the spacecraft...then adjust it to allow for movement.

[Scott]

I'm sure the rooskies had their own data on the belt and it differed from what he yanks said.

[Tannhauser]

The russians were always ahead of the yanks during the space race. When the US spent millions developing pens that could be used in 0-gravity the russians used pencils.

 

Hooray, that old chestnut, favourite of pub philosophers everywhere:

 

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

[Gazboy]

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

[grahamc]

This now smacks of the Plane/Rotating belt syndrome...

Who is arguing because they believe or just to wind everyone up...

 

Or are the Americans in our forum trying to direct attention to their faked landings???

 

I liked that discussion... I never used to believe these conspiracies and normally just laughed at them, but lots of interesting points in this program. Changed my mind to actually doubt it... especially with the whole 911, IRAQ war, diamond and oil conspiracy theories.

 

Anything to take attention away from the IRAQ war conspiracy

 

Hooray, that old chestnut, favourite of pub philosophers everywhere:

 

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

 

 

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

 

Very nice NASA site, sure they have loads of info on the moon rocks they brought back as well

 

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm

[Gazboy]

If you have the coordiantes, a telescope and a laser you are free to use the mirror yourself. It's the same type of prism mirror (Marine Angle Ranging System) that marine scientists use and it reflects light back to it's original source.

[Pete]

I love it when Cliff comes out to play.

[grahamc]

If you have the coordiantes, a telescope and a laser you are free to use the mirror yourself. It's the same type of prism mirror (Marine Angle Ranging System) that marine scientists use and it reflects light back to it's original source.

 

According to the site that you posted, it sounds like it would b damn near impossible for any "normal" person to view/use this.

 

....

The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.

 

Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.

....

 

Would love it be proven one way or the other, but from what I have seen, I have doubts....

[RedM]

I love it when Cliff comes out to play.

 

Me too.

[Rob]

It was getting like QI in here. All sirens and hoots.

[Gaz6002]

The plane will take off.

[AJI]

Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17..... these are all the supposed moon landings.

Footage of them on google video, youtube etc.

 

The first conspiracy theory about the moon landings came out 2 years after the very first one.

And I guess it really doesn't matter if the americans went or they didn't.... what difference does it make ?

The way I see it is that all they used it for was to get world recognition for beating the ruskies at space travel.... and also using it to show that they had technological advatange over the entire world.

 

There are many facts that support BOTH theories and I guess only the people who were actually directly involved will know if man had truely been to the moon.

The rest of the world has to have trust in a few people that say we did and then believe their particular evidence that supports it.

(would you trust an american? --- hahaha --- light hearted joke)

 

I think if the americans wanted, they could easily have staged it all.... Area 52, secret filming, only telling people involved a small part of the bigger picture... etc etc.

The price of beating the ruskies and the deadline set by Kennedy for the end of the 60's.... I think NASA had to give a positive result..... no matter what.

 

And I also think it may have been possible for man to land on the moon. If the radiation problem was solved and the technology was available then why not? ..... Stability of rockects is a difficult thing to achieve but after that is sorted then it really is just basic physics that will get man from the earth through empty space and to the moon.

[tbourner]

I haven't read any of the thread (wait till lunchtime! ), I just wanted to say OMG. Cos I really can't understand how people fall for all this conspiracy theory bullsh*t.

[RedM]

I think if the americans wanted, they could easily have staged it all.... Area 52

 

Is that the secret base next door then?