July 20th 1969 Moon landing

[Thudz]

Again you are trying to deflect. The conversation is about the Moon landing in 1969, not anything else. Why try an drag other events in?

Because I'm trying to address the underlying issues.

If we launched a manned mission to Mars tomorrow, what would it take to convince you that it was real, beyond any reasonable doubt?


There may be nothing we can do to convince doubters that the moon landing was real. So going forward what would you like to see to demonstrate the future missions are real? What can they do which they didn't do for the moon landing?


I'd like Diggles to answer that as well.

The quality of the film we have today would go along way.

[Thudz]

These are the pictures recently released by NASA of the various landing sites.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html">http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/m ... sites.html</a><!-- m -->

NASA would really help themselves alot by keeping these photos to themselves, even if they are real. They look like a MSPaint project. Can't we get better pictures than this? The pictures we got of Mars were 100 times better than these.

[Vllad]

I saw these pictures but could real make anything out of them. There were arrows with labels pointing to things but I really didn't see anything. Perhaps there are higher res pictures?

I will see what I can find you. They posted a bunch of them when they happened. You could see we made a mess up there on a few sights. Actually Apollo 11 was the least disturbed site as far as the moon was concerned. The rest looked like your typical Georgia junkyard. I know they sell them all over the place. I have seen pictures for sell before.


Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

I took classes from some of the guys that worked on the lunar landing missions and also traveled to meteor crater a bunch of times where the astronauts simulated their crater landings in the desert. I know that humans have kept darker secrets in their time but I'd wager these guys would have had to have been lied to themselves for them to talk about the research they conducted with such pride and joy.

[Thudz]

I took classes from some of the guys that worked on the lunar landing missions and also traveled to meteor crater a bunch of times where the astronauts simulated their crater landings in the desert. I know that humans have kept darker secrets in their time but I'd wager these guys would have had to have been lied to themselves for them to talk about the research they conducted with such pride and joy.

I wouldn't conclude that everyone involved in an event would need to know every exact detail of it.

[Vanraw]

I met Buz Aldrin when I worked in Dallas some years ago. Had some interesting conversations with him. He was sort of bitter when he would start to talking about Armstrong. But I'm telling you there was no lieing when he was talking about being on the moon.

[Thudz]

I met Buz Aldrich when I worked in Dallas some years ago. Had some interesting conversations with him. He was sort of bitter when he would start to talking about Armstrong. But I'm telling you there was no lieing when he was talking about being on the moon.

Talking directly to one of the men who walked on the moon would probably convince me one way or the other. But I know from persoanl experience that if you lie about something long enough you eventually convince yourself that it's the truth. Even a lie detector wouldn't be able to tell.

[Vllad]

So what makes more sense?

That we built, engineered, trained, spent billions, killed many learning to do so (including Russians) in order to figure out how to send man to the moon then we followed through with that science and proceeded to send man to the moon.

Or

That we built, engineered, trained, spent billions, killed many to figure out how to send man to the moon but instead sent 6 un-maned lunar landers to the moon. Then we proceeded to spend more money, resourses and engineering it to make it look like we did not only once but 6 times?




Do you have any idea how many people it would take to pull off a lie like that and still make the science work? That includes somehow getting the Russians to partake in our little lie. Please think about that for a moment. Some how we got our greatest single historical enemy to go along with this prank which was a direct insult to them?

It would be harder and more expensive to engineer the lie then it would be to put men on the moon. In-fact I am not even sure we have the technology today to pull off that lie.



Vllad

[Diggles]

Saddam Hussien probably spent less than 50 million and had everyone thinking he had WMD...counter-intelligence is not very hard to do, especially when you have deep pockets

How long did it take to figure out that the Gulf of Token was a lie? 20+ years?
Or that the IRAQ war was planned before 9/11? 7~ years

We're overdue for some deathbed confessions fairly soon.

[Vanraw]

Saddam Hussien probably spent less than 50 million and had everyone thinking he had WMD...counter-intelligence is not very hard to do, especially when you have deep pockets

No, George Bush did, but lets not get into that....

What Vllad said, plus the 10s of thousands of people in the scientific community across the world that were part of it. Not one, not a single person directly involved, or any of the astronauts fromt he 6 missions, have ever said it was a hoax. Only uninvolved ignorant internet gossip queens that make shit up and post.

The most shocking part of this thread is that there are people on this forum that actually believe the completely lack of evidence. I'm actually shocked.

[Jakensama]

Out of curiosity, what motivation do the moon truthers think the gubmint had to fake it?

[Thudz]

So what makes more sense?

That we built, engineered, trained, spent billions, killed many learning to do so (including Russians) in order to figure out how to send man to the moon then we followed through with that science and proceeded to send man to the moon.

Or

That we built, engineered, trained, spent billions, killed many to figure out how to send man to the moon but instead sent 6 un-maned lunar landers to the moon. Then we proceeded to spend more money, resourses and engineering it to make it look like we did not only once but 6 times?




Do you have any idea how many people it would take to pull off a lie like that and still make the science work? That includes somehow getting the Russians to partake in our little lie. Please think about that for a moment. Some how we got our greatest single historical enemy to go along with this prank which was a direct insult to them?

It would be harder and more expensive to engineer the lie then it would be to put men on the moon. In-fact I am not even sure we have the technology today to pull off that lie.



Vllad

I'm not trying to rationalize a conspiracy. I'm trying to prove to myself that the events actually took place as they are being presented. I was not alive then, I'm not a first hand witness to the event or the period of time leading up to and after the event. All I have are reports, pictures and video and alot of people telling me I'm crazy for even being skeptical. Unlike, what I would call a hoaxer, I'm not trying to disprove it, I'm trying to to prove it, to myself.

I'm waiting for the high resolution low orbit pictures of the landing sites, much like what we did on Mars, which were great pictures BTW.

[Thudz]

Out of curiosity, what motivation do the moon truthers think the gubmint had to fake it?

If I were in Nixon's shoes and I knew we didn't have the ability at that time but we were in a space race with the Ruskies I would fake particular aspects of the program to fill in the gaps. Even if we knew we could land on the moon I would still put in place staged video on the chance something did go wrong just for counter intelligence.

BTW I'm on the fence, I'm not conviced either way. I tend to believe, as with any goverment program, the truth lie somewhere in the middle. I believe we've all seen things that were real and some that were fake. The hard part is determining which are which.

[Hoofhurr]

It's good to have a degree of skepticism. It's the underlying mentality of any good scientist. I generally approach everything I don't have first hand experience with the same mindset. It's why I usually hesitate to get into debates about things that I know little about. One might argue a topic from the point of common sense but unless you've actually investigated something with a measure of rigor it would be easy to draw misleading conclusions.

Moon hoaxers view their subject from similar angles as global warming hoaxers view theirs. Both subjects require a good deal of faith in the sources providing the information to be comfortable with them. In either case, it's healthy to question and ask for evidence because both topics are opaque due to remoteness and complexity. If the subjects are important enough to you to have a strong opinion either way then you ought to build a body of evidence that you would make decisions upon. If you've never actually explored a topic rigorously and you are determined to do so it would behoove you to dismiss your preconceptions and try and investigate the topic with no biases towards a particular conclusion. You should force yourself to argue a piece of evidence from all points of view before making your mind up.

In the case of the moon landing I don't particularly care enough to explore it rigorously beyond what my personal experience has revealed to me.

[Breand]

Frankly after watching Mythbusters, it proves what I've always known about hoaxers, they use logic that exists in their own minds, and not in reality. The "dual light source" argument has always been a strong one and maybe it does sound believable, but it took the Myhtbusters a couple hours, to prove what every professional photographer already knows anyways. Sorry, but Ill believe 3rd party scientists over conspiracy theorists any day of the week.

I mean all you have to do is look at the reaction of that laser lab scientists when they mention the moon hoaxers. This woman can shoot a freaking lazer to the moon and analyze it's results mathematically, I think I'll take her word over someone sitting behind a computer saying "OMG WIRESSS!"

[Thudz]

Frankly after watching Mythbusters, it proves what I've always known about hoaxers, they use logic that exists in their own minds, and not in reality. The "dual light source" argument has always been a strong one and maybe it does sound believable, but it took the Myhtbusters a couple hours, to prove what every professional photographer already knows anyways. Sorry, but Ill believe 3rd party scientists over conspiracy theorists any day of the week.

I mean all you have to do is look at the reaction of that laser lab scientists when they mention the moon hoaxers. This woman can shoot a freaking lazer to the moon and analyze it's results mathematically, I think I'll take her word over someone sitting behind a computer saying "OMG WIRESSS!"

I don't have an issue with the lighting in the photos or the videos and I've already stated that the reflector could have been placed on the moon without a manned mission.

[Breand]

If we have the technology to place shit on the moon, and we have the technology to keep a human being alive in outerspace for an extended period, why wouldnt we have put a man on the moon?

[Thudz]

If we have the technology to place shit on the moon, and we have the technology to keep a human being alive in outerspace for an extended period, why wouldnt we have put a man on the moon?

I'll reiterate, I'm not saying we didn't.

Your question over simplifys exactly what is required for such an event to take place. The landing and subsequent takeoff are probably the two biggest hurdles a manned moon landing would have to overcome.

Ask the same question but instead of Moon say Mars.

[Vllad]

I don't have an issue with the lighting in the photos or the videos and I've already stated that the reflector could have been placed on the moon without a manned mission.

Actually we didn't have the ability to place the working equipment that we have up on the moon that sent back data. It isn't until the 90's that we had the robotic technology available to perform said functions that didn't require human assembly.

If you could somehow explain how reflectors, radio telescopes and seismographs some how walked off of the lunar landers, set themselves up 50 to 100 meters from the landers with the technology we had by 1972 I would certainly like to see it.

If you wish to view the actual equipment that is sitting on the moon and how it was to be assembled on the Moon you can view that on the Smithsonian site.

Again, their is proof man was on the moon. I gave you some samples you can pull up in the archives and look at yourself. Math doesn't lie.


Vllad

[Kakarat]

If we have the technology to place shit on the moon, and we have the technology to keep a human being alive in outerspace for an extended period, why wouldnt we have put a man on the moon?

I'll reiterate, I'm not saying we didn't.

Your question over simplifys exactly what is required for such an event to take place. The landing and subsequent takeoff are probably the two biggest hurdles a manned moon landing would have to overcome.

Ask the same question but instead of Moon say Mars.

Well Thudz, the fact that it took 3-5 years for the equipment we have on Mars to get there. We would have to have some sort of cryostat technology to get a human there. Which I am sure is available today. For the most part, the question isn't can we get a human to Mars, but can we bring that human back from Mars?

[Snowreap]

40 years and still amazing.

fucking amazing

-ken

[Thudz]

If we have the technology to place shit on the moon, and we have the technology to keep a human being alive in outerspace for an extended period, why wouldnt we have put a man on the moon?

I'll reiterate, I'm not saying we didn't.

Your question over simplifys exactly what is required for such an event to take place. The landing and subsequent takeoff are probably the two biggest hurdles a manned moon landing would have to overcome.

Ask the same question but instead of Moon say Mars.

Well Thudz, the fact that it took 3-5 years for the equipment we have on Mars to get there. We would have to have some sort of cryostat technology to get a human there. Which I am sure is available today. For the most part, the question isn't can we get a human to Mars, but can we bring that human back from Mars?

My point exactly. You can't just say that since we can do A and do B means we can do C when A and B don't add up to C. Given what I know about the technology we had in the late 60's and early 70's I wouldn't doubt we could put a man on the moon. Getting them off however, I'm still skeptical.

[Slamz]

Really? I imagine that getting them off of the moon is the easy part.

Just guessing, I would suggest the hardest part is actually doing the moon landing itself. You have to get into orbit and then decelerate and get it just right for the landing, not to mention trying to hit a flat spot. Blasting off is just igniting your engine again -- a smaller version of what you needed to do to get off of Earth. Even Earth re-entry seems relatively easy by comparison -- you can hit the atmosphere going 50mph too fast and I imagine it wouldn't matter but hitting the moon going 50mph too fast and you smash your capsule like an egg. Re-entry + parachuting into the ocean has to be easier than landing square on 4 legs.


I basically take it on a type of faith that says, "If it was fake, people much smarter than me would be able to prove it beyond a doubt". If the brainy scientists all say it was real, I'm going to go with what they say. (There seem to be a lot more scientists who disagree with global warming than scientists who disagree that we landed on the moon.)

[Hoofhurr]

Landing anything is generally harder than taking off. The only exception I can think of is the space shuttle.

[Vanraw]

Cut and paste from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.askmen.com/feeder/askmenRSS_article_print_2006.php?ID=http://askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-5-proofs-that-the-moon-landing-happened.html">http://www.askmen.com/feeder/askmenRSS_ ... pened.html</a><!-- m -->


Top 5: Proofs That The Moon Landing Happened

If you're one of the crazies who still thinks it was faked, we're about to shut you down.

By Steven Shaw, Entertainment Correspondent
Page 1:

The ultra-competitive space race culminated in a contest between the Soviet Union and the United States, to see which nation would be first to put a man on the moon. Leaving aside the obvious political leverage of the American success, it was a seminal moment in human history. Men had long dreamed of reaching the moon, and it represented the culmination of years of research, technological innovation and the spirit of adventure.

While at the time it captured the hearts and minds of the millions of people who watched the live footage, it was, in a way, inevitable that people would seek to diminish the glory of the achievement, perhaps to discredit a government they were disillusioned by. Is it a coincidence that the first book claiming the moon landings were faked was released in 1974, the same year that the Watergate scandal did untold damage to the integrity of the Presidential office?

It is far easier to present the facts as they were and to offer a few of the major arguments that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the moon landings were genuine, that Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin did, in fact, make the journey of a lifetime and set foot upon the moon.
Page 2:

The Soviet Union Did Not Dispute It

At the height of the Cold War, winning the space race represented a massive feather in the ideological cap of the anti-Communists. As such, if there had been any way to discredit the United States, you can be sure the Soviet Union would have found it. The political damage they could have wrought would have been enormous had they been able to discredit the moon landings. Given that the Soviets were still suffering from the embarrassing climb-down of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, any opportunity that would have allowed them to embarrass the United States would surely have been grasped with both hands. The fact that in the 40 years since that momentous occasion in human history, not one person from the Soviet camp has produced evidence to dispute the veracity of the moon landings, is as telling as any other evidence you care to name. It has been suggested that the Soviets were in on the hoax; this is too ludicrous for words, especially in an era when tensions between the two countries were so high. It is suggesting complicity in something which would be immensely damaging to their own regime, and that's simply absurd. Forget the arguments; the deafening silence from the Soviet camp is as incontrovertible as any other evidence.
Page 3:

The Number of Photographs

It seems obvious to the point of absurdity, but the sheer number of photographs -- none of which show anything terrestrial -- is pretty compelling evidence. Much has been said about light sources, errant shadows and so forth, but this is all based on how light behaves in Earth’s atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere to speak of, and so refraction and reflection will be slightly different. The Lunar Module was covered in reflective paneling, and so would have had a major effect on the way light was reflected onto the surface. Undulations in the moon’s surface would also have an effect on shading. The lack of stars has also been cited as proof, but the cameras were set to daylight exposure and would not have picked up the stars anyway. We should also consider the fact that the astronauts -- who were extremely well trained photographers by the time of the mission -- were there to photograph the moon, not the view of the stars from the moon’s surface. The sheer number of photographs which were taken, and the absence of anything more than weak circumstantial evidence, is a strong argument.
Page 4:

Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial

The Apollo Program, between missions 11 and 17, collected some 382 kilograms of moon rocks, which were brought back to Earth for analysis. Every scientist who has studied these rocks has accepted that they are of non-terrestrial origin and there is no peer-reviewed article that contradicts the claim they are from the moon. Moon rocks have a very specific geological composition which is distinct from both rocks on Earth and other celestial bodies, such as meteorites. Accusations that these samples could have come from lunar meteorites are specious; the first lunar meteorite was not discovered until the 1980s, and up until now, only 30 kilograms of lunar meteorite rock have been discovered -- less than ten percent of the mass that was brought back from the moon. Added to this is the fact that lunar rocks are not subjected to the same geological processes as those on Earth, and the rocks brought home were found to be in excess of 600,000,000 years older than the oldest known rocks on Earth. If you need any more evidence, the composition of those lunar rocks is identical to Soviet samples. Had there actually been a difference, you can be sure the Soviets would have pointed it out.
Page 5:

No One on the Inside Disputed It

It is interesting to note that out of all the people who have claimed the moon landings were faked, not one of them had any direct involvement with the program. As Dr. James Longuski, a professor of Aeronautics and Astronautic Engineering has pointed out, the sheer scale of the project would have made it impossible to keep everybody quiet. Over the course of the Apollo project, he estimates that over 400,000 people, or the equivalent of a small city, were involved in working on the project. The odds of every single one of them choosing to keep silent for over forty years, and not producing any evidence, or a memoir, or an overheard conversation suggesting the landings were faked, is another hugely compelling argument. There is so much money to be made by the person who definitively proves the Moon landings were faked, that someone would surely by now have tried to capitalize on that. The fact that no one has suggests that there is no hoax.
Page 6:

It Happened Again…And Again…And Again

As Charlie Duke, an astronaut on the Apollo 16 mission said, “We have been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" It is a pertinent question and it does seem that if you are going to tell a lie, it is far easier to do it once and then stop, than to keep exaggerating the lie over the course of the next few years. Sooner or later somebody would have made a mistake to give the game away. The fact that nobody did, again, illustrates the fact that indeed, these astronauts did make it to the moon. With six separate Apollo missions actually reaching the Moon, and each time making multiple moonwalks, it seems a ridiculously elaborate hoax, at a cost of millions, if not billions of dollars to perpetrate.

While the moon landings were incredibly difficult and dangerous, the evidence we have presented here offers a convincing argument of the truth behind the matter. While ridiculously elaborate and misguided conspiracy theories add a frisson of mystery, they should never be allowed to diminish what was an incredible achievement.

For other cool Top 5s, check out our Top 5: Cool Things In Space or our Top 5: Movies That Scare Guys.