Is it true that Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin have been to the moon?

Answer 1

Possibly, I 'saw' it on telly, and also saw the conspiracy theory about it. But I wonder how they could visit the moon way back then, but no one is trying again.

Answer 2

I've always been sceptical about this for one single reason : the live television broadcast. If memory serves correct, the lunar landing took place in 1969. Which means that the technology available to broadcast a television signal from the moon back to the earth would have been that available in the 1960's.

In simple terms, with no mains electricity, and relying entirely upon battery power, I'm sceptical about whether it would have been possible to transmit a television signal the distance from the moon to the earth in real time, given that all the transmitting equipment required to have done so would have needed to have fit into the space contained within the lunar landing module.

There are very practical ways in which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin could have been made to have believed that they had been to the moon, such as hypnosis, pschological programming etc. I don't doubt the authenticity of their belief. But I do wonder whether the lunar landing was in fact an elaborate hoax perpetrated by an American government that was engaged in a war on two fronts (a) a cold war against the soviet union and (b) the vietnam war which was ripping the very heart and soul out of the nation at home. The lunar landing provided a welcome break from the trials of an otherwise weary nation at that time. Would that justify faking it? Yes, I think it would. There's no doubting that the arms race was producing enormous scientific breakthroughs in rocket propulsion etc. However, I still doubt the technical ability of sending a live television picture from the moon to the earth using nothing more than the objects contained within the lunar module. Call me quant and old fashioned, cynical if you will, but it's just a personal doubt I've entertained over the years.

Answer 3

Actually this is an answer to the skeptic who believes the transmission of a TV signal would require too much energy. My answer to that, is it all depends on how intense the receiver is listening. For instance, the Voyager spacecraft are sending a signal that is weaker than that of a digital watch in strength. But it's the powerful receivers that enable us to receive information from it. The signal we received from the moon landing was direct from the moon, but relayed from Goldstone (and other HUGE receivers) that broadcast that from Earthbound stations to our TV's.

Although I'm not surprised that there are skeptics. Early in the race for the moon, the Russians actually considered launching a Nuke to the moon so that it was visible to all on Earth that they had sent an object there.

While I appreciate people that question the validity of any statement or event, the moon landing has simply too much data that it is impossible to dispute it.

Oh, and the stuff about Buzz hitting a reporter was true, however that particular reporter had actually been stalking and heckling Buzz in public for several days and insulting Buzz's integrity. So it wasn't simply just a question of "Did you really go to the moon?" but a series of abusive intrusions.

Answer 4

Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax (February 13, 2001) On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it. Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk. From the very first moment to the very last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science. I was able to get a copy of the show in advance, and although I was expecting it to be bad, I was still surprised and how awful it was. I took four pages of notes. I won't subject you to all of that here; it would take hours to write. I'll only go over some of the major points of the show, and explain briefly why they are wrong. In the near future, hopefully by the end of the summer, I will have a much more detailed series of pages taking on each of the points made by the Hoax Believers (whom I will call HBs).

Answer 5

Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon..
Buzz Aldrin was the second man to set foot on the moon...

Answer 6

Yes. Incidentally, Buzz was not the first anything in space. He was the second man on the moon. The first man in space was Yuri Gagarin, a Russian cosmonaut. The first American in space was Alan Shepard, although unlike Gagarin he didn't orbit the Earth; the first American to do that was John Glenn. I think it's really sad that I don't even have to look these things up.

Answer 7

Yes it is. There's too much documentary evidence, and would YOU really spend so many billions not to go to the moon. Incidentally, Buzz hit a journalist a couple of years ago for asking the same question. He's somewhat sensitive about it!

Answer 8

Yes, and a few others too. It would take the biggest cover-up in human history to have faked a moon landing, and then got the thousands of people who were involved in the hoax to shut their traps over several decades.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

Yes

Answer 11

wasn't buzz only the first in space and neil actually the first on the moon?