# Moon landing anniversary



## Sid James

It is now the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, which took place on July 20, 1969.

Astronauts Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin & Michael Collins made world history on that day. Meanwhile, on Earth, people were watching the event unfold on their TV screens at home, work & school.

I have no memory of the event, as it was before my time. But I'd especially be interested in the memories of older members who were around at the time...


----------



## Mirror Image

I don't believe it ever happened. It was a big hoax. I'm sure Russia was laughing their butts off when they heard that the United States landed on the moon. We don't have the technology to do it now and we certainly didn't have it 40 years ago.

If you believe it happened then you're just as gullible as all of the people who believed it happened. You know they have rocks out in Nevada that look like moon rocks...lol. It's all a big joke and you fell for it.

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories


----------



## Sid James

Well, I know there are a number of conspiracy theories around about this, but I've never given them much credibility...

In any case, it was one of the few instances during the C20th when people were galvanised & glued to their TV sets. Before the TV era, a similar thing happened on D-Day, when people worldwide were huddled around thier radios. & of course, the same thing happened on September 11, 2001, when the terrorist attacks on the USA occured, although obviously that event has more negative & even tragic connotations...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well, I know there are a number of conspiracy theories around about this, but I've never given them much credibility...
> 
> In any case, it was one of the few instances during the C20th when people were galvanised & glued to their TV sets. Before the TV era, a similar thing happened on D-Day, when people worldwide were huddled around thier radios. & of course, the same thing happened on September 11, 2001, when the terrorist attacks on the USA occured, although obviously that event has more negative & even tragic connotations...


How could you not give these theories any thought? Do you honestly believe 40 years that the United States had the technology to land a man on the moon? Why didn't Russia soon fall behind us? Because they thought, as they do now, that it's humanly impossible for a man to walk the moon. Not only that but the journey to get to the moon...I just don't believe anyone landed on the moon. I hope you're enjoying the photographs of Nevada, but it looks a lot better when astronauts aren't walking all over it!

It never happened. It was just another way for the government to throw the American people yet another bone and see who would bite first.


----------



## Sid James

Well, all I'm trying to do is get people to share their memories of the event (perhaps whether you believe it happened or not?). As I said, it was one of the really galvanzing events of the C20th, that's the impression I get from people who were around then & remember it...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well, all I'm trying to do is get people to share their memories of the event (perhaps whether you believe it happened or not?). As I said, it was one of the really galvanzing events of the C20th, that's the impression I get from people who were around then & remember it...


Do you believe it happened, Andre? Do you honestly believe that the United States had the technology 40 years ago to land a man on the moon?


----------



## Sid James

Yeah, I pretty much believe it happened. It's been revealed that the famous still photos were fake, the Russians pointed this out at the time. But they were made before so that the newspapers could have something to put on their covers when the moon landing happened. They didn't have the technology at the time to make printable still photos of what happened, so it was done in a studio before. There was a real conspirary regarding these still photos, and this has been admitted in interviews with politicians like Kissinger. Apparently, the photos were made by CIA agents, all 5 or so of whom were 'liquidated' later. Obviously, this is terrible.

However the reality is that the moon landing itself occured, because if it didn't, I'm sure other countries (like the Russians especially) would have come up with credible evidence against it...

I think that a focus on this thread on the *positive memories *of the event would be more interesting than the usual conspiracy theories, which one can read about on the internet at any time...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Yeah, I pretty much believe it happened. It's been revealed that the famous still photos were fake, the Russians pointed this out at the time. But they were made before so that the newspapers could have something to put on their covers when the moon landing happened. They didn't have the technology at the time to make printable still photos of what happened, so it was done in a studio before. There was a real conspirary regarding these still photos, and this has been admitted in interviews with politicians like Kissinger. Apparently, the photos were made by CIA agents, all 5 or so of whom were 'liquidated' later. Obviously, this is terrible.
> 
> However the reality is that the moon landing itself occured, because if it didn't, I'm sure other countries (like the Russians especially) would have come up with credible evidence against it...
> 
> I think that a focus on this thread on the *positive memories *of the event would be more interesting than the usual conspiracy theories, which one can read about on the internet at any time...


It never happened and the people who said it did are incredibly naive and gullible.


----------



## Sid James

Just like in the Martin guestbook, you are being overtly negative here. I think you can be a very perceptive person at times, and this makes most of your posts interesting for you to read. So why simply be negative for negativity's sake? Don't we get enough of that in life anyway?

As I said, the moon landing was a positive memory for many people all across the world. Let's get into that...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Just like in the Martin guestbook, you are being overtly negative here. I think you can be a very perceptive person at times, and this makes most of your posts interesting for you to read. So why simply be negative for negativity's sake? Don't we get enough of that in life anyway?
> 
> As I said, the moon landing was a positive memory for many people all across the world. Let's get into that...


I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic. Don't confuse the two. By the way, I wrote a very perceptive response to you in the "Frank Martin" thread.


----------



## bdelykleon

It is obious man landed on the lune, everyone scientific literate know that happened. Only flatearthers can claim such thing.

It is like the Pentagon plane or the dozens of others 11-9 conspiracy theories, some just can't stand thruth.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> It is obious man landed on the lune, everyone scientific literate know that happened. Only flatearthers can claim such thing.
> 
> It is like the Pentagon plane or the dozens of others 11-9 conspiracy theories, some just can't stand thruth.


Really? Then explain to me, Mr. Science, how man landed on the moon when we don't have the technology or means to do so today? Explain how the technological advances of the 1960s helped aid man in the moon landing?


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Really? Then explain to me, Mr. Science, how man landed on the moon when we don't have the technology or means to do so today? Explain how the technological advances of the 1960s helped aid man in the moon landing?


Actually we HAVE the technology, we (or actually you, since Brazilian space program is nothing special) don't have now the funding needed to do this, the times have changed, and NASA's budget is significantly lower than it were in good old days...


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Actually we HAVE the technology, we (or actually you, since Brazilian space program is nothing special) don't have now the funding needed to do this, the times have changed, and NASA's budget is significantly lower than it were in good old days...


I'm still waiting....


----------



## bdelykleon

What do you want, to go to moon yourself? Virgin is doing tripulated space flights, prehaps someday you will be able to spend a week in a lunar resort.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> What do you want, to go to moon yourself? Virgin is doing tripulated space flights, prehaps someday you will be able to spend a week in a lunar resort.


And I still wait for a logical response....


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> And I still wait for a logical response....


Isn't lack of funding a pretty logic one? NASA's budget in the 60's was 30 billion dollars, into nowadays currency it would be about 120 billion, or more, today its budget is arround 17 billion, taht is a MASSIVE budget cut.

And some months ago China sent a unmanned probe to the moon, proving that we have more than in 69 the means to go to the moon.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Isn't lack of funding a pretty logic one? NASA's budget in the 60's was 30 billion dollars, into nowadays currency it would be about 120 billion, or more, today its budget is arround 17 billion, taht is a MASSIVE budget cut.
> 
> And some months ago China sent a unmanned probe to the moon, proving that we have more than in 69 the means to go to the moon.


I'm still waiting....you haven't answered my question of how the technological advances of the 1960s landed a man on the moon?

I doubt you can answer this question, so I'll stand by original comment that no man landed on the moon, unless you can explain to me that the United States, or any country for that matter, had the technology to put a person on the moon.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> And some months ago China sent a unmanned probe to the moon, proving that we have more than in 69 the means to go to the moon.


I think the keywords here are unmanned probe. There is no proof a man put his feet in the moon's soil.

Why would they send an unmanned probe when they could send three people up there? Why don't China send some of it's people up there to survey the land and get dirt, since you know landing a man on the moon is a common thing now? Please answer this.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> I think the keywords here are unmanned probe. There is no proof a man put his feet in the moon's soil.
> 
> Why would they send an unmanned probe when they could send three men up there? Please answer this.


There are SEVERAL proves of man being on the moon: Photos, films, rocks, records, testimonies, spaceship components. If you bored to read wikipedias article you would see how every claim can be easily countered. It is overwhelming, 400.000 people involved and not a single statement from someone involved to claim it was a hoax.

I have no idea whatsoever of China's spacial program, so obviously I can't answer about its goals and funding.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> There are SEVERAL proves of man being on the moon: Photos, films, rocks, records, testimonies, spaceship components. If you bored to read wikipedias article you would see how every claim can be easily countered. It is overwhelming, 400.000 people involved and not a single statement from someone involved to claim it was a hoax.
> 
> I have no idea whatsoever of China's spacial program, so obviously I can't answer about its goals and funding.


The reason nobody from the missions or that were involved with the "moon landing" has said anything about it being a hoax is because it's covered up by the government. This case is closed tighter than clam.

Photos, films, rocks, records, testimonies, spaceship components aren't concrete proof. They all can be manufactured and doctored to look like anything you want it to.

Nevada is a great state you should visit sometime while you're there maybe *Area 51* will let you play with their moon rocks....lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51


----------



## jurianbai

what is the motive to do a fake moon landing?


----------



## Air

For a moment i tried to believe we were all being sarcastic and that I wasn't in an asylum after all, but alas...


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> The reason nobody from the missions or that were involved with the "moon landing" has said anything about it being a hoax is because it's covered up by the government. This case is closed tighter than clam.
> 
> Photos, films, rocks, records, testimonies, spaceship components aren't concrete proof. They all can be manufactured and doctored to look like anything you want it to.
> 
> Nevada is a great state you should visit sometime while you're there maybe *Area 51* will let you play with their moon rocks....lol.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51


So what is the evidence for the conspiracy? It is all covered up, oops, I feel I saw some US agents hiding in the balcony...


----------



## bdelykleon

Literally, how in the Earth could someone do this?


----------



## Mirror Image

jurianbai said:


> what is the motive to do a fake moon landing?


I guess you're not familiar with the United States and Russia space programs going head-to-head competing with each other? Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Literally, how in the Earth could someone do this?


My goodness you are SO naive....lol. I about rolled in the floor laughing at that.

Don't you know what Area 51 is? That's where they filmed that.


----------



## Sid James

Well it looks like this thread has become yet another bunfight, whereas what I expected was it to be a forum for sharing people's memories of the moon landing...

If the moon landing was a fake, then perhaps Elvis Presley is still alive? Some conspiracy theories have a bit of credibility, eg. that Kennedy was not shot by Oswald, but I just can't accept your moon landing conspiracy hoax, Mirror Image...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> If the moon landing was a fake, then perhaps Elvis Presley is still alive?


So naive...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well it looks like this thread has become yet another bunfight, whereas what I expected was it to be a forum for sharing people's memories of the moon landing...
> 
> If the moon landing was a fake, then perhaps Elvis Presley is still alive? Some conspiracy theories have a bit of credibility, eg. that Kennedy was not shot by Oswald, but I just can't accept your moon landing conspiracy hoax, Mirror Image...


Really? So you think with the technology that was around in the late 1960s that man landed on the moon? If they did land on the moon, then why hasn't it been done today or better yet why haven't we gone on to explore Venus or Mars?

*Unmanned probes* don't count....lol.


----------



## Sid James

This whole unnecessary debate is derailing the original intentions of this thread. I'd especially welcome the contributions of members older than myself who were actually around when the moon landing happened, and saw it on television, etc...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> This whole unnecessary debate is derailing the original intentions of this thread. I'd especially welcome the contributions of members older than myself who were actually around when the moon landing happened, and saw it on television, etc...


You not answering my questions leaves me to believe that you too share doubts that this "historical event" ever occurred.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> This whole unnecessary debate is derailing the original intentions of this thread. I'd especially welcome the contributions of members older than myself who were actually around when the moon landing happened, and saw it on television, etc...


I was not around when the moon landings happened, but I've been fascinated by it for a while. I read A Man on The Moon by Andrew Chaikin a few years ago and it was a great read. The chapter that describes the first landing with Mssrs Armstrong and Aldrin was especially captivating, suspensful even.

The first moon landing has got to be one of the greatest moments in human history and, like good music, is a testament to the genius that is inherent in man.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I was not around when the moon landings happened, but I've been fascinated by it for a while. I read A Man on The Moon by Andrew Chaikin a few years ago and it was a great read. The chapter that describes the first landing with Mssrs Armstrong and Aldrin was especially captivating, suspensful even.
> 
> The first moon landing has got to be one of the greatest moments in human history and, like good music, is a testament to the genius that is inherent in man.


The moon landing NEVER occurred, Tapkaara. If a man on the moon is now such a natural everyday thing, then why isn't it being done anymore? Please explain how the United States, or any country, had the technology in the late 60s to be able to land a man on the moon.


----------



## Mirror Image




----------



## Sid James

As I said, this is an unecessary debate, but the Wikipedia article below actually refutes the supposed hoax moon landing conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories

A quote from the heading paragraph:

"*There is abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings and many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.* A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the US public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.

A new set of images published by NASA in July 2009, taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission show lunar landers (including that of Apollo 11) standing on the surface, science experiments and, in one case, astronaut footprints in a line between the Apollo 14 lander and a nearby science experiment. *These images are the most effective proof to date that the "landing hoax" theory is not grounded in fact*..."

Saying the moon landing did not occur is about as plausible as suggesting that Elvis Presley is still alive! So let's stop this nonsense and actually get on with some interesting stories of people's impressions, memories and generally plausible opinions of the moon landing in 1969...


----------



## Lisztfreak

I simply CANNOT believe that, in case Americans never landed on the Moon, Russians would keep their mouth shut and allow to be hoaxed. I mean, they had radars and satellites all over, no doubt they would see no one left the atmosphere at the time and then they would make it public asap.


----------



## Mirror Image

Lisztfreak said:


> I simply CANNOT believe that, in case Americans never landed on the Moon, Russians would keep their mouth shut and allow to be hoaxed. I mean, they had radars and satellites all over, no doubt they would see no one left the atmosphere at the time and then they would make it public asap.


Don't you see everything was covered up by the U.S. government? The U.S. and Russian governments were in on this together. It was one giant money-making scheme. That's all it was.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Don't you see everything was covered up by the U.S. government? The U.S. and Russian governments were in on this together. It was one giant money-making scheme. That's all it was.


Do you have any evidence? Because you are unable to accept the tons of evidence of man being on the moon. Sure it must have a very overwhelming evidence of the cover up.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Do you have any evidence? Because you are unable to accept the tons of evidence of man being on the moon. Sure it must have a very overwhelming evidence of the cover up.


You still haven't explained how the technological advances of the 1960s were able to put a man on the moon. Indulge my question and I might indulge yours. How about that?


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> As I said, this is an unecessary debate, but the Wikipedia article below actually refutes the supposed hoax moon landing conspiracy theories:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
> 
> A quote from the heading paragraph:
> 
> "*There is abundant independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings and many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims.* A 1999 poll by The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the US public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.
> 
> A new set of images published by NASA in July 2009, taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission show lunar landers (including that of Apollo 11) standing on the surface, science experiments and, in one case, astronaut footprints in a line between the Apollo 14 lander and a nearby science experiment. *These images are the most effective proof to date that the "landing hoax" theory is not grounded in fact*..."
> 
> Saying the moon landing did not occur is about as plausible as suggesting that Elvis Presley is still alive! So let's stop this nonsense and actually get on with some interesting stories of people's impressions, memories and generally plausible opinions of the moon landing in 1969...


My question to you is since the man being on the moon is such a common thing now, why hasn't there been men/women on the moon in recent times (1980 until now)? If walking on the moon is so natural and has been done, then it would stand to reason that they would continue to send people to the moon not unmanned probes.

By the way, NASA can release all the photos they want to, I'm not going to believe a word they say. I'm not that naive.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> You still haven't explained how the technological advances of the 1960s were able to put a man on the moon. Indulge my question and I might indulge yours. How about that?


This is a non-question. Why not? They had rockets, they had computers, they had classical (newtonian) mechanics. The proof of how the 60's were able to be on the moon is that they got there. You talk like it were in the Upper Neolithic...

What now do you doubt? Atomic bombs? Nuclear energy? It is all a massive money-making cover up?


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> My question to you is since the man being on the moon is such a common thing now, why hasn't there been men/women on the moon in recent times (1980 until now)? If a man walking on the moon is such a common thing now, why isn't it being done more often? That's my question to you.


I said that: lack of funding. Kennedy and Nixon were eager to spent tons of money in the NASA, about a tenth of what is spent these days.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> I said that: lack of funding. Kennedy and Nixon were eager to spent tons of money in the NASA, about a tenth of what is spent these days.


What does that have to do with technological advances?


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> What does that have to do with technological advances?


It is impossible to discuss with you, you just ignore any fact and go on with your denial.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> This is a non-question. Why not? They had rockets, they had computers, they had classical (newtonian) mechanics. The proof of how the 60's were able to be on the moon is that they got there. You talk like it were in the Upper Neolithic...
> 
> What now do you doubt? Atomic bombs? Nuclear energy? It is all a massive money-making cover up?


All I said what I doubted man landed on the moon. There's no concrete proof that it happened. Everybody was bought off by the government and we were in cahoots with other nation's governments as well.

I just don't believe it happened there's too many holes surrounding this event that I find questionable.


----------



## andruini

I think, Mirror Image, you should open your mind up a fraction of an inch more and accept that maybe you're wrong.. Or maybe you're right.. The only people who know for sure are those who were involved in it back then.. 
There's no right or wrong here, at least not now.. Just assumptions..
So why on Earth can this thread serve the purpose Andre created it for already?


----------



## Tapkaara

By the way, one of the pieces of music Aldrin and Armstrong brought with them on the trip was Also sprach Zarathustra...hmmm...I wonder why...


----------



## danae

Although I am too a lover of conspiracy theories, I believe that we -the common people- don't have the means and the access to really know what happened. I think that governments and people with power can control almost everything, but the key word is ALMOST. There must be some way to come close to a certain truth, if you dig deep enough.


----------



## bdelykleon

andruini said:


> I think, Mirror Image, you should open your mind up a fraction of an inch more and accept that maybe you're wrong.. Or maybe you're right.. The only people who know for sure are those who were involved in it back then..
> There's no right or wrong here, at least not now.. Just assumptions..
> So why on Earth can this thread serve the purpose Andre created it for already?


It is incredible how people are eager to believe in any stupid myth like this hoax. There isn't ANY evidence for this hoax, and it grows bigger and bigger mainly due to people's lack of any scientific knowledge.


----------



## Sid James

Silly conspiracy theories aside (get over it), the moon landing was one of the few events in the C20th which people remember where they were when it happened. I was talking to some older friends of mine who were around at the time & all of them remembered where they were when they saw it on television. At home, work, school & one of them was among a group of school students who were told to go to the television section of a department store to watch it (or else you'll be expelled, their principal said!). It was a truly galvanising event & very positive, unlike more recent events that we can remember.

& the images were relayed across the world from tracking stations here in Australia. So even we took a small part in this significant event...


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> It is incredible how people are eager to believe in any stupid myth like this hoax. There isn't ANY evidence for this hoax, and it grows bigger and bigger mainly due to people's lack of any scientific knowledge.


This will be my last post in this thread as I see you guys are way too naive.

The reason I don't believe man landed on the moon has nothing to do with a hoax but has more to do with reality. Do you honestly think that the 1960s produced the kind of technology required to go to the moon? As I have said many times before, if landing a man on the moon is such a common thing now, then why aren't NASA still doing it? Why do they send unmanned probes up there when it's just as easy to send a man?

You guys can believe what you want to, but I think there was no moon landing and there will never be a moon landing. You have been thrown a government bone and it looks like you're all taking a bite.

Call me cynical, call me what you will, I don't care. I don't believe it ever happened.


----------



## Sid James

Mirror Image said:


> This will be my last post in this thread as I see you guys are way too naive...


Looks like you have had your fun, right? Your assertions have not been accepted by anyone here. They made for a mildly interesting debate, but these arguments were far from the reason why I created this thread in the first place...


----------



## Sid James

Yeah, maybe Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson, for that matter, are still alive and kicking. Everything's a big conspiratorial cover-up. I'd be surprised if you actually even believe that ANY manned space exploration happened (or is happening), including Gagarin's earlier circumnavigation of the earth...


----------



## rojo

Oddly enough, on tv today I caught some of the show Mythbusters, and they were dealing with debunking the hoax claims. Interesting for sure.

I found it at YT for those interested in watching; here is Part 1-






I was very small when it happened, Andre. So small that I remember being upset because it preempted cartoons.  Or maybe it was Sesame Street... not sure anymore. You get the picture.


----------



## Conservationist

Mirror Image said:


> All I said what I doubted man landed on the moon. There's no concrete proof that it happened. Everybody was bought off by the government and we were in cahoots with other nation's governments as well.


While I don't agree on this particular point, I think it's good to remember we know very little, and all stimulus can be faked.


----------



## Conservationist

Mirror Image said:


> The reason I don't believe man landed on the moon has nothing to do with a hoax but has more to do with reality. Do you honestly think that the 1960s produced the kind of technology required to go to the moon? As I have said many times before, if landing a man on the moon is such a common thing now, then why aren't NASA still doing it? Why do they send unmanned probes up there when it's just as easy to send a man?


Look at NASA's budget, for fuel to this fire; the moon landings were spurred on by cold war competition and a desire to defeat the Eurasians.

I think we should go to the moon again.

Many Americans do not believe their country had a successful moon landing. Reading between the lines, I get this: "I don't believe our species is organized and thoughtful enough to achieve that."

And I agree, but exceptional individuals with huge budgets (look at the size of my throbbing budget, baby) may play by different rules.


----------



## Rondo

I honestly thought this thread was about the Anniversary of an event: the Apollo 11 mission. There should be a repository for conspiracy theories.

However, I hate to be the one to provide any ideas to those interested.


----------



## Sid James

Rondo said:


> I honestly thought this thread was about the Anniversary of an event: the Apollo 11 mission. There should be a repository for conspiracy theories.


Exactly, my intention was to create a thread about the anniversary of this event. But it's been hugely derailed.

Yeah, maybe there should be a separate thread titled 'Your favourite conspiracy theories' (!)...


----------



## Conservationist

Andre said:


> Yeah, maybe there should be a separate thread titled 'Your favourite conspiracy theories' (!)...


If you call it "undiscovered history" or "revisionist history" instead of the de facto pejorative "conspiracy theories," maybe it'd be fun.


----------



## UniverseInfinite

Do "we" really exist?


----------



## nickgray

Ha  Didn't expect to find lunar landing conspiracy here. All I've got to say that Apollo 11 crew installed retroreflector array on the surface so that smart scientist guys could could do several measurements and experiments using a laser beam that from Earth that targets that array. Also there are other numerous evidence that points to a lunar landing. Anyways, happy anniversary


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Woo hoo! Back on topic now!!*

I had a look at the old "perpetual calendar," so that I could find out the day of the week for July 20, 1969.
It was a Sunday.
I'm (just barely) old enough to have a vague memory of the event. I have no recollection of the actual landing... but (somehow) I remember the telecast of some of the activities the next day. 
Suppose if I knew the significance of what was involved, I would have focused more closely...


----------



## Conservationist

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I have no recollection of the actual landing...


It was the 60s. I don't think anyone came back to earth until the 1980s.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Was it a Hoax


----------



## Capeditiea

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Was it a Hoax


it was originally a secret mission... which they did not tell anyone about, it was not the moon they were on... but our unknown second moon... which was later destroyed because certain rulers were angry at the fact they have found out there were two moons. Thusly this started the vietnam war... after the discussions of the UN suddenly turned into an arguement... next thing you know everyone is freaking out... and boom the second moon dies and chaos erupts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"All I've got to say that Apollo 11 crew installed retroreflector array on the surface so that smart scientist guys could could do several measurements and experiments using a laser beam that from Earth that targets that array."

_"The December 1966 issue of National Geographic explains why no such reflectors are needed to bounce signals off the moon ... "_


----------



## Strange Magic

I see three positives for the trips to the moon: A) Tested and enhanced the technology of spaceflight. B) Brought back physical samples of the moon. C) In future, set up a robot but periodically serviceable large astronomical telescope--a Super Hubble--on the moon. Otherwise, all additional dollars should have been spent on the amazing robotic rovers and probes that have revolutionized our understanding of our solar system by visiting, landing upon, and photographing and otherwise scanning the other planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, etc. In contrast, the billions spent on the International Space Station have been billions wasted--very little science has developed from the ISS, and likely it will be soon abandoned.


----------



## Room2201974

After Opportunity lasted 15 years on the unforgiving surface of Mars I would like NASA to construct my next vehicle.

PS - The person most responsible for lowering my golf handicap was a former NASA scientist!


----------



## senza sordino

Apparently I watched the moon landing of July 1969. I was three that summer. I don't remember it. My first memory is a vague memory of very late 1969, I was four. I have a more vivid memory of an event that happened to me in early 1970. 

But unfortunately I don't remember any of the six moon landings. 

As for the moon landing being a hoax. How could it be kept a secret among the thousands of people working on the moon landing? And why would it be faked a further five times? 

I wonder what events are planned for the fiftieth anniversary of the first moon landing this summer?


----------



## hammeredklavier

senza sordino said:


> As for the moon landing being a hoax. How could it be kept a secret among the thousands of people working on the moon landing? And why would it be faked a further five times?


this might answer your question:




_"yet how could such an undertaking be kept secret and for such a long time to the latter one needs only to remember that an unsold riddle six years older the assassination of President Kennedy still daunts the minds of the vast majority of Americans. As a parent of a conspiracy as his assassin being assassinated himself the truth of the matter has still escaped history. In keeping a secret of the magnitude of the Apollo missions being fraudulently created one turns to the Manhattan Project for comparison. Surreptitiously building the first nuclear bomb during the early to mid 1940s involved 129,500 people over a three-year period yet the secret did not get out...."_


----------



## Zofia

Mirror Image said:


> I don't believe it ever happened. It was a big hoax. I'm sure Russia was laughing their butts off when they heard that the United States landed on the moon. We don't have the technology to do it now and we certainly didn't have it 40 years ago.
> 
> If you believe it happened then you're just as gullible as all of the people who believed it happened. You know they have rocks out in Nevada that look like moon rocks...lol. It's all a big joke and you fell for it.
> 
> Check this out:.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories


I think they could have gotten to the moon but no way in heck did the record it. Radiation in space would kill the film (it was normal cameras used). I also think very much no way live TV from Space


----------



## starthrower

I faintly remember this 1969 event along with Ike's passing. Zofia, you'll find many old Mirror Image posts if you search old threads. I found him quite close-minded. He was banned years ago.


----------



## Joe B

starthrower said:


> *I faintly remember this 1969 event* along with Ike's passing....


I clearly remember this event, watching it on CBS with Walter Cronkite as anchor. Everyone in my family was gathered around the TV in my family's large kitchen. It was the summer between my freshman and sophomore year in high school (15 at the time). A significant achievement realized in less than a decade.


----------



## Strange Magic

hammeredklavier said:


> this might answer your question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"yet how could such an undertaking be kept secret and for such a long time to the latter one needs only to remember that an unsold riddle six years older the assassination of President Kennedy still daunts the minds of the vast majority of Americans. As a parent of a conspiracy as his assassin being assassinated himself the truth of the matter has still escaped history. In keeping a secret of the magnitude of the Apollo missions being fraudulently created one turns to the Manhattan Project for comparison. Surreptitiously building the first nuclear bomb during the early to mid 1940s involved 129,500 people over a three-year period yet the secret did not get out...."_


Anyone who reads a history of the building of the atomic bomb (try Richard Rhodes' classic _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_) will know that of those 129,500 people (or whatever the figure) involved in the Manhattan Project, only a tiny handful of scientists, engineers, military men, and very high government officials actually knew anything about it. Harry Truman, Vice President of the United States, knew nothing about it. But the building of the atomic bomb as an example has nothing to do with the moon landings, and cannot be used as evidence that the landings did not happen. The beauty of conspiracy theories such as those doubting the landings is that their enthusiasts can never be persuaded by evidence or by reason--everything contradicting the conspiracy can be denounced as part and parcel of the conspiracy. These people should be allowed to murmur among themselves in their own private worlds but otherwise ignored. (This post is part of the conspiracy, but you knew that!)


----------



## Bwv 1080

its all the same - moon landing conspiracies, 9-11 truthers, flat earth, holocaust denial. These people arent stupid, just willfully arrogant philistines who lack the integrity to honestly examine their flawed thinking.


----------



## Zofia

Bwv 1080 said:


> its all the same - moon landing conspiracies, 9-11 truthers, flat earth, holocaust denial. These people arent stupid, just willfully arrogant philistines who lack the integrity to honestly examine their flawed thinking.


you like to throw insults don't you?


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> ...only a tiny handful of scientists, engineers, military men, and very high government officials actually knew anything about it. Harry Truman, Vice President of the United States, knew nothing about it.


Let's not forget Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - who passed along the specifications for the plutonium bomb to the Soviet Union.

"Two men may keep a secret, if one of them is dead."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bwv 1080 said:


> its all the same - moon landing conspiracies, 9-11 truthers, flat earth, holocaust denial. These people arent stupid, just willfully arrogant philistines who lack the integrity to honestly examine their flawed thinking.


I don't know about 9-11 truthers, flat earth, holocaust denial, but in moon landing conspiracy, there's convincing argument you should at least have a listen.


----------



## Strange Magic

Such fun! The first thing I do whenever I encounter a new or different conspiracy theorist or other obvious nutter is to turn to the Internet for their credentials, past history, critique of their "findings", reputation among peers, etc. Dr, David Groves is evidently a classic of his type.....

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html


----------



## Jacck

the moon landing was not a hoax, but the interesting question is, why the US abandoned the Apollo program. They found an alien base on the opposite side of the moon. NASA has known for years that aliens inhabit the moon. They have used the dark side of the moon to establish a base, develop landing areas, create buildings and towers of various sizes and shapes, and to monitor life on Earth.


----------



## Jacck

Zofia said:


> I think they could have gotten to the moon but no way in heck did the record it. Radiation in space would kill the film (it was normal cameras used). I also think very much no way live TV from Space


I am not expert on space physics, but they landed on the side of the moon facing the earth. And that should mean that they were shielded from the cosmic radiation either by the mass of the Moon or of the Earth (the cosmic radiation cannot penetrate through the whole planet, at least not gamma rays, neutrinos of course can, but they are not dangerous). And also, as you can google "The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. Chernobyl produced about 80 mSv/ second after the incident, considerably more than on the surface of the Moon! To this day, the dosage at the center of Chernobyl is around 10 mSv/ second."

https://birdinflight.com/world/enough-lying-new-photos-of-the-moon-landing.html
the moon landing conspiracy was spread by KGB. The Russians were lying then, they are lying now


----------



## Joe B

Jacck said:


> the moon landing was not a hoax, but the interesting question is, why the US abandoned the Apollo program. They found an alien base on the opposite side of the moon. NASA has known for years that aliens inhabit the moon. They have used the dark side of the moon to establish a base, develop landing areas, create buildings and towers of various sizes and shapes, and to monitor life on Earth.


Completely absurd!!! When they realized NONE of the moon was made of cheese they gave up the entire program.....why bother?.


----------



## starthrower

The moon landing was fake, but 9/11 was a successful inside job!


----------



## Luchesi

Zofia said:


> I think they could have gotten to the moon but no way in heck did the record it. Radiation in space would kill the film (it was normal cameras used). I also think very much no way live TV from Space


Your question came up in a briefing and I was emailed this info later.

The ISS goes through a very intense part of the Van Allen Belts about once every hour. This intense area of the VABs is known as the South Atlantic Anomaly. It is strong enough to crash lap top computers.
The experiments with film found that the radioactivity affects on high ISO ( more sensitive to light ) film were more than low ISO film, Also they found Transparency films ( slide or positive ) were much less affected by radiation than negative film, to the point where it was difficult to see ANY obvious radiation damage.
The Apollo mission used mostly low ISO ( ASA ) film on the Moon the majority of which was around 60 to 100 ISO and all of it was transparency film.
The 70mm Hasselblad film, which was used for most of the photos you see from the Apollo missions, was loaded into Aluminum and steel magazines on Earth, each film was of around 150 to 200 exposures. The Hasselblad magazines were modified with thicker cases than standard by Cine Mechanics in LA and aslo painted with a white or silver thermal paint to cope with heat transfer. The film remained in the magazines for the whole mission and were only unloaded when processed back on Earth.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Wow, you mean they used actual scientists to figure out how to land on the moon? Just think if they had put all that effort into just developing the special effects necessary to fake the landing.


----------



## Jacck

Radiation Analysis for Moon and Mars Missions
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.01643.pdf
you probably receive more radiation from CT examination than the astronauts of the Apolllo program (a CT exam is about 10 mSv)


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> I think they could have gotten to the moon but no way in heck did the record it. Radiation in space would kill the film (it was normal cameras used). * I also think very much no way live TV from Space*


I must have imagined those transmissions of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster flying through space toward Mars. Of course, knowing Elon, he was probably in on the plot...


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> Wow, you mean they used actual scientists to figure out how to land on the moon? Just think if they had put all that effort into just developing the special effects necessary to fake the landing.


If you enhance and magnify the Apollo pictures you'll see many stars whose positions you can check.


----------



## Bwv 1080

The landing sites are too small for even the Hubble Space Telescope to resolve, but the Lunar Reconnaissance Observer took pictures of them

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html


----------



## Larkenfield

starthrower said:


> The moon landing was fake, but 9/11 was a successful inside job!


Bingo. The "moon landing" was a great publicity coup against the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Governments are capable of anything to protect their own interests or what they view as the interests of the people, no matter how honorable or corrupt. 9/11 is one of the more transparent ones deliberately set up and managed or the US would have looked into the event more deeply rather than leaving so many unbelievable lies and ridiculous explanations in the official investigation:


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> I must have imagined those transmissions of Elon Musk's Tesla roadster flying through space toward Mars. Of course, knowing Elon, he was probably in on the plot...


Was the car launched in 1969? Also near earth ornit is not the same as on the moon.

The picture of the space walk is a confirmed fake it was taken in training and the background darkened film would not survive the radiation levels of space back then. Now is a different topic personally I think they went but staged the landing for TV.

Imagine they landed and died how could they have this live?

I like you ken but you conflate what I say often =(


----------



## Strange Magic

Every day brings new wonders. Moon landings a hoax, nine eleven an inside job--what's a boy to believe? Did the Holocaust happen? Is that bright light in the sky by day a star, or the product of a drug-induced mass psychosis? Some people will believe anything, and clearly want to.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Strange Magic said:


> Some people will believe anything, and clearly want to.


I blame chemtrails


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> Was the car launched in 1969? Also near earth ornit is not the same as on the moon.
> 
> The picture of the space walk is a confirmed fake it was taken in training and the background darkened film would not survive the radiation levels of space back then. Now is a different topic personally I think they went but staged the landing for TV.
> 
> Imagine they landed and died how could they have this live?
> 
> I like you ken but you conflate what I say often =(


I'm sorry if you feel offended. But you wrote, "I also think very much no way live TV from Space" without mention of the moon, the year, or how far in space.

In fact you can regularly see, on live TV, the release of satellites into geosynchronous orbit over 25,000 miles up. To watch, check out future missions at spacex.com and nasa.gov. And there is certainly no insurmountable difficulty with transmitting live TV from 250,000 miles away, now or in 1969. As I remember, people weren't particularly surprised by the visuals coming back to earth, although the quality was pretty poor.


----------



## senza sordino

There is radiation is space, lots of it. Apollo 12 lost its television feed when the camera was accidentally pointed toward the sun.


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> I'm sorry if you feel offended. But you wrote, "I also think very much no way live TV from Space" without mention of the moon, the year, or how far in space.
> 
> In fact you can regularly see, on live TV, the release of satellites into geosynchronous orbit over 25,000 miles up. To watch, check out future missions at spacex.com and nasa.gov. And there is certainly no insurmountable difficulty with transmitting live TV from 250,000 miles away, now or in 1969. As I remember, people weren't particularly surprised by the visuals coming back to earth, although the quality was pretty poor.


It was said in the context of talking about the landing in 1960s again pick on me for my English as usual when it was clear what I am talking about.

Done with this forum this is all the time not cool.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> "The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. Chernobyl produced about 80 mSv/ second after the incident, considerably more than on the surface of the Moon! To this day, the dosage at the center of Chernobyl is around 10 mSv/ second."


Van Allen published an article (March 1958, Scientific American) describing the danger of space flight through the Radiation Belts:
"Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight."

You can believe whatever you want, but I feel there's something fishy about this stuff.


----------



## Bwv 1080

wow, if youtube conspiracy videos arent definitive proof, I dont know what is


----------



## Strange Magic

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on the Van Allen Belts:

"The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][33]

Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[32"


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> wow, if youtube conspiracy videos arent definitive proof, I dont know what is


:lol::lol::lol: (repeat as desired)

My Uncle Jack, who worked for an NASA contractor, says it was all claymation. Yes, he was quite a drinker, but he sounded sober when he said that.


----------



## Guest

I was about to reply to the OP with a joke, but I see that the thread has twice been derailed by the same joke, so I'll resist.

I was ten and off school with tonsillitis when Apollo 11 launched. I remember watching that. But when I got up in the morning on the day (night) of the landing, I didn't pay much attention - mostly because I couldn't make out what was what from the hazy B&W images on our TV set. My older siblings and Mum and stepdad all stayed up to watch, so it was all "going on" around me.

Later, I paid more attention to Apollo. This was probably because I'd moved on to secondary school and the boys I made friends with were all space mission fans - well, tbh, probably the whole of my class was. I don't think space missions had much of an impact on me until the first space shuttle landed - I found that quite moving.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Possibly the two least persuasive videos ever recorded :lol:. But I know how difficult it is to be believed--I've been drawn aboard alien spacecraft on several occasions now and my reproductive organs probed and examined, just like they do with the others they've also temporarily abducted. It may happen again......


----------



## Bwv 1080

Hopefully you are just putting us on and not so dim that you think these videos are convincing.

this Odd TV YouTube guy is also apparently a flat earther


----------



## senza sordino

All of these videos just leave me rolling my eyes.


----------



## tdc

Bwv 1080 said:


> wow, if youtube conspiracy videos arent definitive proof, I dont know what is


Not all youtube conspiracy videos are the same. There is a lot of good stuff to be researched there. People who think that public schools and mainstream media are better outlets for knowledge are displaying the same amount of ignorance as a flat earther.

For the record I have no idea whether or not the moon landing was real. Anybody who has some capability for independent thought should know the official story on 9/11 is full of holes and lies. Not all conspiracies are supported by the same amount of evidence, and they shouldn't all be grouped together as one thing.


----------



## Bwv 1080

tdc said:


> Not all youtube conspiracy videos are the same. There is a lot of good stuff to be researched there. People who think that public schools and mainstream media are better outlets for knowledge are displaying the same amount of ignorance as a flat earther.
> 
> For the record I have no idea whether or not the moon landing was real. Anybody who has some capability for independent thought should know the official story on 9/11 is full of holes and lies. Not all conspiracies are supported by the same amount of evidence, and they shouldn't all be grouped together as one thing.


With honest rational thought, you would be sure the moon landing was real because the evidence is overwhelming. I sure there are grades of stupidity there among conspiracy theories, but there is an objective reality that we did land on the moon, 9-11 was carried out by Muslim terrorists and the earth is not flat

As I said before, sorry but promoting conspiracy theories is a sign of a character flaw / insecurity - not an indication of intelligence or lack of. Conspiracy theories provide a comfortable illusion that at least someone is in control, along with a false boost of self-esteem, particularly among the under-educated.


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Luchesi

To H. R. HaldemanFrom: Bill Safire July 18, 1969. 
IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER: 
Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace. These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice. These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding. They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown. In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man. In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts. For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind. 

PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT: The President should telephone each of the widows-to-be. AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT, AT THE POINT WHEN NASA ENDS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MEN: A clergyman should adopt the same procedure as a burial at sea, commending their souls to "the deepest of the deep, " concluding with the Lord's Prayer.


----------



## Luchesi

Is it just the moon landings or does it include Mercury, Gemini, Apollo's other non-moon landing missions, Skylab, and the space shuttle program? They faked 7 landings with the whole world monitoring? Look at the data we got from the projects left behind on the Moon. The lunar laser ranging measurement data shows the accuracy of Newton's gravitational constant G to one part in ten trillion per year. The likelihood of any "Nordtvedt effect" has now been ruled out to high precision, so now we can have full confidence in the Strong Equivalence Principle. And Einstein's ideas about gravity predicts the Moon's orbit to within the accuracy of these very precise numbers.﻿ 

The isotopes in the Moon rocks have changed the Moon formation theory to the moonlet theory. I don’t know the latest, it’s quite technical.


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> With honest rational thought, you would be sure the moon landing was real because the evidence is overwhelming. I sure there are grades of stupidity there among conspiracy theories, but there is an objective reality that we did land on the moon, 9-11 was carried out by Muslim terrorists and the earth is not flat
> 
> As I said before, sorry but promoting conspiracy theories is a sign of a character flaw / insecurity - not an indication of intelligence or lack of. Conspiracy theories provide a comfortable illusion that at least someone is in control, along with a false boost of self-esteem, particularly among the under-educated.


Yes, it's a new world. Uninformed people will cobble together a video, and they'll be satisfied with its 'attractiveness', and they'll upload it. It costs next to nothing. And they'll actually think that they're smarter than the people who work in a science specialty for many decades. They don't know what they don't know so they can feel superior for a while. Serious researchers won't address their nonsense because it's like talking to a adolescent and it's usually nasty with a lot of undue defensiveness, because conspiracists don't want help.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Van Allen published an article (March 1958, Scientific American) describing the danger of space flight through the Radiation Belts:
> "Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight."
> 
> You can believe whatever you want, but I feel there's something fishy about this stuff.


 The USA spent millions of dollars monitoring the sun with the SOON system of optical and radio telescopes since the early 60s. We know now that the belts can be sporadically more dangerous. There seems to be a feedback effect among the belts. The second thing is that NASA is always in process of begging for more money and trying to tell the public what it's doing in research. Why the research is needed and why it's so expensive. It has to do this to keep its funding because of the public nature of its mission. The officials in government who have the money know very little about science, your representatives in Congress.﻿


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> "The Apollo Program was a Hoax" videos,







*[ 32:00 ]*


----------



## Luchesi

The Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation, or APOLLO is a project at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. It is an extension and advancement of previous Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, which uses retroreflectors on the Moon to track changes in lunar orbital distance and motion.
Using telescopes on Earth, the reflectors on the Moon, and accurate timing of laser pulses, by the early 2000s scientists could measure and predict the orbit of the Moon to an accuracy of a few centimeters. This already impressive accuracy (the Moon is typically about 385,000 km away) provides the best known test of many aspects of our theories of gravity. APOLLO improves this even further, measuring the distance between the Moon to an accuracy of a few millimeters. Using this information, scientists will be able to further test various aspects of gravity: do the Earth and the Moon react the same to gravity despite their different compositions? Does the energy content of the Earth and the Moon react to gravity in the same way as Einstein predicts? In general, does Einstein's General Relativity correctly predict the motion of the Moon, or are new theories required?
The APOLLO collaboration built their apparatus on the 3.5 meter telescope at Apache Point in southern New Mexico. By using a large telescope at a site with good atmospheric "seeing", the APOLLO collaboration gets much stronger reflections than any existing facilities. (Strong is a relative term here-APOLLO records approximately one returned laser photon per pulse, as opposed to the roughly 0.01 photon-per-pulse average experienced by previous LLR facilities.) The stronger return signal from APOLLO translates to much more accurate measurements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Using telescopes on Earth, the reflectors on the Moon, and accurate timing of laser pulses, by the early 2000s scientists could measure and predict the orbit of the Moon to an accuracy of a few centimeters.


watch this part:

*[ 37:40 ]*

_"The December 1966 issue of National Geographic explains why no such reflectors are needed to bounce signals off the moon..."_


----------



## Bwv 1080

what morons, the sites are visible from earth, but I am sure the conspiracy fwads have some stupid explanation for that as well

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bwv 1080 said:


> what morons, the sites are visible from earth, but I am sure the conspiracy fwads have some stupid explanation for that as well


Take a look at this:

*[ 2:08 ]*






Also,
*[ 0:22 ]*: "By the way there's a small problem with going to the moon, and inch by inch, NASA is leaking out that they know there is a problem there. It's called the Van Allen Belts. High radiation belts of charged particles around Earth, and we don't know how to get through them; they say. Well, isn't that interesting because there sure didn't seem be a problem back in 1969? ... Obviously they didn't go to the moon. The United States did not go to the moon, the Russians knew it all along. I thought at the time we did, but I've since learned we absolutely did not, and there's no question about it. And they're starting to figure it out; NASA has a program called "Living with a Star". That's a pretty name for "how do we get through the Van Allen Belts". They have all their top scientists working on it. *It's a tremendous problem because we did not have any kind of spacecraft that we can send off that doesn't have metal in it, and when these charged particles hit metal, they produce X-rays. Nothing you could do to get around that, so anybody sitting around something metal in outer space, in the Van Allen Belts, is gonna be French-fried.* So that whole thing was a giant hoax. And you have second and third-tier scientists in the United States running around saying "Oh yes we did! Yes we did!" But the very top level people, what I call the tier one scientists, the black ops mil scientists know for a fact we didn't go. And it's a real problem. They don't know how to get through there."


----------



## KenOC

From Wiki: “The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field…”

Oh well, just part of the conspiracy I suppose. :lol:


----------



## Knorf

WTF? I had no idea we had such colossally idiotic posting happening here on TC! I'm staggered. Yes, if you think the Moon landings were a hoax, your thinking and posting is firmly in _idiot land_. Period. Unbelievable to see such stupid commenting here.

For one example: no, you don't need reflectors to bounce a signal off the moon. But they are _very_ helpful in getting very much more precise measurements, the kind required for Einsteinian Relativity experiments, which is why they were forking put there!

You hoaxers should be ashamed for yourselves. Every idiot hoax argument has been long since debunked: the radiation, the cost, why we haven't been back, why you don't see stars in the pictures and videos, why the shadows are odd, why the dust falls so quickly back to the surface, why there were crinkles in the flag, etc. The answers are solid and easily found. The overwhelming evidence that humans landed on the moon in the Apollo program is plainly there for anyone to find! But Moon landing hoaxers are like every other breed of conspiracy moron, and cannot or will not be convinced. You may as well argue with a flat Earther.

For everyone with a brain who uses it: we know it happened. Humans went to the moon. The Apollo program was a stunning success! We also know that the technology to get to the Moon existed and exists now, although it was a hugely risky undertaking. Frankly, it was the greatest collective human achievement in history!

But the great irony is we actually _didn't_ have the technology to believably fake the Moon landing with special effects then. And we barely do even now with CGI; there have been attempts to make recent movies with believable Moon physics, and even the most recent are noticeably fake. Consider how dopey and fake _Star Wars_ looks (still a great movie, though), and even the effects of _2001: A Space Odyssey_ are massively dated looking. They would fool no one, and are very little like the actually footage, even now. The show Mythbusters did an episode dealing with how to fake it all, and concluded it was still not really possible.

So no, faking it was _not_ an option. Only _actually going there was_.

And that to me that is wonderful and amazing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field…"


But it's not a simple matter of "bypassing" a layer of obstacle, since radiation in outer-space is just as deadly, if not more. The astronauts would have been bombarded with cosmic rays during the whole trip, more than enough to fry them from the inside out a hundred times over. NASA even admits it:
"The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet."


----------



## Guest

"Inch by inch, NASA is leaking out that they know there is a problem there. It's called the Van Allen Belts."

Professor James McKenney doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that the Van Allen Belts have been known since 1958, were mapped in previous space flights that flew through them and were an knowledge problem for the Apollo mission. Mission planners chose a trajectory that entirely avoided the intense inner belt and punched through the thinnest section of the relatively more diffuse outer belt as quickly as possible, keeping exposure to manageable levels. Radiation dosage in space was one of the big unknowns in planning the Apollo missions.

In the second video we see a narrator who has a talent for misconstruing even the most simple declarative sentence uttered by a NASA scientist or astronaut.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> But it's not a simple matter of "bypassing" a layer of obstacle, since radiation in outer-space is just as deadly, if not more. The astronauts would have been bombarded with cosmic rays during the whole trip, more than enough to fry them from the inside out a hundred times over. NASA even admits it:
> "The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet."


The remark you quote about radiation on the moon goes on to say that people _living_ on the moon would have a heightened risk of cancer. That is a far cry from be fried from the inside out a hundred times over over the course of an 8 day mission.


----------



## KenOC

Franklin had the right answer to conspiracy theories: "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead."


----------



## KenOC

Here's an interesting video about the Apollo missions versus the Van Allen belts, also addressing the conspiracy theories.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> NASA even admits it:


NASA isn't 'admitting' anything. They're explaining.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> Here's an interesting video about the Apollo missions versus the Van Allen belts, also addressing the conspiracy theories.


Thanks, but these arguments (about the VAB being made up of beta and alpha particles) are like the ones most over-used by NASA fans. (I've heard them a million times already) And they don't address the issues raised by "whistle blowers". Droid and Vintage are two of the biggest channels supported by NASA on youtube.


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> Thanks, but these arguments (about the VAB being made up of beta and alpha particles) are like the ones most over-used by NASA fans. (I've heard them a million times already) And they don't address the issues raised by "whistle blowers". Droid and Vintage are two of the biggest channels supported by NASA on youtube.


I yield, sir, to your superior expertise.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Thanks, but these arguments (about the VAB being made up of beta and alpha particles) are like the ones most over-used by NASA fans. (I've heard them a million times already) And they don't address the issues raised by "whistle blowers". Droid and Vintage are two of the biggest channels supported by NASA on youtube.


Never mind the 'issues'. Why should we listen to you and Prof James, rather than any number of other equally qualified or much more qualified persons who take a different view?


----------



## hammeredklavier

^If you think about it, things just don't add up. I just don't think of outer-space as the kind of "harmless, peaceful dreamland of tranquility" the agency propagandists make it out to be. Their depiction just doesn't seem reasonable from the way we normally think about science.

_"Micrometeorites travel through Earth's atmosphere at up to 50 times faster than a rifle bullet"_

These actually puncture through extra-hardened multi-layer shields of space stations orbiting at high altitudes. And on the surface of the moon, there's no atmosphere to burn them, so it is constantly exposed to the bombardment of these micrometeorites travelling at extreme speeds.
So to protect the astronauts, their spacesuits would have had to have, not only shielding against cosmic radioactivity and extreme temperatures, but also super "bullet-proof" layering; science-fictional "armor" that can literally deflect high-accelerated bullets as if they're nothing.

If they had all that science-fictional high technology back then half a century ago,
why are they having so much trouble cleaning up the radioactive mess in Fukushima now?
Just think about it, all this story about how mankind achieved all that sci-fi high-tech half a century ago, about how they could send men 600 times the distance they can today, -It's like reading Star Trek. I think it's about time to wake up from dreams to face reality.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> ^If you think about it, things just don't add up. [etc etc etc]


I ask again, why should we listen to you and Prof James, rather than any number of other equally qualified or much more qualified persons who take a different view?


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## erki

The thing is that governments/politicians have lied in past and do now all the time. Many lies have come out, many conspiracy theories have proved to be actual happenings. If you watch action movies and news reels how can you tell the difference what is real and what is made in "studio" for sure - only if you were there. It all boils down to what do you are willing to believe. And you can not argue about personal beliefs. Its like with God - if you believe it is there, if you don't there is none. If you believe men landing on the Moon you find plenty of facts about that and if you don't there is lots of evidence for that as well. Also the societies were much more closed at these times and faking the news with limited media outlets was much easier. Much more secrecy during cold war as well. It appeared rather to be the norm not to tell to the public.
I was 10 when Moon landing happened. In Estonia this was never played up as much as in the "west". So I don't remember too much of an excitement about it. It was rather unexpected that soviets just put a Lunar-rower on the Moon and suddenly there is a man there. However nobody doubted this and there were no indications from Soviet government that this was another american propaganda stunt.
And today I believe neither of them nor I believe in any god. But either way it is one of the greatest achievements(as actual landing or faking it) of America.
Good movie about this:


----------



## annaw

It might be useful to read actual research papers.

NASA has written an analysis about the radiation: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~sshepherd/research/Shielding/docs/Simonsen_91.pdf

It uses multiple other research papers etc.


----------



## Guest

annaw said:


> It might be useful to read actual research papers.
> 
> NASA has written an analysis about the radiation: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~sshepherd/research/Shielding/docs/Simonsen_91.pdf
> 
> It uses multiple other research papers etc.


It might. But if it's all fake, what the point? The fakers aren't interested in the truth, only on holding on to their truth, as they see it.

It's not just a matter of what they believe, but the basis on which they formulate their beliefs and the way they counter others' facts. It is solely based on scepticism about you and your sources, and an unfailing adherence to the idea that the naysayers (eg Prof James McKenny) must be right, because they are the naysayers.

Which is why I asked hammeredklavier why his so called experts and whistleblowers are to be believed and not those who hold the orthodox viewpoint.

They also trade on the fact that in our daily lives, we all depend on a shared view of the world that is substantially based on received information rather than direct experience, and even direct experience is not always reliable. Look at what happens in the courtroom. And what we watch on TV is not direct experience...though what someone says on YouTube is totally the truth, apparently.

When it comes to the knowledge required to understand how space travel is possible, we're all in the dark to some degree, even the experts. That's why a whole army of them is necessary.

That doesn't stop the armchair scientists from showing off their ignorance.


----------



## Art Rock

hammeredklavier said:


> I think it's about time to wake up from dreams to face reality.


Excellent advice.


----------



## erki

There seems to be a strong belief that public shouldn't know too much truth. So in the past it was done by limiting the knowledge but after the emergence of the internet it has been found out that too much information is way better tool - public will believe everything and ......nothing. And you can not be caught lying.


----------



## tdc

I think that if we have a situation where we are getting conflicting information about a past event, the best we can do is try to use our own powers of observation and judgement to connect dots in the real world and attempt to ascertain what the truth is. From my own experience I have noticed a lot of dubious information coming from all kinds of supposedly authoritative places for a long time. So much so that it astonishes me how trusting so many people are of narratives learned in schools and media. 

Maybe what is closer to the truth is that it would be too inconvenient for many people to accept that dishonesty could be happening on such a wide scale. It would require a major shake up of their world views and indeed their own identities. Perhaps it would create an increased sense of personal responsibility for people that for various reasons, they don't want. For many it would seem, it is much easier to go with the flow and let other people tell them how to think and what to believe, it is more convenient. And when others show direct evidence of things being different, it creates cognitive dissonance and that evidence is rejected. 

I don't know if the moon landing was real or not, but using my own observation I think it is weird that the rocket ships we are using today are so similar to what was being used in the '60's. Technology typically moves much faster than this. Look at how far computers have come just since the '90's for example. Look at the rapid development of cell phones. There are multiple accounts of individuals claims of suppressed technologies. Look into the work of Nicolai Tesla. Using my own powers of independent thought and common sense it seems quite probable that technology in terms of space travel has advanced past the level that those in control feel comfortable telling the general public about, as it would likely empower people too much and make the oil industry quickly obsolete. You see how many lies could stack up as a result of one decision like that? And if they are willing to deceive people about that, then what else? I also think it is odd that it is the same side of the moon that faces the earth at all times. What are the chances of a rotation like that? Perhaps there are some unanswered questions there. So my view is I am still unsure about the alleged moon landing. 

How about documented occurrences like 'Project Mockingbird' where the CIA infiltrated major media institutions to create fake news that served their agenda and killed stories that did not? This started in 1948 and continues to this day. What do you think that means about the average person's world view? That it is based on truth, science and transparency? 

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." 
-William J. Casey, Director of Central Intelligence 1981-1987


----------



## Guest

^ Well, of course, how else is anyone supposed to function in the real world without using our personal faculties to make sense of what our experiences tell us?

In the case of the moon landings, I'm not getting 'conflicting information', so I think I can rest easy.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> ...I also think it is odd that it is the same side of the moon that faces the earth at all times. What are the chances of a rotation like that? Perhaps there are some unanswered questions there. So my view is I am still unsure about the alleged moon landing. ...


So what, you think the moon itself is a hoax? :lol:

After reading this, do you think anyone is going to take seriously your thoughts on who plays Beethoven Piano Sonatas best? :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Here's an interesting video about the Apollo missions versus the Van Allen belts, also addressing the conspiracy theories.


Thank you Ken for your attempt to inject some sanity into this thread. I couldn't stand to read much of it because the level of gullibility and scientific illiteracy is just so disturbing. I'm amazed that people who can entertain the most absurd and groundless conspiracy theories can't even momentarily turn their skepticism in the right direction. How can they not realize that faking the space program, NASA, the work histories of hundreds of thousands of engineers, technicians, scientists and astronauts, the millions of people subcontracting the required work, the countless launches, the vehicles currently crawling across Mars, the probes to the outer planets, the constant stream of data from space telescopes, etc., would be infinitely more difficult than the technological challenges of a lunar landing or indeed any of the projects I mentioned? What a lack of imagination it must require to be blind to the absurdity of their position.


----------



## Guest

...............................
ooops


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> So what, you think the moon itself is a hoax? :lol:
> 
> After reading this, do you think anyone is going to take seriously your thoughts on who plays Beethoven Piano Sonatas best? :lol:


How did Beethoven even write the moonlight sonata, since the moon was a hoax instituted by NASA in 1969?

Come to think of it, I have no distinct memories of seeing the moon before 1969.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Thank you Ken for your attempt to inject some sanity into this thread.


Well, yes, but while the video may offer something of a rebuttal on the specifics of the VAB, it doesn't deal with the bigger problem, which is the _willingness _to believe something that you, Ken and I know is not amenable to informed argument. If their starting point is that the landings were a hoax, any evidence offered to the contrary just becomes part of the conspiracy, and we who offer such evidence are either all part of it, or have been conned by it. Worse, if you're starting point is that no-one out there can be trusted to be telling the truth, and that all the sources of information that we have hitherto relied on are filled with lies, we're wasting our time attempting to discuss such conspiracies at all.

I grew up trusting authoritative figures - parents, police, teachers, newscasters, my elders and betters - and also the books, papers and magazines I read and the TV programmes I watched. The fact that I also learned to deploy scepticism to some degree did not render me incapable of believing in any of those authorities now. But we do seem to have grown in some people, a wholesale mistrust of all authority, to the extent that if someone starts an internet joke that Finland doesn't exist, there are people willing to take it seriously.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...vinced-the-internet-that-finland-doesnt-exist

Unless, of course, this article is also fake!


----------



## Guest

The conspiracy theorist mindset involves taking the slightest hint of an inconsistency in the consensus theory as proof that it is fake, while overlooking the most glaring inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory.


----------



## Jacck

some of these conspiracy theorists are amusing. An example here




I wonder how sound is supposed to propagate in cosmic vacuum


----------



## Room2201974

My gut is that most conspiracy theorists have never been project managers. Their optimism is adorable. — Merlin Mann


----------



## Luchesi

Titanium isotope abundance in the Moon rocks shows an unexpected amount, which indicates the Moon was sprinkled with moonlets from a 5 body collision - so the isotopes on the Moon's surface were from the Earth.﻿

"In his August 28, 2009 Associated Press story appearing in the Brisbane Times, Toby Sterling recounted how a spokesman for the Dutch National Museum, Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, acknowledged on August 26, 2009, "that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by"…Apollo 11… "US astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.."… "The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their 'Giant Leap' goodwill tour after the first moon landing." The museum acknowledged that though they did vet the moon rock they failed to double check it. The museum was under the incorrect belief that this moon rock was one of the 135 Apollo 11 moon rocks that were presented to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration. "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation. The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known. 
An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "Moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather, who was nearly deaf, and blind at the time, formed the mistaken impression that the "Moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees' "Moon rock" was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was "possible" it was a Moon rock.[4] USA Today says the discovery of a bogus "Moon rock" at the Rijksmuseum should serve as a wake-up call for all the countries of the world and all the states of the United States that received the Apollo 11 and 17 lunar plaque displays from the Nixon administration to locate the displays and fully secure them."


----------



## Art Rock

Luchesi said:


> Titanium isotope abundance in the Moon rocks shows an unexpected amount, which indicates the Moon was sprinkled with moonlets from a 5 body collision - so the isotopes on the Moon's surface were from the Earth.﻿


I've read the sentence five times now and I can make head nor tails of it.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Wonder how NASA managed to get the Soviet Union, Japan and the Chinese in on the conspiracy

Independent evidence
In this section are only those observations that are completely independent of NASA-no NASA facilities were used, and there was no NASA funding. Each of the countries mentioned in this section (Soviet Union, Japan, China, and India) has its own space program, builds its own space probes which are launched on their own launch vehicles, and has its own deep space communication network.

SELENE photographs
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres

The light-colored area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of crewed landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program.

Chandrayaan-1
As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.[2][3]

Chang'e 2
China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings and the lunar Rover, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[4]

Apollo missions tracked by independent parties
Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. On later missions, NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories.[5]

Observers of all missions
The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[6] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered", describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.[7]

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.[8]

Kettering Grammar School
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[9][10] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings


----------



## hammeredklavier

the US and the USSR actually "helped each other" secretly during the time of the Apollo mission:

*Great grain robbery*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_grain_robbery
"The great grain robbery was the July 1972 purchase of 10 million short tons (9.1×106 t) of grain (mainly wheat and corn) from the United States by the Soviet Union at subsidized prices, which caused global grain prices to soar."

But nowadays:

*Russia Says It Will 'Verify' Whether The US Moon Landings Ever Really Happened*
26 NOVEMBER 2018
https://www.sciencealert.com/russia...hether-the-moon-landings-ever-really-happened
"....Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia's national space agency, Roscosmos, just fed this unkillable rumour in a filmed meeting with the president of Moldova, Igor Dodon.
In a video of the exchange posted on Rogozin's Twitter feed on Saturday, the Roscosmos chief was asked whether NASA really did land on the Moon almost 50 years ago. .....
In response, Rogozin proposes a new Russian mission will investigate the controversial claims: "We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they've been there or not," he says.
These comments were made after the announcement of a probe into alleged FIFA corruption, with Markin criticising US prosecutors for "having declared themselves the supreme arbiters of international football affairs".
In that context, Markin's invoking of the conspiracy doubts is more a metaphor than a serious accusation, but it nonetheless all helps feed the distorted narrative that NASA somehow faked the 1969 landing.""

Also,


Bwv 1080 said:


> SELENE photographs
> In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.


JAXA depends heavily on technological aid from NASA. There must have been some "agreements" between the two.
"On January 24, 2018, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) met to exchange their views on space exploration. The agencies signed a joint statement affirming their strong mutual interest in continued future cooperation in space exploration."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Please watch the videos I've posted in my previous threads, they discuss the issues you've raised:



EdwardBast said:


> How can they not realize that faking the space program, NASA, the work histories of hundreds of thousands of engineers, technicians, scientists and astronauts, the millions of people subcontracting the required work, the countless launches, the vehicles currently crawling across Mars, the probes to the outer planets, the constant stream of data from space telescopes, etc., would be infinitely more difficult than the technological challenges of a lunar landing or indeed any of the projects I mentioned? What a lack of imagination it must require to be blind to the absurdity of their position.









Luchesi said:


> Titanium isotope abundance in the Moon rocks shows an unexpected amount, which indicates the Moon was sprinkled with moonlets from a 5 body collision - so the isotopes on the Moon's surface were from the Earth.﻿







*'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake*
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...y-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.


----------



## KenOC

New aphorism for the day: There is nothing that cannot be believed if the need to believe is strong enough.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> That doesn't stop the armchair scientists from showing off their ignorance.


Compare the ways people on both sides talk:

for example, compare




Don Pettit (NASA astronaut): "I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."




Brian Welch (Director Media Services NASA): "I'll be honest with you. I think that's pseudo-scientific, nit-picky claptrap. And again, I don't know why we should spend even a moment trying to judge that." 




Alan Bean (Apollo 12 astronaut): "I'm not sure if we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts. Maybe we did."

with 
Dr. David Groves' explanation


----------



## hammeredklavier

*Bill Clinton*: "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time." 







Room2201974 said:


> My gut is that most conspiracy theorists have never been project managers. Their optimism is adorable. - Merlin Mann


"Kaysing had actually contributed to the US space programme, albeit tenuously: between 1956 and 1963, he was an employee of Rocketdyne, a company that helped to design the Saturn V rocket engines."


----------



## Bwv 1080

hammeredklavier said:


> that's pseudo-scientific, nit-picky claptrap. And again, I don't know why we should spend even a moment trying to judge that."
> ]


Yep, an apt description of everything you have posted in this thread, best stick to Mozart where you do know what you are talking about


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Compare the ways people on both sides talk:
> 
> for example, compare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don Pettit (NASA astronaut): "I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Welch (Director Media Services NASA): "I'll be honest with you. I think that's pseudo-scientific, nit-picky claptrap. And again, I don't know why we should spend even a moment trying to judge that."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Bean (Apollo 12 astronaut): "I'm not sure if we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts. Maybe we did."
> 
> with
> Dr. David Groves' explanation


They're not scientists. It's obvious.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> *Bill Clinton*: "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Kaysing had actually contributed to the US space programme, albeit tenuously: between 1956 and 1963, he was an employee of Rocketdyne, a company that helped to design the Saturn V rocket engines."


Look up what Kaysing was.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> ...
> I don't know if the moon landing was real or not, but using my own observation I think it is weird that the rocket ships we are using today are so similar to what was being used in the '60's. Technology typically moves much faster than this. Look at how far computers have come just since the '90's for example. Look at the rapid development of cell phones. There are multiple accounts of individuals claims of suppressed technologies. Look into the work of Nicolai Tesla. Using my own powers of independent thought and common sense it seems quite probable that technology in terms of space travel has advanced past the level that those in control feel comfortable telling the general public about, as it would likely empower people too much and make the oil industry quickly obsolete...


There is only one way to propel an object in vacuum, shoot some matter out the back and use momentum conservation to impart an equal and opposite forward momentum to the vehicle. Except for a few hair brain schemes like solar sails it's the only technology there is, so of course modern space vehicles are basically the same as the space vehicles of the 60's. There is an increases sophistication of the control systems, but the basic physics is the same and imposes the important constraints.

It's like comparing a 1964 Dodge Dart to a 2020 Honda Accord. More precise control by advanced computer systems, more efficient and greatly diminished emissions. But at the end of the day it's still an internal combustion engine burning gasoline and rubber wheels on pavement.


----------



## KenOC

Another Curious Droid video on why we can't see the things left behind by various lunar missions, manned and unmanned. Except, or course, that with the advent of lunar orbiters, we can.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Wernher von Braun: "It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three. Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the earth to the moon and return. The figures speak for themselves: each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building (1250 feet) and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons!"


----------



## KenOC

Von Braun's comments apparently are from around 1952, in a Colliers's magazine series that I remember well from my childhood. It turned out that alternative approaches were more economical, and one was managed by von Braun himself with the design of the Saturn V heavy booster and the other details of the actual missions. Von Braun, the man "whose allegiance was ruled by expedience" as the song goes, is still celebrated for his successes today.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Von Braun's comments apparently are from around 1952, in a Colliers's magazine series that I remember well from my childhood. It turned out that alternative approaches were more economical, and one was managed by von Braun himself with the design of the Saturn V heavy booster and the other details of the actual missions. Von Braun, the man "whose allegiance was ruled by expedience" as the song goes, is still celebrated for his successes today.


Von Braun got quite a bit right, didn't he - just the scale and economics wrong. Mind you, there were those arguing that the economics of Apollo (and the entire space programme since) was economic madness.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Compare the ways people on both sides talk:
> 
> for example, compare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don Pettit (NASA astronaut): "I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Welch (Director Media Services NASA): "I'll be honest with you. I think that's pseudo-scientific, nit-picky claptrap. And again, I don't know why we should spend even a moment trying to judge that."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Bean (Apollo 12 astronaut): "I'm not sure if we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts. Maybe we did."
> 
> with
> Dr. David Groves' explanation


Still no reply to my question?

Never mind. Since we can just rummage the internet and post any old thing to make a point, you do know that not only was there a moon landing in 1969, there was also one in 1902.






You might try to actually engage with the rest of us and discuss the matter properly, instead of just throwing up chaff with no comment.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> Von Braun's comments apparently are from around 1952, in a Colliers's magazine series that I remember well from my childhood. It turned out that alternative approaches were more economical, and one was managed by von Braun himself with the design of the Saturn V heavy booster and the other details of the actual missions. Von Braun, the man "whose allegiance was ruled by expedience" as the song goes, is still celebrated for his successes today.


Please listen to what G.W. Bush says in this video: 



So, the reasonable procedure has always been: to build a space station in the low earth orbit -> use the station as a starting point for human exploration to the moon -> build a base on the moon -> use the base on the moon as a starting point for further human exploration into outer-space (ie. Mars). 
Von Braun was a NAZI war criminal who designed and manufactured V2 rockets under Hitler's orders to bomb London. He would have followed NASA's orders to "just shut up and follow the orders" (_"Don't make it. Just fake it."_), just like how he was an obedient dog to Hitler. 
If there was a more economic way to go about doing it, why can't we replicate it today?

_"iPhones Have 100,000 Times More Processing Power Than Apollo 11 Computer. iPhones have over 100,000 times more processing power than the Apollo 11 computer; with 4GB of RAM they have over a million times more memory, and with 512GB of storage they have over seven million times more storage."_



MacLeod said:


> Von Braun got quite a bit right, didn't he - just the scale and economics wrong.


So Von Braun, one of the greatest scientific minds of rocket engineering in history got the scale wrong by 1:266, and even published a book about it just a decade and a few years before the Apollo moon landings?


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> So Von Braun, one of the greatest scientific minds of rocket engineering in history got the scale wrong by 1:266, and even published a book about it just a decade and a few years before the Apollo project?


Still mining the unreliable internet for YTB clips? How about my clip? Did you enjoy it?


----------



## Luchesi

I have to say that hammeredklavier has given this more thought than most current, wide-eyed conspiracists.

In the 60s I did think it was a silly boondoggle between two immature players trying to beat each other to the Moon, mainly for bragging rights. ..Like two kids on the playground trying to sink a basketball across the whole court, for their moment of notoriety. Later I worked for decades with NASA contractors at our lab and they're just like everybody else. You come to understand the human element.

I was intensely interested to hear whether billions of years of conditions on the Moon did or did not form many meters of dangerous Moon dust. I assumed that it did, but I was wrong.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> Please watch the videos I've posted in my previous threads, they discuss the issues you've raised:


I have training in the sciences and can easily spot frauds and loonies, so no, I won't. You should watch the video Ken posted in #160. The last part contains actual images of the artifacts left on the moon by the Apollo missions. If that doesn't do it for you, then I'll write you off as beyond help.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Von Braun's comments apparently are from around 1952, in a Colliers's magazine series that I remember well from my childhood. It turned out that alternative approaches were more economical, and one was managed by von Braun himself with the design of the Saturn V heavy booster and the other details of the actual missions. Von Braun, the man "whose allegiance was ruled by expedience" as the song goes, is still celebrated for his successes today.
> 
> View attachment 138463


That was before they realized that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous would be much more efficient than direct ascent. There's an interesting podcast on NPR 1A which reviews a book about John Houbolt, the NASA engineer who pushed for the LOR option.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/7395...llo-11-and-the-unsung-hero-who-made-it-happen


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I have training in the sciences and can easily spot frauds and loonies, so no, I won't. You should watch the video Ken posted in #160. The last part contains actual images of the artifacts left on the moon by the Apollo missions. If that doesn't do it for you, then I'll write you off as beyond help.


Among other things, they left behind bags of poop, which will contain remnants of "Tang" I assume.


----------



## KenOC

It also seems that in 1952 Von Braun was envisioning a large winged aircraft with multiple crew for the mission. That beast would have been hauled to the moon, landing there and taking off again, and then flown back to the earth, re-entering the atmosphere and landing just like a large jet plane. No wonder it needed a huge booster!

However, our early manned space efforts took the far more modest approach of cramming 1-3 people into a small capsule with an ablative heat shield and no wings, one that landed in the ocean by atmospheric braking and parachutes. And Apollo was carefully staged to return only a small part of the lunar payload to earth.


----------



## Merl

Maybe it was one of those bullet-like micrometeorites that took out JFK.? Or is that another conspiracy theory?


----------



## Luchesi

Merl said:


> Maybe it was one of those bullet-like micrometeorites that took out JFK.? Or is that another conspiracy theory?


Hammeredklavier has a hole in his head?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> I have to say that hammeredklavier has given this more thought than most current, wide-eyed conspiracists.


More thought than other conspiracists? I wouldn't know.

Whatever thinking is going on, it's not showing in posts that simply circulate others' 'thoughts' on the matter. There is no argument put forward, or explanation, nor any engagement with any of those who've offered counter evidence (not that I think it's necessary to do that) or counter argument.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> So Von Braun, one of the greatest scientific minds of rocket engineering in history got the scale wrong by 1:266, and even published a book about it just a decade and a few years before the Apollo moon landings?


Von Braun presumably did the calculation correctly for direct ascent. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous is much more energy efficient and had been proposed early on, but was initially ruled out because of the necessity of performing difficult docking maneuvers in lunar orbit.

Again, I strongly encourage anyone interested to listen to the podcast I referenced a few posts ago (or read the book it reviews).


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> More thought than other conspiracists? I wouldn't know.
> 
> Whatever thinking is going on, it's not showing in posts that simply circulate others' 'thoughts' on the matter. There is no argument put forward, or explanation, nor any engagement with any of those who've offered counter evidence (not that I think it's necessary to do that) or counter argument.


Yeah, it's a lot of time and faulty thinking. 
Why do people (who probably didn't care about science when they were in school) make videos full of cherry-picked content? To feel good about themselves and even to make some money on YouTube if they get enough subscribers.
The science? They don't care.
If you've had conversations with these people in their comments section you realize very quickly this is a good hobby for them. Otherwise what would they be doing? Making Molotov cocktails in their bedrooms?

Life is very short and for these young people to be spending hours and hours on this nonsense is tragic.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> It also seems that in 1952 Von Braun was envisioning a large winged aircraft with multiple crew for the mission. That beast would have been hauled to the moon, landing there and taking off again, and then flown back to the earth, re-entering the atmosphere and landing just like a large jet plane. No wonder it needed a huge booster!
> 
> However, our early manned space efforts took the far more modest approach of cramming 1-3 people into a small capsule with an ablative heat shield and no wings, one that landed in the ocean by atmospheric braking and parachutes. And Apollo was carefully staged to return only a small part of the lunar payload to earth.


Ken, you're almost at 20k posts, if you haven't noticed..


----------

