Was moon landing a fake?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Arne Saknussemm, Jul 17, 2014.

  1. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Excuse my title, but the whole headline would not fit: Was moon landing a fake? The earth is full of those who believe that it was

    I just happened across this article as I was browsing science stories. I'm sure most of us here do not think the moon landing was fake, I only bring it up because the link contains a wonderful short of Buzz Aldrin punching a guy in the face for calling him a coward and a liar. Buzz is 72 years old at the time! (It's the second image thingy down)

    Buzz Aldrin! What is there not to admire and respect about this man!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    I think that's the same video, Beer. And, it sounds like you think old Buzz has passed on. No, he's alive and kicking ... and punching!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I changed the link. Originally I accidentally posted the same video, but the new one is like three minutes.
  8. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    I was five years old, back in '69...
    I remember vividly, watching man taking his first steps on the moon.

    I so wanted to be an astronaut...
    When I enlisted in the Navy, back in '81, I wanted to be a pilot, but due to the fact I didn't have perfect 20/20 vision, I was denied.
    So, I became a Hospital Corpsman. (Medic).

    But, to get back on topic, I don't doubt for a second that we landed on the moon.
    Why people have to believe its all bs, I will never understand.

    Can any rational person really think it was all faked?
    That out of the thousands involved, no one let definitive info out, proving it was all a hoax?

    C'mon now... Well, the flag moved... There were shadows... WTF ever... It happened, we did land on the moon... Rejoice folks, humans aren't so worthless after all.
    My hats off to all that made it happen, and to those that lost their lives, in our space programs.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Some of the "space shots" shown on mainstream media were indeed shot on a hollywood soundstage.
    Which has, unfortunately, tarnished the rest of the information.

    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The world is full of those that believe in conspiracies for one reason or another.
    Some crave mystery and excitement in their lives [I go out and make my own excitement] and the most logical reasoning on why or how something happened, is just too mundane and boring for them.

    Naturally, the two most ridiculious conspiracies of recent times are the Faked Moon landings, and 9/11.
    And yet they are probably the two most popular.
    I see both as impossible to have been conspired for many obvious reasons.

    On Buzz Aldrin, I once had an argument with an Idiot mate of mine, who was of the opinion Buzz was unjustified in hitting Bart Sibrel with the best right cross one could wish to see.
    Buzz was the one being bullied and pushed to the limits if human endurence, and what he actually done should have also been followed with a knee to the groin of the moron photographer.
    Nice to have seen Buzz sticking up for himself.

    For anyone out there that in any way shape or form, feels for the photographer, or believes that he was just doing his duty, should be reminded that the first words he uttered after Buzz gave him his just desserts. was "DID YOU GET THAT ON TAPE"
    He [Sibrel] was a nut of the first degree.
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

  12. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    The most convincing argument I've seen is that back in those days, they didn't have the video technology to make the astronauts appear to be leaping in perfect lunar-gravity arcs. The only way to do that was to actually be on the moon.
  15. DrZygote214 Registered Member

    I was not alive anytime near 1969. No, I don't believe it was faked, but I will say that NASA still mooned us by putting Richard Nixon's name on the Moon instead of JFK's. Good grief.

    I was, however, alive around the time the internet was taking off, and I remember a lot of sites making claims and putting forth a lot of bs about the faked landings. 99% of it was baseless both in evidence and in scientific theory. The only things I can remember that made me think were the claim that some Australian newspaper reported that Armstrong kicked a coke can out of the way, which was edited out of the footage elsewhere in the world---something to do with Australia received the signal first, i guess cuz that part of the world was facing the right way, and the rest got a time delay. There were maybe 1 or 2 other claims (out of dozens) that made me think and sounded possible, but I can't really remember what they were. I'll go back to the wikipedia article about moon hoax claims later, it seemed to compile everything there which is a good reference.

    So, why do people still believe this conspiracy theory? I can think of a few good or stupid reasons depending on how you think about it:

    1. NASA lost the original recordings of the first landing. Hard to believe...perhaps almost as hard to believe as the hoax...but they really did lose 'em as opposed to, you know, holding them sacred. I believe also that some of the original blueprints of some of the hardware are also missing. This certainly doesn't help their case, and is unforgivable in my mind.

    2. We landed on the Moon before cell phones, before VCRs, before the internet too. Since these technologies are so much easier compared to a Moon landing, and plus since most people cant imagine life without them, well, how the hell did we land on the Moon back in 1969? That year, 1969, seems like such ancient history to average people today.

    3. Most telescopes cannot view the surface of the Moon with enough resolution to see the footprints or landing craft. In fact, I believe none today can unless they are in orbit around the Moon. So people say, "Hubble can view all these galaxies millions of lightyears away, but it can't view the Moon right next door? Come on!"

    BTW, even if we could use telescopes to image those things, i bet people would just say, so what? they can send a unmanned lander craft, right? That's why that descent stage is there!

    4. The Apollo 1 fire happened in early 1967, and yet despite requiring a huge revamping of the apollo craft, we landed in mid-1969.

    5. Government/beauracracy in general have such a bad reputation as error-prone and inefficient, not to mention a few scandals and shadowy schemes, so therefore NASA and the government couldn't have done it, and instead faked it.

    Now in case it wasn't clear in my first paragraph, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONSPIRACY AT ALL!!! I was just listing a few contemporary reasons that some people might have for not believing in the moon landing. As you can see, those reasons are mostly reasoning-by-analogy and to a large degree not based on science, but rather on modern thought-processes that seem to come with the times we live in.
  16. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    @ Dr Z. - 'NASA mooned us.!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Aren't you clever.

    @Fraggle and everyone else - For me most convincing is that the Soviets who had every reason to reveal the first Moon landing as a hoax, if it were one, simply congratulated the achievement when it happened. They had the technological know-how and the spying capabilities to reveal the landing as faked. They would be seen as losing the space race if the USA got to the Moon first. Their national honor was at stake -and in a a huge way. If they even somewhat suspected the whole project was bogus they certainly would have spoke up.
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    I've never heard that before. Do you have a (respectable) reference?
  18. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I could understand people thinking the TV images were faked. We see fakery on TV all the time. But how could you fake a Saturn V luanch? Thousands of people saw them in person.

    I watched the landing live on TV. At the time I think it was the latest I had ever stayed up. And why not? It's still one of mankind's greatest accomplishments - to stand on another world.

    One of my earliest memories of "news events" was John Glenn's first orbital flight.
  20. DrZygote214 Registered Member

    Yes, I can understand that too. The poorer the quality of picture, the easier it is to fake by covering up details such as the edge between the live shot and the blue screen. And that live TV footage was very poor, very grainy. Note that I'm talking about Apollo 11 here, not the later flights that had much better picture.

    As for the Saturn launch, you don't need to fake it. Just launch it unmanned and let everyone believe those voice transmissions are live/real.

    Well, once you launch a spacecraft into orbit, you can't really spy on it as far as manned/unmanned is concerned. You can track it via radar in orbit, and you can track its trajectory to the Moon, and you can even track its orbit around the Moon and maybe even the lander as it descends. But you cannot determine if a person or crew is aboard. There was no giant camera sophisticated enough, not back in 1969, that could zoom all the way in to the window and see if a person was there.

    In regards to voice transmissions, they can be encrypted and relayed to the craft, which then broadcasts it in a non-encrypted form. Same thing with TV footage of a crew inside, or a crew on the Moon, such that everyone receives the transmissions and can see with their directional antennas that it's coming from the craft itself.

    Of course, if you're using sophisticated equipment and are searching for signals, you should be able to determine that some encrypted signal is being sent to the craft from Earth. But if it's encrypted, it would not be possible to determine if this is fake footage or normal telemetry commands. Besides, you don't even have to relay it for the most part. Most of it can be pre-recorded voices and footage, stored on the craft and set to broadcast at the right time. Only thing is those live conversations every once in a while between the astronauts and their families. And yea, this is getting more and more fringe.

    So anyway, I think it's better to argue a proof via the Moon rocks brought back. Much more moon rocks/soil were brought back than has ever been found in Antarctica or anywhere else on this planet. Of course the conspiracy believers will just say that NASA scientists claim they are moon rocks, but since no one has ever been to the Moon, how can you really know?

    So in the end, there really is nothing you can say to make the believer change his mind. It's good to be skeptical, but man, real wisdom is also being skeptical of your beliefs too, right?

    BTW, i just read that more than half of all those moon rocks are missing!!!...because Richard Nixon gave away a lot of them to...like, every president of every nation, and i guess those destitute nations sold them off or something for money...

    Man, I'm really starting to believe that Nixon wanted to instigate a conspiracy!!! Hahaha, where is an appropriate smiley for this?
  21. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member


    Mendax, mendax, braccae incensa est.

    It wasn't called mainstream media. FAUX and Limbaugh didn't exist. There was an underground, but it was associated with the SDS. They weren't worried about anything as dumb as a conspiracy at NASA.

    But don't let me stop you from telling science educated folks how paranoid and stuck on stupid the American illiterati actually are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anything to discredit science, for the gain of the moneybaggers of the new millennium. And of course for the honor and glory of God, who doesn't like his minions wandering out of this plentiful dominion he created for them, replete with all the stern warnings about escaping gravity (reserved for Jesus, Peter, a few other buoyant favorites). No, that would be way too much pride, way too much access to information, the modus operandi of Lucifer himself. Now there's something for the paranoid knuckleheads to really worry about.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course the dummies who are naive enough to swallow the conspiracy theories have no idea what goes into planning, building and deploying a space vehicle. So no doubt they've invented all sorts of drama about how and why the RCA, Hasselblad and Westinghouse cameras NASA procured for the Apollo missions were faked procurements, done just to put stuff in the museums after the fact. And realistic, too. I mean fer Gawd's sake, they actually work.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you look closely at footage of any splashdown of that era, you'll notice it's actually claymation.

    I especially like the way NASA faked the heat damage on the reentry vehicles seen at places like the Smithsonian and the NASA museums. No doubt they hired one of those artists who were so good with acetylene torches in the genres that were totally the opposite of Peter Max.

    And wow they even staged fake presentations on the camera development projects they had with the contractors. Down to block diagrams that match the actual circuits of the fakes. It doesn't get better than this. In fact, they were so good they actually could have put a man on the moon! They just didn't want to. I could tell you why, but then I'd have to shoot you. So let's just agree that the full story is way, way classified. You've heard of T.S. (Top Secret)? Hell, that's not even close to Top. This was classified I.S. (Infinitely Secret).

    To land or not to land, that was the question. Either way, the US stood to win the Cold War: leave the Russians worrying that we actually walked people on the moon, or else that we have such watertight covert ops that the thousands of people involved in keeping mum would make all Russian domestic spying futile. Despite, of course, the McCarthy Hearings evidence that Russians had already infiltrated the military. Hell, the Russians were running NASA if the truth be told. But man, were they thorough. Of course they had the real JFK in their situation room pulling levers and throwing switches. And man was he motivated, with Marilyn right around the corner in their honeymoon suite, just waiting to reward him for a productive day.

    That's if the truth be told. But of course it never will.
  23. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Is this some kind of OCD thing with you, that you cannot write a post without taking a shot at Christians? If you had bothered to read and comprehend the thread so far (and I know because I am the Original Poster) it does not seriously entertain the possibility that the Moon landings were fake. It's just an attention-getting title, and I wouldn't have used it if titles were not of limited length.

    I realize you are trying to be humorous here with quips like "If you look closely at footage of any splashdown of that era, you'll notice it's actually claymation".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But why make up a completely untrue church doctrine? And why do it in the general science sub-forum? You don't even have the excuse of rebutting something someone said as you might in the religion forum.

    How is it you can never lay off this subject? No one was talking about religion or church people in this thread. You have barged in and brought your usual superior attitude along with its inevitable prejudices with you.

    When I first read that idiotic line, I thought you were in earnest, and I fear others may misconstrue your words as well. They may merely be skimming the page and pick up on your dumb joke and perhaps remember it as fact. If you had made a remark about some minority group the the members and the moderators would be all over you. But as Christians are not a minority group in the world, but more than a quarter of the world population perhaps the moderators don't feel they need to defend them - especially since so few of the moderators agree with their doctrine.

    For the record, no Christian church has any such doctrine as you so ignorantly joke about as above. I know this for myself, and I even googled it. The closest I got was the questioning of the wisdom of space exploration when people are starving. I didn't read further, it may have been a non-Christian writing and just implying the term 'sinful' to this controversy. (That's a topic for some other thread - not this one)

    In my experience, the closet a doctrine such as you joke about emerged when our fifth-grade nun asked us to stand up in front of the class and make short speeches about why space exploration is good - even this rather severe nun assumed it was a good thing! (This was circa 1970). One of my classmates took his turn, and maybe because all the good reasons had already been stated by others, he off the cuff said being in space makes the astronauts closer to heaven and God. Boy was that sister mad! "You do not get closer to God by flying around in a space ship!" She screamed and interrupted our speeches with a ten-minute extemporaneous speech of her own. She mentioned with much contempt the Soviet cosmonauts who joked that they had not seen God when they 'were up there'. We knew better than to offer a rebuttal, in fact, I think we all pretty much agreed with her.

    So there you have the unofficial Catholic view of space exploration. We are all for the advancement of science and human knowledge when it may potentially help people and does harm human life which is God's holy gift to us.

    Your remarks made in fun are terribly ignorant and do a disservice to Christians - none of whom ever thought that. The real joke is that you think of yourself as scientifically-minded, rational and objective, but you are none of those things. If you are, your writing certainly does not reflect it. Can't you just once post a post that isn't offensive to someone and is not full of mocking superiority based on your own self-righteous, prejudiced, dogmatic way of thinking?

    I'd like that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jul 20, 2014

Share This Page