Faked 1969 moon landings?

Question

Was the moon landing faked or true?
Can you help me as I'm a little confused.

The experts now say that the radiation belt around the Earth is so strong that it cannot be penetrated by humans with today's technology. This is supposedly verified by recent astronauts who say they "saw the radiation through their skulls"

If this is so, then HAS man been to the moon or is it just a giant hoax, and if they haven't been, then what about the scientists on MIR space station - didn't they have to pass this radiation belt?

What are YOUR thoughts on this . . ?

Answer 1

My thoughts are that the moon landings were real for a number of reasons.

First of all, the radiation. The Moon is close enough to the Earth that it is somewhat protected by the Earth's magnetic field. For the few days the astronauts were on the moon, they did not experience a high enough dose of radiation to kill themselves. Astronauts going to Mars (exposed a year or more to that radiation) would be in more danger. Stations like the ISS or MIR are close enough to Earth that while the radiation levels are significantly higher then on the surface of Earth, they are still shielded from the full effect of the radiation.

As for the Moon landing, this is a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists. There are a number of reasons that the Moon Landing may have been faked, but the evidence doesn't really show that. Quite simply, faking the moon landing would have been more of a challenge then just figuring it out and doing it.

All of the evidence we have gathered, from photos to film to samples have stood up to 40 years of rigourous study. If those pictures had been faked, it's hard to believe that not one substantial piece of evidence disproving the Moon Landing has been found. Nowhere in the film or pictures are there any errors - the ones that are usually pointed out don't stand up to review - most of the 'artifacts' that supposedly prove the pictures were faked are clearly not part of a set when you view the whole series of photos...unusual shadows are other pieces of gear, etc.

Not to mention that had the United States faked the moon landing, the USSR would have been very happy to expose the fraud for political gain. There were just too many people who would have known if it was faked and some reliable source would have come out by now. The technological hurdles of reaching the moon just aren't that difficult and some of the best engineers the world has ever known worked on the moon landing.

No matter how well it is proven there are always some people who refuse to believe in the moon landing. The media occasionally runs programs on it just to get people worked up. But no credible or knowledgable sources think the moon landing was faked. To fake it with 1960's technology would have been harder then actually doing it, and still wouldn't have stood up to computerized analysis.

Answer 2

First of all, neither Mir, Salyut, the Shuttle, the ISS, nor any other manned mission aside from one of the Gemini flights and the manned moon missions ever got or get close to the Van Allen Belts.

Second, the Apollo missions flew through the Van Allen Belts too quickly to get the astronauts dangerous dosages of radiation.

Third, earth was shown on at least one of the missions; that it wasn't shown on all of them is because the camera wasn't pointed upward, toward the earth.

Fourth, the flag "waved" because the astronauts were moving the flagstick, trying to get it into the regolith. Why WOULDN'T IT????

Fifth, the astronauts moved in slow motion because, although they weighed only about a sixth of what they weigh on Earth, their MASSES were the same, and traction was less. Had they moved normally they would have been falling down all the time.

Sixth, there are no stars in the TV or still photos due to the iris settings on the cameras they used. Had the iris setting been wide open to see the starts the astronauts, their gear, and the surface would have been glaringly bright.

Let's see...seventh, note that the dust kicked up by the astronauts and the rovers flies in a parabolic trajectory, and doesn't stay in the "air" as it does on earth..just as you would expect.

Eighth, and finally, always use common sense. Don't listen to people that have no firsthand knowledge of an event. If they told you World War II didn't really happen, because it's just words in a history book would you believe them? Why not? There is no more evidence nowadays that WWII occured than there is of the moon landings. In fact, there probably is LESS evidence nowadays that there was a WWII...just a bunch of monuments and articles in books.

Oh, ninth (sorry, I forgot this one) the reason you could "see" in the shadows on the moon is that there was glare off the astronauts and the Lunar Module, and the "dark" side of the LM was illuminated by the surrounding sunlit moonscape.

Answer 3

There is one thing that would have been very difficult to fake. Where the signal came from. When Neil took "a small step for [a] man", the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean. The images we saw had to come in through a radio-telescope in Australia, because the signal was not "visible" from radio-telescopes in North America. A few years prior to that, someone discovered how to link radio-telescopes to form a VLBA (Very Long Baseline Array), giving radio-telescopes, linked in this fashion, a greater precision than optical telescopes. The discovery was made outside the USA so that it was not a NASA secret or something that could be kept from all scientists around the world. So, back to Neil: when the Moon is over the Pacific Ocean, it is "visible" to all the Soviet radio-telescopes. The Soviets, at the time, were well ahead of us in the space race (first in space, first man in space, first spacewalk, first object to hit the Moon, first pictures of the back of the Moon, first on Mars, first on Venus....). Apollo 11 marked the first time, really, that we had achieved a major goal before them. If they had had any hint that it was faked, they would have told the entire world right away (and, given their record, the entire world would have believed them). Instead, they congratulated NASA and the USA. Sure, they did not do it very loudly, but they knew right away that the landings were not faked. THAT is the part that could not have been faked. --- If the landing had been faked, the videos would have been different. For example, they would have shown lots of stars in the sky because that is what everyone (including scientists) were expecting at the time. It is only AFTER the real video was shot that we realized: if you set the camera to "daylight", then most stars are too faint to register. If you look at movies showing lunar scenes up to then (e.g., 2001 Space Odyssey), you often see lots of stars even though the scenery is lit by the Sun. We now know that to be impossible. So, YES, it could have been faked, but it would have been a very poor fake, based on whatever knowledge we had at the time. It would not have fooled experts for very long. And it would not have fooled the Soviets for more than an hour.

Answer 4

Good grief! Half the posts in this subject area are this one question, over and over!

Yes the astronauts were exposed to radiation, but it's like a sunburn - it's severity is dependant not only on the intensity, but on the duration of exposure. The missions to the Moon didn't take long enough for the astronauts to receive a harmful dose.

The flag waved because they jostled it, and there's little friction to stop the motion on the moon. The earth isn't in many pictures because a) it had set or was not in that particlar frame and\or b) it was bright and would overexpose what they were taking pictures of.

Does anyone honestly believe that the government was able to carry out such an elaborate hoax, six different times over 5 years, with the Soviets and the media watching intently, and keep it secret for almost 40 years? Now, that's unbelievable.

Answer 5

The moon landing was real. The people who claim to have "evidence" to the contrary are the same ones tha tthink they've been abducted by aliens, and other such delusions.

But to answer the specific points you raise:
>Radiation is high outside the Earth's magnetic field--but low enough for short flights (like the 9-10 day Apollo missions). They were careful to time the missions to avoidsolar storms--wich the Apollo could not protect them from.
As for "seeing radiation"--it is invisible. That line is pure BS.
>For the future, manned spacecraft that make longer voyages (say to Mars) or tha tstay for long periods on the Moon (which does not have a protective magnetic field) will need radiation shielding--which isn't hard to make. Contrary to the nuts, its easy--just have enough mass (anything will do) surrounding you. They didn't do that on the Apollo missions because the extra weight would have run up the cost (a LOT) and it wasn't needed. But now, more likely, future spacecraft will use magnetic field generators instead--we are close to having the ability to build them now. On the moon, likely they'll simply cover buildings with lunar rock and soil--that seems like the easiest and cheapest way to do the job.

This doesn't apply to astronauts on the old Mir or the ISS space stations. Those orbit close enough to earth to be inside the radition belts and the earth's magnetic field. There's still radiation, but its at a low level, and astronauts can stay up several months without being overexposed.

Answer 6

The current answers about the radiation belts are good. I think that in an era when we spend a lot of time in a "fake reality," that is, television, it is rather easy to think that everything must be fake. So consider the following.

--The Saturn V rocket used for the Apollo missions was huge and witnessed both in person by hundreds of thousands of people and on TV by millions as it lifted off. If the Moon landing was fake, then many billions were spent launching a rocket to nowhere.

--During the cold war the Soviet Union (now Russia) and China would have been delighted to denounce the moon landings as fake. They were perfectly capable of following the mission on long range radar and checking the trajectory.

--For the moon landings to be fake, the hoax would have to be continuing. Many hundreds of pounds of moon rock were brought back to Earth and have been, and still are, examined by thousands of geologists and chemists. So the "massive conspiracy" would not only have to include all the people who made their careers at NASA, but many professionals who were not even born at the time the moon project occurred. It's very difficult to fake the chemical composition of rock.

--There is the problem of the Ranger and Surveyor series of satellites. The information retrieved by these moon satellites was very consistent with telescopic analysis of the moon. The Ranger series were not designed to land on the moon. The Surveyor series actually DID land on the moon.

--In the 1960s the U.S. government was unable to keep secret extremely classified information about the Viet Nam war, known as the "Pentagon papers." These were, in 1968, much more important than the Moon program. For the moon landing to have been faked, the "secret" would have had to be kept for decades.

In the end, everything can be suspected of having been faked. There are people who think World War II was faked. There are people who think the moon program was faked. There are people who think the New World was settled by tribes from Israel i pre-history. There are people who think 9/11 was faked. It is not a difficult game to play. I could argue that there was no U.S. Civil War, or that there was no Roman Empire, or that there are no atomic bombs. Have you ever seen an atomic bomb? I haven't. Maybe the war in Iraq is being faked.

So in the end one has to make a decision about whether all of these "interesting ideas about fakes" could be true at once. If the Indians were tribes from Israel, if 9/11 was faked, if World War II and the holocaust were faked, if the moon program was faked, then we are left with a very weird and mysterious world in which there is no such thing as a collective history. In that situation, asking the question "was the moon program faked" makes no sense, because it would be better just to assume that everything is faked.

Answer 7

I would say it's real.

If they faked the first landing, check the movies for other landings, they look similar. How did they know what the real landings in the future will look like?

Even through the space does not have air, the flag will still move a bit because they moved it; it won't just stick so tightly to the space like a picture, will it?

See now we have things like sattlite images and stuff, making stuffs fly in the space is not really that difficult.

I don't know what you think but, I don't always go on with conspiracy theorys. Some are more belivable than others.

Answer 8

No, the experts do not say anything of the sort. Dr James van Allen himself described the belts as no barier to manned space flight.

What the experts are saying is that radiation is a danger on planned future missions because of the DURATION of those missions. Months or years in space will expose you to more radiation, and you will almost certainly encounter a solar flare in that time period. In two weeks the background radiation is low enough to not be a problem and you can play the odds on solar flares happening in that window.

My thoughts on the subject are that the people claiming it was a hoax don't actually understand enough science to have a clue what they are talking about. Anyone who thinks the waving flag is anomalous needs a reality check (it's not waving, it is supported by a rod across the top precisely because it WON'T wave in a vacuum!).

Answer 9

The real experts say the radiation belt around the Earth is no problem. The real experts say only an extended time in the belts would be dangerous, while an hour or two is no more dangerous than a medical X-ray. Only the conspiracy theory nuts say otherwise.

Answer 10

I've never seen a valid source make that radiation belt claim. It fails in the face of the astromauts in the Space station as well as the orbits of the moon.

Junk science.