Was the first landing on the moon by Nasa fake?

Question

The first landing on the moon might have been a hoax. Many have questioned for years. People have questioned about how the video of the first landing on the moon, stars were absent, the astronauts motion were slowed down by editing, and how the powerful blast from departure left no mark on the moon, and those are just some of the theories. Answer.

Answer 1

Although my wife's father performed fuel calculations for the original Apollo landing, I'll spare you that speech. Instead, I will encourage you to watch two programs. The first show is called Conspiracy Moon Landing that it currently showing on the National Geographic Channel and it pretty much obliterates all of the popular conspiracy theories.

I would also encourage you to watch a movie called Capricorn One. Made it 1978, it is a fictional story about a fake mission to Mars. Although it is a science fiction story, it is a good example of how utterly impossible it would be to fake a moon landing for any length of time.

12 men walked on the moon from 1969 to 1972 and we have neither the resources nor the technology to pull off that big of a hoax for so long. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked on the space program. It would be far easier to put someone on the moon than to try and fake it and keep it secret for nearly 40 years.

The landings came at a time when our space program was ultra competitive with the former Soviet Union. Remember how big of a deal it was when Sputnik was put into orbit? They had the technology to monitor our moon shots and transmissions. Don't you think they would have called us out if they had evidence that it was all fake?

Perhaps the most definitive proof of our trip to the moon is what we left behind. For the last 35+ years, scientists have been beaming lasers to the moon and measuring the return times. How are they doing this? The beams are reflected back by equipment left on the moon on at 3 different locations.

Case closed.

Answer 2

Use something called "Occam's Razor," a philosophical principle that, roughly stated, goes like this: "Tis vain to use more when less will serve."

Namely, it is much easier to explain the event if it truly took place than to imagine the overarching framework of cooperative deceit if it had never taken place. It is easier to GET to the moon and get back than it is to commit that particular fraud.

Given the continuity of consistent and congruous data that emerge from that time onwards, the probability that the moon landings occurred as reported APPROACHES certainty.

One can imagine anything happening, but some things are quite a bit more probable than others. One would have to be able to explain the mass hypnosis - that hasn't been - verifiably - pulled off in the ensuing 37 years, either. Who would have perpetuated it? How? What would have been the point? How would one explain the deaths of astronauts?

Remember, a theory, in order to be scientific, must be able to be tested. And it cannot be stated as a negative (since negatives can't be proven). The burden of proof is on the doubter, not on the proponent.

A related point - David Hume formulated the idea that it is more likely that I should be deceived than that something so out of the ordinary should happen. In the case of space flight in the 1960s and '70s, I'm firmly convinced that the ordinary thing was space travel and that "out of the ordinary" would be a SUCCESSFUL government conspiracy. Remember: Nixon couldn't even order and cover up a minor break-in without getting caught; he couldn't bomb Cambodia with "plausible deniability"; why would one go so far as to give him credit for stage-managing the moon landing?

To address your points: (1) the visibility of stars depends upon not only the absence of atmosphere, but also the speed of the film being used - I can see the stars in the night sky, but if I use a camera, the film or digital receiver will have to be extremely slow or the ASA extremely fast to pick up the tiny points of light; (2) apparent slow motion depends on the frames per second the movie or video camera is using; and (3) the burn marks one would see on earth after a blast off would be left by lots of chemical reactions that did not occur in the burning of the fuel burned in the rocket. For one thing, there were no substantive concentrations of organic compounds on the surface. Besides, who says there are "no marks" on the moon? (If there were organic compounds in the fuel, one would expect them to leave marks; I'm not sure what the booster fuel consisted of; some burns only create water, which would dissipate from a virtually atmosphere-free surface very, very quickly.

There were reflecting panels left on the moon that made it possible to measure the distance from the earth very accurately. These measurements would not have been possible - at the time - without the equipment having been left behind.

Where would those photographs of the earth have come from? In the photographic technology available at the time, they would have been impossible. If you don't believe me, look at the special effects of any science fiction film made before two or three years ago. Completely unconvincing. If it would have been possible to create that illusion in such detail, the world would be a very, very different place. The future we're just now glimpsing would have been possible half a century ago.

Answer 3

Until a few years ago, I had thought it was the real deal; BUT it bothers me greatly that in this advanced technical period of time, we just can't seem to get back there. We even have a hard time with lessor space vehicles. Now I am beginning to think it was a muse and a trick even pulled off on the astronauts.

Answer 4

It was real, just the technology at that time gave us crappy recordings. We are used to HDTV, and film is very very fragile...