thinking people and the lunar landing?

Question

I've been asked to explain why i said thinking people will question ,doubt or disbelieve that we landed on the moon in 1969. 1) motive ; in the heat of the cold war the u.s. was desperate to score p.r. wins over the communist soviets. 2)indirect proof ; there is a ton ,read the whistleblowers. evidence includes same background pictures, artifical lighting, wind, and a host of other things 3) neal armstrong has never done public interviews to this day. he is a recluse. when asked about all the attention he was getting he replied "i don't deserve it". 4) precedent; why would have a manned walk on the moon in the 60s and not have a manned walk on mars almost 40 years later!!!!! It dosen't make since unless.... 5 in conclusion; blindly believing our government when it doesn't add up certaintly fits the criteria of not thinking for yourself.

Answer 1

Thinking people would realize that fraud on such a scale is not possible.

Thousands witnessed the liftoff of each and every launch in the space program. So where did those astronauts go for 12 days? Are you saying we don't have the capability to put a satellite in orbit? Are you saying we don't have the capability to put a human being in orbit? Are you saying we don't have the capability to put a human being in high orbit? Because the Moon is just a high orbit. Once you're in low orbit, you've already used 70% of the energy you need to go to the Moon.

The cost of faking a moon landing would be greater than the cost of going to the moon. Consider that the lunar rovers carried TV cameras for *miles* across the lunar surface, photographing everything as they went and sending it back to Earth in real-time (minus the 2-second delay for light-travel time). If it were faked, how big would such a stage have to be? And remember, it's got to be held in a vacuum. (Otherwise, David Scott's hammer-and-feather experiment on Apollo 15 would have failed.) And three of the later missions left cameras running on the surface as the lunar module lifted off -- same familiar background of hills, with a spacecraft flying upward as far as the eye can see. And speaking of David Scott's hammer-and-feather experiment, here's a little test for you: time the fall, and determine the rate of acceleration (and therefore the surface gravity) under which it was filmed.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html

Answer 2

Alright:
1) not sure why this is even there, there'd be motive regardless. Besides if the moon landing was faked, then the USSR would have come out saying it was faked to gain a p.r. win over the US.
2) this 'proof' is something anyone can do with one light source here on earth. You do realize if you move about a 100 feet and shoot the same mountain the background will look the same and the foreground will change? I also thought that smart people have heard of reflective light, something that happens here on Earth at night from the moon (you know reflecting the sun's light back to Earth).
3) Just because he doesn't give interviews doesn't mean it didn't happen. As for the 'I don't deserve it' comment, perhaps he feels that so many others also deserve credit. All he did was walk on the moon, hundreds of others did the work.
4) It could be because people got bored with it, wondered why we were wasting a large amount of money on this when it could be used at home, on education, levees in New Orleans, etc.
5) Blindly following what our government says as opposed to someone who throws out common sense without questioning them as well doesn't make any sense either.

Answer 3

>>1) motive ; in the heat of the cold war the u.s. was desperate to score p.r. wins over the communist soviets.<<

This is served just as well by actually landing on the Moon, so is irrelevant when arguing for a hoax.

>>2)indirect proof ; there is a ton ,read the whistleblowers. evidence includes same background pictures, artifical lighting, wind, and a host of other things<<

And all of it is rubbish. There is a real ton of real direct evidence, including surviving hardware, documents from the period, rocks that geologists all across the world agree came from the Moon. The 'same background pictures' are parallax, the 'artificial lighting' is nothing of the sort, and there is no wind in the Apollo visual record. It's all basic science and photography totally misunderstood by laymen who don't understand the basics.

>>3) neal armstrong has never done public interviews to this day. he is a recluse.<<

Absolute utter rubbish. I've seen him do interviews. I watched one on TV quite recently. He never gives interviews to certain people because he knows who they are and what they are interviewing him for, and that his words will be edited and twisted to support their agenda.

>>4) precedent; why would have a manned walk on the moon in the 60s and not have a manned walk on mars almost 40 years later!!!!! It dosen't make since<<

It makes perfect sense. Why did my holiday in 2003 include a flight to Canada when in 2005 all I could do was go to Cambridge? MONEY. NASA is funded by the US taxpayer. If the US taxpayer doesn't want to see his tax dollars spent on going to the Moon NASA can't go to the Moon.

>>in conclusion; blindly believing our government when it doesn't add up certaintly fits the criteria of not thinking for yourself.<<

In conclusion, I have already said in a previous answer that this is NOT a matter of blind belief. I have studied the evidence myself for the past seven years. I am virtually certain I have seen more of the Apollo record than you have, so why should I care what you think when you have clearly not bothered looking at the real evidence yourself but are just parroting standard conspiracy theory rhetoric?

Answer 4

Doc, I really hope that someday you will encounter some real thinking people in person, and will be able to listen to the truth.

NOW, get this straight and don't be foolish about it any more, okay? The basic technology required for a manned flight to the moon was developed in Germany in the late 1930s through the mid 1940s. This technology needed a lot of refinement to make a safe manned flight a reality.

We worked on that technology through the 1950s and 60s, and made the first manned moon flight in 1969. It all fits together, and if you read all the history and don't let the wackos lie to you, it will be impossible for you to continue to be fooled into believing that the moon missions did not take place.

The American people were much better educated and more intelligent in the 1960s and 70s than they are now, and it would never have occurred to NASA engineers and managers that 35 years later a bunch of ignorant dolts with nothing to do would come up with a stupid conspiracy theory stating that the moon landings were faked.

If that had occurred to them, I suspect the engineers would have gone to the trouble to create a larger and more visible object of proof, to compensate for the decline in the quality of the American mind and its education that occurred during and after the Reagan presidency.

But there is a real physical proof available. The astronauts who landed on the moon left behind reflectors that are used every day by astronomers to measure the irregularities of the moon's orbit. This is done by bouncing laser beams off reflectors at known locations that were left by the astronauts. Ask your science teacher for information about these experiments. You can arrange to see this done with your own eyes.

Let me put the question to you this way: If you think the moon landings were faked, when did they become "fake?" When did the idea become popular that NASA had invented the idea of an imaginary moon mission and created a huge technological empire to fool people? When was all this fakery done? In the 60s? 70s? 80s?

And why? What was the point? And how did they fool all the people that reported the news, operated the machinery, built the moon rockets, and watched them take off and land?

Do you realize that one American in 500 was a part of the Apollo program? Millions of them are still alive. Are they fooling you? Why? If you go out to a football game, look around you. In the stadium there are people who worked on the Apollo program.

Ask around. You are surrounded by people who know for sure that American astronauts stood on the moon more than 35 years ago.

Answer 5

Doc I have an idea that you don't actually believe that the landings - six of them, were faked. I am not American and have never been to the USA so I bear no loyalty to the US government. As it happens I think the present one has recently made a very bad mistake. Be that as it may -

There is plenty of evidence that those who say the Apollo landing did not happen are at best wrong and at worst deliberately lying to sell cheap and nasty TV shows and books. I know about the Aldrin/Sibrel incident - not the first in a long series either. Good on yer, Buzz.

I don't blame Neil Armstrong for being modest and retiring. The media would have eventually torn him to bits. Everything that his wife, kids or second cousin might have done would have been in the "National Inquirer", suitably embellished. And he has given interviews. You saw what happened to Diana Spencer - and she didn't deserve it either even though she did encourage the papparazzi.

If the Moon landings in 1969 and later had been faked thousands of scientists and radio experts around the world would have known straight away. Specially the Russians, but also Germans, French, Spanish, Australians, British, you name it. If the astronauts had blasted off but remained in Earth orbit they could have been radar tracked by people in any of these countries. In fact the spacecraft would have been seen at night unless the orbit was very high.

Not everyone who worked on Apollo was a US citizen, I know one Australian who was in on it and there were many more. Most of the staff of the ground stations in Australia were Australians, there were also ground stations in Spain.

Almost anyone who was good with tools and had a bit of money could build a suitable antenna and tune a suitable radio into the transmissions from the Moon. They might not have been able to watch the pictures, specially from the low-bandwidth ones from Apollo 11 but they could have detected the signals. If the signals did not come from the Moon they could have detected that easily. There is nothing secret about the construction of such antennas, I have a book on it right here. The antennas used on the Apollo spacecraft were and are standard patterns for space work.

The astronauts brought back hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks which were analysed by scientists all over the world. Not all of them were US citizens either. If those rocks had been faked those scientists would have seen it. In any case, the Russians also returned Moon rocks to Earth in three unmanned probes and published the analysis results. The American samples were consistent with the Russian ones.

In addition, the ages that were determined for these rocks were (and still are) older than all rocks found on Earth except for meteorites.

The Apollo program came to an end because the US public lost interest, when that happened, funding dried up and NASA could not afford to send any more. Mars was out of the question because of cost. Don't forget the "oil crisis" of the early 1970s and the US involvement in Vietnam. Worth reading here is Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars".

This site is devoted to the mostly Australian men and women at the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station in Australia which received some of the Apollo transmissions. You can hear one man talking directly to the astronauts on the Moon.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/......

Answer 6

a)it is true that the cold war was a main reason for the lunar landing.
b)the "hoax" that apollo 11 never reached the moon has never been proven.au contraire, it has been proven by the later apollo programs that neil armstrong did reach the moon.the artificial lighting was done, as they astronauts would otherwise be fried by the sun's heat. due to the low gravitaional pull of the moon, the flag appears to fly, when actually, it is unfolding to to the fact that it is not a solid straight object.
c)just because a person does no reply to an interview, it does not mean that it is a hoax.armstrong must have had something else in his mind during his comments.
d)hello!!!! mars is not moon.unlike moon, mars is half the size of earth, has a comparitively higher acceleration due to gravity , has a different environment compared to monn and (most importantly) we cannot make a trip to mars due to the time periond and fuel consumtion that will be required.as shown in some sci-fi movies, there is a large of flight.and finally, the unmanned probe to mars has not yet finished gathering all detail of the red planet. Instead of asking critical questions as to whether the men did reach the moon, check whether the unmanned probes did reach the moon in the first place.if they, did, then apollo 11 did reach the surface of the moon and it would be a gaint leap for mankind.
e)We are not to criticize anyone without recieving all the facts .for eg. the US is criticized by the other countries for supplying aid to Israel.But no one looks at the fact that terrorist groups are being sponsered by govt.s in the middle - east(I do not mean all the countries, just some).

Answer 7

Thinking people will realize that the hoax claim is a hoax.

1) the USSR would have been strongly motivated to expose it the landings were a hoax.
2) same background pictures- no just deceptively distant mountains; artificial lighting - no, just shadows skewed by terrain and perspective, and shadows filled in by light reflecting off the moon; if there was artificial lighting you'd expect to see some double shadows; wind - no, the atmosphere is conspicuously absent in the fall of dust behind the rovers, and the flag only jiggled after being handled. All this stuff has been pretty well explained, and much of it is self-evident to a thinking and observant person. The piling on of so many obviously bogus claims is damaging to the credibility of the hoaxers.
3) irrelevant ad hominem; Armstrong has his own reasons.
4) Going to the moon was a very expensive cold-war stunt; Mars is about 200 times further away, and the decision to mount an expedition continues to be controversial.
5) Straw man argument, assuming that those who don't believe your bs are government dupes.

Answer 8

It's fine to doubt. In fact, government leaders & officials should be questioned at ALL times...

However - sometimes, the answers they give WILL be the truth.

Now... point by point:

1. True. We had motive. But the Russians had motive to wish us to fail - and don't you think they would've been the first to report a hoax? They had the same equipment we did - they would have been able to determine if the mission was legitimate or not.

2. False. There's not one bit of "proof it's a fake" that can't be debunked.

3. That's neither here nor there... there've been 12 other guys that have walked on the surface, and (of those that are still with us) very few live in the past. I worked for one of them, and to think HE lied about *anything* is damn hard to believe. (He was the biggest *** I've met, and he was a quite a bit beyond "brutally honest" about things....)

4. It's called "Funding."

5. No one blindly believes the government; at least not thinking people. But none of your reasons above offer a shread of proof that we *didn't* land on the moon.

Answer 9

All of the so called evidence of a fake Moon landing have been disproved themselves. Neil Armstrong has maintained a very low profile since his first walk on the Moon because he's a class act and there is no other reason. He has said that he doesn't deserve all the attention because he and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon together and that too much emphasis has been placed on the first Moon landings. There were six lunar missions but everyone remembers the first one. Apollo 11 and 12 missions proved it could be done and the rest of the missions went on to conduct extensive exploration of four other areas of the Moon.

Answer 10

I went to Lithuania in 2002. I haven´t been back since. Guess that means the pictures I took the first time were all faked, right? Talk about a fools logic...

If the landings had been faked the USSR would have known about it since they knew everything that was going on at NASA. A fraud would have given THEM the ultimate propaganda score ever. And certainly motivation to go to the moon despite the cost proving not only that they could go but to prove the Americans were liars and frauds. Yet the Russians never even made a single remark calling the landings a hoax. That´s because they knew they were all real. And incidentally their soil samples match the US in composition. Explain that. You may be a paranoid conspiracy nut that refuses to believe a single word your government says but there were plenty of other foreign governments, besides the Russian, that were monitoring the Apollo flights en route to the moon. And no one detected anything suspicious.

It is you that are blindly believing crap shoveled out by other conspiracy nuts and it is you that needs to do some real thinking for yourself.

And Buzz Aldrin punched, proven con man, Sibrel because he called Aldrin a coward and a liar. Had Sibrel come up to the Pope himself and said "You are the one who says god exists when he does not. You are a coward and a liar..." I guarantee the Pope would have punched him too... WAY TO GO BUZZ!!!