When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

euroboom13

1,000,000 miles round trip in a tin can with the accuracy of Eric Bristow, at a time when we were all broke down at the side of the road, and to bring your own car,whoozers....NASA like all Americans ,you rock!

Dohnjoe

Not keen on posting videos but this is just 13 minutes and quite entertaining. Anyone on the fence about this should have a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

BBDBB

Brilliant video DohnJoe

namloc1980

U5ername wrote: »

Come on - it was faked. The same rocks in the same places yet supposedly filmed elsewhere? The lighting, the shadows... ?

All this stuff has been debunked so many times yet the hoax believers are so close minded and entrenched that they refuse to accept it.

Tell me how many light sources are in this picture? I mean the shadows aren't parallel - it must be a hoax I suppose?

Overheal

The Earth also acts as a light source on the moon, in addition to the Sun.

namloc1980

Overheal wrote: »

The Earth also acts as a light source on the moon, in addition to the Sun.

Indeed but with both in the sky Earthshine would be completely overwhelmed by the Sun.

Overheal

You can't really say it completely overwhelms it really, there would still be light traveling from earth that would have some effect especially in spots where direct sunlight doesn't reach.

namloc1980

Overheal wrote: »

You can't really say it completely overwhelms it really, there would still be light traveling from earth that would have some effect especially in spots where direct sunlight doesn't reach.

Not sure what relevance this has but on the night side of the moon of course a full earth would be quite bright but you'll never have a full earth and sun in the same sky if you were standing on the moon.

Reg'stoy

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not sure what relevance this has but on the night side of the moon of course a full earth would be quite bright but you'll never have a full earth and sun in the same sky if you were standing on the moon.

The moon is less than 5% of the earths mass, yet shadows will be cast by reflected moon light. The earth will be about 10 times the size of the moon in our sky when viewed from the surface of the moon.

Sun rises and sunsets are not the same time wise on the moon as on the earth. See this article

Dannyboy83

Titanucd wrote: »

It is possible that the astronaut got his wording mixed up. 'Right across from where we are speaking to you from today' could just as easily be 'Right across from where you are speaking to us from today' It would be interesting to know the geography of where he went to school compared to where the school the questions were coming from If its North or South as opposed to East or West then I'm probably wrong and they're in a studio somewhere!:eek:

Yep.

York, Maine is on the Eastern Seaboard.
https://www.google.ie/maps/place/York,+ME,+USA/@42.4734647,-102.8666277,4.75z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e2bad76d499fcd:0x38483922a6dad659

The students were calling from : Riverside Preparatory Academy in Oro Grande, Calif., at 10:40 a.m. PDT (1:40 p.m. EDT) Thursday, Aug 15

Here is the location of Oro Grande, "all the way across the United States", on the Western seaboard, from where the questioner was talking to them right then: https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Oro+Grande,+CA+92368,+USA/@34.6501322,-116.4144023,8.25z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c37aeaeca33d35:0xc1dd7d943a4c35f1

endacl

Bigus wrote: »

Myth busters did a good job on proving it very hard to re create the moon footage with gravity.

The U.S. Government had perfected digital cameras and CGI/green screen effects by the early 1940s. That's also how they faked the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 'atomic explosions'. Hollywood is waaaaaay behind the NWO.

Sonics2k

endacl wrote: »

The U.S. Government had perfected digital cameras and CGI/green screen effects by the early 1940s. That's also how they faked the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 'atomic explosions'. Hollywood is waaaaaay behind the NWO.

I'm sorry, but this is just so horribly wrong.

Faked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Really? There's a few thousand people in Japan who are well into the act so. What with the faking cancer and all.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic please.

Samaris

pueblo wrote: »

The idea that there was a VIP paedophile sex ring involving high ranking politicians, entertainers and police officers was also labelled 'patently silly' until not too long ago, no doubt by people just like you (if not you?)

Today's 'patently silly' is tomorrow's fact.

Can do, but many others remain...patently silly.

ShowMeTheCash

The one thing that annoys me about CT is the black and white nature of an argument.

Just some things to consider.
Did they create fake footage? Possible
Did they actually land on the moon? Possible
Did they orbit the moon but fail to land a man on the moon? Possible

People try to argue what did or did not happen based on certain evidence, but this does not prove anything only that NSA or the government perhaps covered themselves for all eventualities...

If evidence came to light of footage that was fake this in turn does not prove the moon landing itself was fake, it only raised a question to why they created fake footage.

weisses

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People try to argue what did or did not happen based on certain evidence, but this does not prove anything only that NSA or the government perhaps covered themselves for all eventualities...

A typo I hope

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The one thing that annoys me about CT is the black and white nature of an argument.

it might not be black and white and many things might be possible.

But not everything is equally likely or probably or rational or supported.

There is no evidence that any of the footage is faked or that any fake footage exists. So why believe it's even worth considering as a possibility?

ShowMeTheCash

weisses wrote: »

A typo I hope

Maybe NASA changed it to throw you off the scent, now blaming the NSA!

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

it might not be black and white and many things might be possible.

But not everything is equally likely or probably or rational or supported.

There is no evidence that any of the footage is faked or that any fake footage exists. So why believe it's even worth considering as a possibility?

There are a number of questions that where asked, that at very least are interesting.

Up until the moon landing the USA where on a number of occasions shown up by the Russians.

Russia with the first satellite followed by the first man in space.
Some could argue that the USA made a massive leap to send a man to the moon Yuri only traveled 200 miles up before coming back, Neil and Buzz traveled 240,000 miles.

Also the footage itself was pretty poor, questions had been asked why the footage was so bad, I think the explanation given was the higher quality camera was damaged and could not be used.

Among numerous questions around photos backgrounds and footage of the earth inside the shuttle that raised questions around the position of the camera with regards the window.

Does this mean they did not go? Of course not but it is completely valid to ask the questions around why footage was taken like this and perhaps to explain any anomalies that look at least somewhat strange.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There are a number of questions that where asked, that at very least are interesting.

Not really. the questions, like the ones you justlisted are either based on a faulty assumption or a lack of knowledge.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Up until the moon landing the USA where on a number of occasions shown up by the Russians.

Not true.
The US were the first to:
Recover a space craft.
Fly a space craft that was controlled by the pilot in the capsule.
First rendezvous of two space craft in orbit.
First docking.
And of course, first fly by of the Moon.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Russia with the first satellite followed by the first man in space.
Some could argue that the USA made a massive leap to send a man to the moon Yuri only traveled 200 miles up before coming back, Neil and Buzz traveled 240,000 miles.

Not really the progression was fast, sure. But that was because they had bottomless funding and resources.
The technology was painstakingly developed and tested. There were 10 Apollo missions before the landing after all.

Can you point out which technology in particular was impossible to develop in that time period? Or if not are we just relying on your personal gut feeling that it was too fast?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also the footage itself was pretty poor, questions had been asked why the footage was so bad, I think the explanation given was the higher quality camera was damaged and could not be used.

No. No such explanation was given.
The footage was poor because cameras generally sucked back then. And for the actual broadcast, it was taken from a camera pointed at the video feed at NASA.

How good should the footage have been? And what is this assertion based on?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Among numerous questions around photos backgrounds and footage of the earth inside the shuttle that raised questions around the position of the camera with regards the window.

Which questions regarding which footage?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Does this mean they did not go? Of course not but it is completely valid to ask the questions around why footage was taken like this and perhaps to explain any anomalies that look at least somewhat strange.

But taking it at face value, why do these anomalies need to be explained exactly?
So far the only ones you've pointed out are only anomalies because conspiracy theorists state they are based on nothing but their own gut feeling.

All of them can be explained without resorting to a conspiracy and any conspiracy that would explain them wouldn't make sense.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote:

Not really. the questions, like the ones you justlisted are either based on a faulty assumption or a lack of knowledge.


Not true.
The US were the first to:
Recover a space craft.
Fly a space craft that was controlled by the pilot in the capsule.
First rendezvous of two space craft in orbit.
First docking.
And of course, first fly by of the Moon.

You are now getting into semantics the press and public opinion cared very little for the "first docking".

Also the Russians at least attempted a lunar flyby before the Americans and had some success in that Luna 1 did fly by the moon.

The race to the moon was primarily to save face, the Russians hand beat the USA to the more significant achievements or at very least the perceived achievements.

King Mob wrote:

Not really the progression was fast, sure. But that was because they had bottomless funding and resources.
The technology was painstakingly developed and tested. There were 10 Apollo missions before the landing after all.

Can you point out which technology in particular was impossible to develop in that time period? Or if not are we just relying on your personal gut feeling that it was too fast?

Only Apollo 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 where to be manned 1 caught fire while still on the ground killing astronauts and destroying the module, I think the documentary on a few weeks ago with Brian Cox mentions that an inquiry at that time had shown an in-depth report of faults and substandard engineering. It is important to remember this was only in 1967 Apollo 11 came in 1969 and 10 was the only one that went as far at the moon before that.

King Mob wrote:

No. No such explanation was given.
The footage was poor because cameras generally sucked back then. And for the actual broadcast, it was taken from a camera pointed at the video feed at NASA.

How good should the footage have been? And what is this assertion based on?

I will need to look it out again I am nearly sure it was mentioned in a documentary that a better quality camera was damaged.

As for the quality of cameras in 1969 considering 2001 A Space Odyssey came out the year before I think camera quality could be fairly good.

King Mob wrote:

Which questions regarding which footage?

But taking it at face value, why do these anomalies need to be explained exactly?
So far the only ones you've pointed out are only anomalies because conspiracy theorists state they are based on nothing but their own gut feeling.

All of them can be explained without resorting to a conspiracy and any conspiracy that would explain them wouldn't make sense.

People can explain all sorts of things if they want.
Shadows, lighting, falls, faked tapes... I have seem them all and I can take the explanation at face value and do not have an issue with that... Some of them are at least interesting.

But would it be fair to say that America needed this win? I think so.
Would they have done anything underhanded to fabricate any of the success of the Apollo 11 mission?
I think they could and I think they would have had they needed too.

Overheal

That capsule exploded during a non-mission field test in which the cabin was originally pressurized with 100% Oxygen in order to maximize life support for the crew, while ironically causing the explosion that killed them. The electronics in the cabin were clearly not up to Class 1 Div 1 standards that exist today (explosion-proofing). At work we have a Class 1 Div 1 lab for working with compressed natural gas.

The test and resulting accident should be on youtube; slightly graphic if I recall

As for the quality of cameras in 1969 considering 2001 A Space Odyssey came out the year before I think camera quality could be fairly good.

Cinematography cameras are Huuuge. They needed to design a camera that would work in space, could be operated in an EVA suit, and did not add unnecessary payload weight. Getting cinema-quality imagery would have required a cinema camera which in general was something with a rather large and heavy profile - something which would have been wholly unsuitable for the lunar mission:



Modern IMAX camera (Spielberg not included)


Westinghouse provided the mission camera, I believe.

edit: more than 1 camera was used on the missions, which compounds the need for each camera to be functional and lightweight over conspiracy-bunking-4k-quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

Cinematography cameras are Huuuge. https://www.google.com/search?q=imax+camera&biw=1600&bih=919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIlrH82Pf2xwIViaA-Ch0qigP0 there are some modern IMAX cameras for a visual. They needed to design a camera that would both work in space and did not add unnecessary payload weight. Getting cinema-quality imagery would have required a cinema camera which in general was something with a rather large and heavy profile:



Westinghouse provided the mission camera, I believe.

I understand the side of the camera and I did not expect a mounted cinematography camera to be fired into outer-space.
But the footage was not good I think to say it was worse than home video footage for that time would be fair. But perhaps that was as good as it was going to get it could be argued that it was convenient.

Overheal

Most home cameras aren't designed for the High G's (or sudden jerking/shearing forces) sustained during a rocket launch (Max experienced G's on the shuttle launch is 3.0) or being operated in a complete vacuum while being shielded from background radiation, etc. the wiki article I linked also discusses image quality issues and how they were addressed in subsequent missions to their first deployments.

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

Most home cameras aren't designed for the High G's (or sudden jerking/shearing forces) sustained during a rocket launch (Max experienced G's on the shuttle launch is 3.0) or being operated in a complete vacuum while being shielded from background radiation, etc. the wiki article I linked also discusses image quality issues and how they were addressed in subsequent missions to their first deployments.

Same could be said about humans.

Overheal

Which is why they're run through human-sized centrifuges to verify they can withstand the 2-3 G's experienced during 2 minutes of the launch and sub 2 Gs for the rest of the mission thereafter in varying degrees.

Point still stands.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are now getting into semantics the press and public opinion cared very little for the "first docking".

Also the Russians at least attempted a lunar flyby before the Americans and had some success in that Luna 1 did fly by the moon.

The race to the moon was primarily to save face, the Russians hand beat the USA to the more significant achievements or at very least the perceived achievements.

Yes. To some of the perceived achievements at first. However things like "the first woman in space" didn't provide much in the way of advancing engineering or get them closer to the moon. The examples I pointed out did however.
And even then for every first the Russians had, the Americans were at most only a few months behind.

And this is leaving aside the failures in the Russian program including the fact that Gagarin had to bail out before landing.

So the Russians weren't further ahead of the Americas by all that much. And any gap between them was quickly closed and overtaken.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Only Apollo 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 where to be manned 1 caught fire while still on the ground killing astronauts and destroying the module, I think the documentary on a few weeks ago with Brian Cox mentions that an inquiry at that time had shown an in-depth report of faults and substandard engineering. It is important to remember this was only in 1967 Apollo 11 came in 1969 and 10 was the only one that went as far at the moon before that.

So first: Apollos 8 and 10 were lunar orbit missions.
Second: Brian Cox has some very choice words about this conspiracy theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE

And third, can you please point out which essential technology exactly was impossible by the time Apollo 11 was launched.
Or is it that you're relying on the unsupported opinion of conspiracy theorists?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People can explain all sorts of things if they want.
Shadows, lighting, falls, faked tapes... I have seem them all and I can take the explanation at face value and do not have an issue with that... Some of them are at least interesting.

So again, why give the conspiracy and stock when all of the "evidence" they supply is easily explained without a conspiracy?
Because it's more fun than reality?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But would it be fair to say that America needed this win? I think so.
Would they have done anything underhanded to fabricate any of the success of the Apollo 11 mission?
I think they could and I think they would have had they needed too.

No they wouldn't have done anything underhanded simply because they couldn't have gotten away with it.
If you are arguing that the evidence that conspiracy theorists are pointing to might indicate a conspiracy, then the Russians would be able to tell just as easily.
If some untrained, ill-educated guy on his couch with nothing more than an internet connection and publicly available information can figure out there's fakery, then the Russians with reams of experts in every relevant field, more than enough resources and even spies, would be able to tell as well.

And if it's all about saving face like you say, then the Russians would have called them out right away and been able to prove it.
Likewise the American would know this, and since they are doing the entire thing for bragging rights, they wouldn't bother to fake anything when it would end up with them losing face.

So there's no motivation and there's no evidence for fakery.
The only reason to believe in this conspiracy is that people simply want to believe it.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

So the Russians weren't further ahead of the Americas by all that much.

Would not have mattered if they where 10 mins behind the Russians, America and Americans where under the impression they where far superior and more technologically advanced than Russia, I think fear and propaganda from the cold war made Americans paranoid.
When Sputnik went up I think Americans basically had to draw a line in the sand we need to do something here to show we are number 1 so JFK made that speech, at too be honest I think they would have tried to achieve it at whatever cost.

King Mob wrote: »

And third, can you please point out which essential technology exactly was impossible by the time Apollo 11 was launched.

I was not an engineer on Apollo 11 but I know that the Chinese even today found it no easy feet to put a lander on the moon even though technology has grown at an exponentiation rate over the last 30 years.

Looking at news reals from the time a fairly large proportion of the world did not think it was possible.

King Mob wrote: »

If some untrained, ill-educated guy on his couch with nothing more than an internet connection and publicly available information can figure out there's fakery

You need to be careful with statements like this, some of these ill-educated guys sitting on the couch are much smarter than you or I and much better educated.

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians with reams of experts in every relevant field, more than enough resources and even spies, would be able to tell as well.

I think this is a pretty naive point of view.
America are the world leaders of spinning nonsense they have a history and a nack for it.

That might be a little unfair in that I think most nations spin nonsense, Russia, China, North Korea and I guess are no different but I think the difference is the rest of the world might sit back and laugh at these other nations, American seem to be better at convincing others.

King Mob wrote: »

And if it's all about saving face like you say, then the Russians would have called them out right away and been able to prove it.
Likewise the American would know this, and since they are doing the entire thing for bragging rights, they wouldn't bother to fake anything when it would end up with them losing face.

Again you arguing an un-winnable argument and bantering around the word proof.... What proof exactly would the USA need to convince the Russians?

From an engineering perspective I am pretty sure it would have been easier to fake it and get away with it than to actually achieve it.

King Mob wrote: »

So there's no motivation and there's no evidence for fakery.

You are most definitely wrong on the first point, there was a huge motivation to fake it.

As for the evidence of actual fakery... That part is a little more difficult.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Would not have mattered if they where 10 mins behind the Russians, America and Americans where under the impression they where far superior and more technologically advanced than Russia, I think fear and propaganda from the cold war made Americans paranoid.
When Sputnik went up I think Americans basically had to draw a line in the sand we need to do something here to show we are number 1 so JFK made that speech, at too be honest I think they would have tried to achieve it at whatever cost.

What are you basing this supposition on exactly?
If the Americans were only months behind, at most, why would they
think the Russians were far superior?
Why would they think the Russians are superior when they started beating them to firsts?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I was not an engineer on Apollo 11 but I know that the Chinese even today found it no easy feet to put a lander on the moon even though technology has grown at an exponentiation rate over the last 30 years.

Looking at news reals from the time a fairly large proportion of the world did not think it was possible.

That's great, but can you show why it's impossible or improbable?

Cause since you can't actually explain why you think this, is seems like it's just your opinion based on a poor knowledge of the technology involved.
That's not a good reason to back the conspiracy.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You need to be careful with statements like this, some of these ill-educated guys sitting on the couch are much smarter than you or I and much better educated.

Yup, but they aren't trained and they aren't working from secret knowledge.
If they could do it, then so could the Russians.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this is a pretty naive point of view.
America are the world leaders of spinning nonsense they have a history and a nack for it.

That might be a little unfair in that I think most nations spin nonsense, Russia, China, North Korea and I guess are no different but I think the difference is the rest of the world might sit back and laugh at these other nations, American seem to be better at convincing others.

Again, if it's about saving face, then the Russians would have called them on it.
No reason they wouldn't have tried even if America could spin it like you say. And this is leaving aside that the Russians (and many other independent bodies) would have been able to actually back up their accusations.

So how come the Russians didn't fake a moon landing also?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you arguing an un-winnable argument and bantering around the word proof.... What proof exactly would the USA need to convince the Russians?

I'm saying that had the Americans faked anything, the Russians would have the ability to prove that they faked it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

From an engineering perspective I am pretty sure it would have been easier to fake it and get away with it than to actually achieve it.

No it wouldn't have. It would have been impossible to fake all of the evidence and get away with for 50 years, and yet still somehow have been dumb enough to leave breadcrumbs for amateur detectives.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are most definitely wrong on the first point, there was a huge motivation to fake it.

As for the evidence of actual fakery... That part is a little more difficult.

Nope. The motivation doesn't make any sense and there is exactly zero evidence of fakery.

Overheal

You need to be careful with statements like this, some of these ill-educated guys sitting on the couch are much smarter than you or I and much better educated.

At face value that doesn't even make any sense

I was not an engineer on Apollo 11 but I know that the Chinese even today found it no easy feet to put a lander on the moon even though technology has grown at an exponentiation rate over the last 30 years.

Looking at news reals from the time a fairly large proportion of the world did not think it was possible.

CLEP seems to be doing alright actually, China just never bothered with the Moon before the 2000s, they afaik invested heavily in manufacturing hence projects like Three Gorges and entire cities with nobody living in them; these were the ways China flexed itself.

http://www.space.com/27670-china-moon-missions-explained-infographic.html

From an engineering perspective I am pretty sure it would have been easier to fake it and get away with it than to actually achieve it.

Without any data about how things behave in space?

That brings up the next flaw in the lunar landing CT: if the lunar landing was faked, what must you assume is also fake? The ISS? Manned shuttle flights? Is GPS a myth? Are the people who go to Cape Canaveral to watch launches all paid actors? Are the rocket engines everyone can see for 200 miles around the Launchpad just holograms? Was Apollo 13 also faked and for what purpose? Why would the US intentionally fake it to look like we were incompetent; if NASA ratings were dropping why not fake a mission to Mars?

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

What are you basing this supposition on exactly?
If the Americans were only months behind, at most, why would they
think the Russians were far superior?
Why would they think the Russians are superior when they started beating them to firsts?

You are having difficulty with basic logic here, no one said the Russians are superior, no one said the Americans thought Russia was far superior either. Mod: no need for the personal jab.

I am saying America deemed themselves number 1 at this point in History.
Events in the space race had made them look foolish.

As for my supposition, just go back and look at the news reals, why do you think so much Money was being pumped into it?
Why do you think JFK came out and said "We will put a man on the moon!"

The space race was called a race for a reason!

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, but can you show why it's impossible or improbable?

Again you are failing to grasp what I am saying.
I am not saying it was impossible I am saying it was deemed impossible by many of that time...

I was not around in 1969.

I am explaining what could arguably be seen as a motive to fake it.

Need to run, will comment on this later.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, but they aren't trained and they aren't working from secret knowledge.
If they could do it, then so could the Russians.

So you think the Russians didn't have their doubts?

NASA and the US government controlled all the data and ignore anything they don't want to answer.

So how come the Russians didn't fake a moon landing also?

Why would they fake it? The world stood and watched America land on the moon, Russia faking it after the fact would serve what purpose? Faking it first however makes more sense.

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. The motivation doesn't make any sense and there is exactly zero evidence of fakery.

No motivation? You don't think politics had anything to do with this??

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So you think the Russians didn't have their doubts?

No they didn`t because unlike the people who believe the conspiracy, they knew what they were talking about and had access to good information.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

NASA and the US government controlled all the data and ignore anything they don't want to answer.

No they didn`t. The Russians had access to all of the information that conspiracy theorists do. They had access to a lot more too, including tracking data and intercepted radio transmissions as well as actual experts instead of armchair experts. And this is on top of the spies they most likely had.
Russia had more than enough information and proof to expose any fakery and more that enough motivation to expose it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So how come the Russians didn't fake a moon landing also?

Why would they fake it? The world stood and watched America land on the moon, Russia faking it after the fact would serve what purpose? Faking it first however makes more sense.

Because you`re saying that it`s all a show about face.
Faking it after the Americans would have saved them face. And they could have faked an even more impressive feat, like a moon base for instance.
They could have also faked going to Mars.

Even still, why didn`t the Russians fake it earlier, considering they were supposedly so far ahead of the Americans?

And if either side would have just given up at the arbitrary goal of the Moon, how come the Americans didn`t just give up after the Russians already beat them to satellites and into space?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No motivation? You don't think politics had anything to do with this??

No there was no motivation for it because it wouldn`t have worked.
If they faked it, they`d be called out by the Russians as well as many other independent organisations and they would lose face.
It would have the exact opposite outcome you claim they want, so they wouldn`t have the motivation.

If you`re going to argue that they could somehow control the spin on this (which they couldn`t) then they wouldn`t have been concerned with the Russians beating them at all. They could have just claimed that the Russians faked theirs then really gone there at their own pace, or not at all.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are having difficulty with basic logic here, no one said the Russians are superior, no one said the Americans thought Russia was far superior either. Mod: no need for the personal jab.

I am saying America deemed themselves number 1 at this point in History.
Events in the space race had made them look foolish.

As for my supposition, just go back and look at the news reals, why do you think so much Money was being pumped into it?
Why do you think JFK came out and said "We will put a man on the moon!"

The space race was called a race for a reason!

So why would they be concerned about losing some of the early firsts when they knew they weren`t far behind the Russians and were quickly over taking them?
Why would this make them think that they need to fake it?

They had a working ship that would take them to moon before the Russians had theirs off the ground.
Why did they need to fake it at that point?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you are failing to grasp what I am saying.
I am not saying it was impossible I am saying it was deemed impossible by many of that time...

I was not around in 1969.

I am explaining what could arguably be seen as a motive to fake it.

Need to run, will comment on this later.

And the people who thought it was impossible were wrong, then as they are now.
They are wrong because they couldn`t point out what technology was impossible.
The people working at NASA didn`t think it was impossible because they knew what they were talking about. So they wouldn`t think they needed to fake it.

euroboom13

Few questions

Distance of completed journey?(to the nearest 100,000km ok) and MPG?
Average speed?
Size of craft relevant to equipment and fuel?
Year of technology?
Accuracy of destination(and return)?
Construction to withstand speed?
Lunar craft inflatable/solid wheels?

Thanks

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

That brings up the next flaw in the lunar landing CT: if the lunar landing was faked, what must you assume is also fake? The ISS? Manned shuttle flights? Is GPS a myth? Are the people who go to Cape Canaveral to watch launches all paid actors? Are the rocket engines everyone can see for 200 miles around the Launchpad just holograms? Was Apollo 13 also faked and for what purpose? Why would the US intentionally fake it to look like we were incompetent; if NASA ratings were dropping why not fake a mission to Mars?

We are talking about landing a man on the moon.
I see this all the time, people ask questions about the validity of something specific then people try and debunk by using crazy logic.

Someone could argue we sent a rocket into space, they could argue we sent a lunar lander to the moon and mars, they could argue we sent a manned voyage that orbitted the moon they could also argue we have 1000s of satellites orbiting the planet and still argue we did not put a man on moon in 1969.

One or all these achievements do not affirm or reject that the moon landing was fake.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

No they didn`t because unlike the people who believe the conspiracy, they knew what they were talking about and had access to good information.


No they didn`t. The Russians had access to all of the information that conspiracy theorists do. They had access to a lot more too, including tracking data and intercepted radio transmissions as well as actual experts instead of armchair experts. And this is on top of the spies they most likely had.
Russia had more than enough information and proof to expose any fakery and more that enough motivation to expose it.

Really???

Have a little read

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

So why would they be concerned about losing some of the early firsts when they knew they weren`t far behind the Russians and were quickly over taking them?
Why would this make them think that they need to fake it?

They had a working ship that would take them to moon before the Russians had theirs off the ground.
Why did they need to fake it at that point?


And the people who thought it was impossible were wrong, then as they are now.
They are wrong because they couldn`t point out what technology was impossible.
The people working at NASA didn`t think it was impossible because they knew what they were talking about. So they wouldn`t think they needed to fake it.

Dude take a breath....

My argument is not that they did fake it, personally I do not think they did fake it.

My argument is could that have faked it? And I argue yes they could of.
Did they have a motivation to fake it? Yes they did.
Did people have their reservations about it being fake? Yes they do and they still do.

I am more interested in the arguments put forward.

You keep saying "What technology specifically was not good enough" Let me ask are you an engineer? Do you know much about all the components on the apollo 11 mission?
This argument would just go around in circles.
The argument most people put forward is why have we not put men on the moon since? Why has other nations not attempted it?

Some CT believe they did send a ship to orbit the moon they took footage they even sent and landed a lunar lander on the moon but still have trouble believing they actually sent a manned vessel to the surface.

The footage of the moon walk could easily of been faked with everything being true, this idea if they fake 1 part of it then the whole mission was a fake is narrow mindedness.

And remember I am saying "could of been" not "was".

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Really???

Have a little read

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html

Yes really. They aren't expressing doubt or claiming any fakery.

“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,” Markin wrote, according to the Moscow Times translation.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My argument is could that have faked it? And I argue yes they could of.
Did they have a motivation to fake it? Yes they did.
Did people have their reservations about it being fake? Yes they do and they still do.

But so far you haven't been able to show they could fake it or explain away the problems involved in faking it.
The motivation you claim doesn't make sense.

And the people who have reservations have no rational reason to have them.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am more interested in the arguments put forward.

You keep saying "What technology specifically was not good enough" Let me ask are you an engineer? Do you know much about all the components on the apollo 11 mission?

This is to illustrate the flaw in the argument you are pointing to.
You claim that people believed that going to the moon or developing the technology in that short time was impossible.
If they aren't pointing out which technologies makes it impossible, how could they know it's impossible in the first place?
My point is that they don't know, so their position has no merit.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This argument would just go around in circles.
The argument most people put forward is why have we not put men on the moon since? Why has other nations not attempted it?

Lack of funding and political will. It's not a big mystery.

We used to have Concorde since the seventies. Yet despite the 40 years of development we don't have a super-sonic jet liner.
So is it rational to argue that Concorde must have been fake?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And remember I am saying "could of been" not "was".

My issue is that you are presenting it as if it's a reasonable position to hold or that it's also a 50/50 thing.
It really isn't.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Yes really. They aren't expressing doubt or claiming any fakery.

What makes your argument hold no water is how you try and cherry pick what is being said and how you try and flip the argument.

Earlier you said

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians had access to all of the information that conspiracy theorists do. They had access to a lot more too, including tracking data and intercepted radio transmissions as well as actual experts instead of armchair experts. And this is on top of the spies they most likely had.
Russia had more than enough information and proof to expose any fakery and more that enough motivation to expose it.

In short you make the assertion the Russians would know if America faked it...

The article highlights that albeit Russia is not saying it was faked but they would like access to all the footage and samples....

So Russia had enough information to expose any fakery did they? I think this shows they did not.

King Mob wrote: »

But so far you haven't been able to show they could fake it or explain away the problems involved in faking it.
The motivation you claim doesn't make sense.

I think you really need to look at what you are saying.
You are asking me to prove they faked it when the body of proof only lies with proving they actually achieved it.

They could of faked it, if they went to the moon they could easily of faked it... Are you contending they had the technology to go to the moon but not the ability to fake a moon landing?

Also the motivation to fake it is probably the only certainty about this entire argument.

The reasons to go to the moon are exactly the same reason to fake it, if they felt they could not achieve it...

Ready this:

http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/why-did-we-go-to-the-moon.htm

In short

“The driving reason was Cold War competition with the Soviet Union,” Launius said. “Without that, it wouldn’t have happened.”

King Mob wrote: »

And the people who have reservations have no rational reason to have them.

This is to illustrate the flaw in the argument you are pointing to.
You claim that people believed that going to the moon or developing the technology in that short time was impossible.

I do not claim that, that's a fact, you can look at old footage of the period when BBC asked people if they thought it possible, many thought no.

King Mob wrote: »

If they aren't pointing out which technologies makes it impossible, how could they know it's impossible in the first place?
My point is that they don't know, so their position has no merit.

You need to untwist your thinking.

People voiced they did not think it was possible in 1968, I did not say it was impossible.

The speed of how fast this happened at best is remarkable.

King Mob wrote: »

We used to have Concorde since the seventies. Yet despite the 40 years of development we don't have a super-sonic jet liner.
So is it rational to argue that Concorde must have been fake?

Not that I want to get into the physics of this but do not mix up the advancements in technology with the physical constructs of speed, the ability of moving faster really has nothing to do with it...
I could fly a drone from anywhere on the planet with nothing more than my iPhone!

But Again your logic is flawed, we are not saying we have not developed rockets or saying the apollo 11 rocket was a fake, what is being contended is a single event, something that happened only one time, since the development of the Concorde or the jet engine how many people have been on flights?

I am not pretending anything, what I am saying is, if NASA and the US government wanted to fake the actual manned moon landing they could of, it happened one time and never since.

The enormity of just sending the rocket to the moon in itself meant there was no way to really know if what was being transmitted was real or per-recorded or faked.

King Mob

Apologies, I mistakely thought you were using that article to show that the Russians suspected fakery.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What makes your argument hold no water is how you try and cherry pick what is being said and how you try and flip the argument.
The article highlights that albeit Russia is not saying it was faked but they would like access to all the footage and samples...

So Russia had enough information to expose any fakery did they? I think this shows they did not.

Yes they did. They didn't have access to the original footage, but as I have pointed out several times they have many many other sources of information.

And either way, they certainly have access to the same information that conspiracy theorists have.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

They could of faked it, if they went to the moon they could easily of faked it... Are you contending they had the technology to go to the moon but not the ability to fake a moon landing?

I'm not saying it's because of a lack of technology, I'm saying it's impossible to do it and not be caught.

The Russians would have more than enough know how to spot the fakery and the information to find out something is amiss.
Especially if the conspiracy theorists can spot the mistakes.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also the motivation to fake it is probably the only certainty about this entire argument.

The reasons to go to the moon are exactly the same reason to fake it, if they felt they could not achieve it...

But you have yet to show they felt they could not achieve it.
You have failed to explain why they would bother risking it when it wouldn't have convinced the Russians and experts and any exposure would result in the opposite of what motivates them.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not claim that, that's a fact, you can look at old footage of the period when BBC asked people if they thought it possible, many thought no.

People voiced they did not think it was possible in 1968, I did not say it was impossible.

Ok, what were these people basing this opinion on?
Insider information from NASA?
Some knowledge about physics or engineering that NASA wasn't able to over come?

Why would NASA share these people's opinions? Why would these people's opinions influence NASAs decision on whether or not to fake it?
Why would NASA fake anything when they were perfectly aware they could do it for real and were willing to do it for real?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Not that I want to get into the physics of this but do not mix up the advancements in technology with the physical constructs of speed, the ability of moving faster really has nothing to do with it...
I could fly a drone from anywhere on the planet with nothing more than my iPhone!

But Again your logic is flawed, we are not saying we have not developed rockets or saying the apollo 11 rocket was a fake, what is being contended is a single event, something that happened only one time, since the development of the Concorde or the jet engine how many people have been on flights?

My analogy is to illustrate why the argument put forward by conspiracy theorists is flawed.

Just because we haven't gone back to the moon doesn't mean we never did. Just because technology advances it doesn't mean it will advance in the same way.

Money and politics are the reason, just like with concorde.
It is an irrational reason to believe in the conspiracy theory.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am not pretending anything, what I am saying is, if NASA and the US government wanted to fake the actual manned moon landing they could of, it happened one time and never since.

It happened 5 more times after that...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The enormity of just sending the rocket to the moon in itself meant there was no way to really know if what was being transmitted was real or per-recorded or faked.

But the notion that is real is the only sensible option. the notion that it was prerecorded is not worth seriously considering.

There's no reason to think that it was pre-recorded. There's no evidence that it was. And any concocted scenarios for why it might be are ridiculous.
It's possible, sure. But it's also possible that the whole affair is just a false memory implanted in the human race by aliens.

The only reason people believe one ridiculous idea over my one is that they are working off bad information and terrible biases.

You seem to be arguing that the conspiracy theory is on equal footing to the real story. I don't understand why.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

They could of faked it, if they went to the moon they could easily of faked it

You sound fairly convinced they went up there

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

Apologies, I mistakely thought you were using that article to show that the Russians suspected fakery.

Yes they did. They didn't have access to the original footage, but as I have pointed out several times they have many many other sources of information.

You say nothing, you say "other sources" what sources did Russia have that would confirm or deny Americans walked on the moon????

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not saying it's because of a lack of technology, I'm saying it's impossible to do it and not be caught.

You think it impossible to do it and not get caught?
I really do not know what to say to that statement, I think most sensible people would say it would be easier to fake it than achieve it.

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians would have more than enough know how to spot the fakery and the information to find out something is amiss.
Especially if the conspiracy theorists can spot the mistakes.

You keep saying this over and over.
If the Americans faked it what is it the Russians would need to prove the fake? Why are you so certain they would find out???
What specifically?

Russia never landed on the moon so they never really had the chance to examine the land site.

King Mob wrote: »

But you have yet to show they felt they could not achieve it.
You have failed to explain why they would bother risking it when it wouldn't have convinced the Russians and experts and any exposure would result in the opposite of what motivates them.

I think you need to open you mind just a little.
You are making assertions like "they could not convince the Russians" says who? You...

Google it, a number of reservations from Russian scientists and government officials have been voiced as have other countries.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would NASA share these people's opinions?

What are you on about? This was opinions voiced on the news at the time nothing to do with NASA.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would these people's opinions influence NASAs decision on whether or not to fake it?

Again what are you on about???
Faking it would of been a decision made if they could not make it, nothing to do with what people thought.

JFK made his speech in 1961 that they would send a man to the moon.
They needed this to be a success.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would NASA fake anything when they were perfectly aware they could do it for real and were willing to do it for real?

This is going in circles, said who? NASA....

King Mob wrote: »

It happened 5 more times after that...

Apology I meant happened since the last time all 6 happened in 2/3 year time period if I remember correctly.

King Mob wrote: »

But the notion that is real is the only sensible option. the notion that it was prerecorded is not worth seriously considering.

Why it would most definitely have been easier.

King Mob wrote: »

There's no reason to think that it was pre-recorded. There's no evidence that it was.

And no evidence that it wasn't, you keep saying these statements as a matter of fact they are moot points.

King Mob wrote: »

And any concocted scenarios for why it might be are ridiculous.
It's possible, sure. But it's also possible that the whole affair is just a false memory implanted in the human race by aliens.

I love how people jump to these crazy scenarios by ways of trying to rubbish a credible concern.

King Mob wrote: »

The only reason people believe one ridiculous idea over my one is that they are working off bad information and terrible biases.

Through out the thread you say things like sources and evidence and technology but have not mentioned a single source a piece of evidence or mention specifically any technology but want to shut down a contention and use the word bias when you are presented nothing credible other than... "Oh that's rubbish the russians would of found out...."

King Mob wrote: »

You seem to be arguing that the conspiracy theory is on equal footing to the real story. I don't understand why.

No I have said before I believe they went to the moon, I am saying however as someone who believes they went to the moon, I know even if I wanted to I could not prove beyond a doubt that they did.
I also concede that if America and NASA wanted to pull off a hokes they could.

You want to believe there is no way they could of and no way they would of got away it it.

Overheal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Dude take a breath....

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You need to untwist your thinking.

I think most sensible people would say

I think you need to open you mind just a little.

Please drop antagonistic lines such as these, they do not add anything constructive to the topic.

euroboom13 wrote: »

Few questions

Distance of completed journey?(to the nearest 100,000km ok) and MPG?

Average speed?

Size of craft relevant to equipment and fuel?

Year of technology?

Accuracy of destination(and return)?

Construction to withstand speed?

Lunar craft inflatable/solid wheels?

Thanks

I'm not sure, but imagine googling/researching around for the Engineering Details of the mission would get you those answers. Things like MPG and mass are straightforward, but as much propulsion was gravity driven as engine driven. Lunar rover tyres were provided by Goodyear I believe and they were not inflated. Construction to withstand speed(?) is a very vague query, are you asking about the craft's top speeds and G forces? The mission experienced up to 3 Gs.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/overview/

http://www.history.com/topics/apollo-11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11


Here is the official mission report which unlike most modern technical reports I've bled my eyes reading, it appears to be a comprehensive document:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionOpReport.pdf

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You say nothing, you say "other sources" what sources did Russia have that would confirm or deny Americans walked on the moon????

As I said before, they were tracking the capsules and monitoring the radio transmissions. They had spies who would have been able to find out this information. They had their own experts to analyse the video and photos and lunar samples.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You keep saying this over and over.
If the Americans faked it what is it the Russians would need to prove the fake? Why are you so certain they would find out???
What specifically?

I am saying this because if conspiracy theorists are able to find flaws that you think have merit, then so can the Russians.

I can't get more specific than that because you are not being specific about what was faked and how.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Google it, a number of reservations from Russian scientists and government officials have been voiced as have other countries.

No they didn't. If they did then please point them out and where they said it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What are you on about? This was opinions voiced on the news at the time nothing to do with NASA.

Again what are you on about???
Faking it would of been a decision made if they could not make it, nothing to do with what people thought.

JFK made his speech in 1961 that they would send a man to the moon.
They needed this to be a success.

This is going in circles, said who? NASA....

So then if the people saying this had no influence on NASA's decision, why bring it up?

NASA fully believed they could land on the moon. The knew they wouldn't need to fake it.
People who believed it couldn't happen in the time it did happen weren't basing their opinion on good information.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And no evidence that it wasn't, you keep saying these statements as a matter of fact they are moot points.

No evidence that it isn't made by alien mind beams either.

But that's not how it works. If there's no evidence that there is fakery, why would you think there is?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I love how people jump to these crazy scenarios by ways of trying to rubbish a credible concern.

But it's not a credible concern. It's closer to alien mind beams than it is to reality. Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't mean that it's likely or rational.

Every argument you are making in support of the conspiracy theory can be used to support my ridiculous theory, yet you reject it out of hand.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Through out the thread you say things like sources and evidence and technology but have not mentioned a single source a piece of evidence or mention specifically any technology but want to shut down a contention and use the word bias when you are presented nothing credible other than... "Oh that's rubbish the russians would of found out...."

I've explained very clearly why I think the Russians would have found out.
If you think I've made a claim I need to support with evidence, point it out.

Or maybe you can suggest a plausible scenario by which the Americans could have faked something, how they could have done it undetectably, and give a good reason for why they would do so.
Otherwise, you're just saying it's possible without actually giving a good reason to think it might be.

I don't think you can do this.
None of the conspiracy theorists have been able to do so in over 40 years...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No I have said before I believe they went to the moon, I am saying however as someone who believes they went to the moon, I know even if I wanted to I could not prove beyond a doubt that they did.
I also concede that if America and NASA wanted to pull off a hokes they could.

So why do you believe that we went to the Moon?
Why do you not believe the conspiracy if it's so plausible and rational?

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

As I said before, they were tracking the capsules and monitoring the radio transmissions. They had spies who would have been able to find out this information. They had their own experts to analyse the video and photos and lunar samples.

This break this down.
They where tracking the capsules, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing!
They where monitoring radio transmission, what does this prove? Again nothing....

In fact there is one CT around the radio transmission that it was allegedly over heard that someone from NASA tells the crew to leave a 4 second interval before answering any question to give the illusion they where further away.

They had spies who would have been able to find out this information, this is just vague and not a credible argument.

They had their own experts to analyse the video and photos and lunar samples. What experts and what samples?
The article I posted earlier says and I quote:
"According to a translation by the Moscow Times, Markin would support an inquiry into the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock, which was brought back to Earth during several missions."

So lost footage and no one seems to know where the samples are.....

King Mob wrote: »

I am saying this because if conspiracy theorists are able to find flaws that you think have merit, then so can the Russians.

30% of Russians do not believe America landed on the moon.
You seem to think even if Russia knew the USA did not land on the moon that they would simply publish this information to the world...

King Mob wrote: »

I can't get more specific than that because you are not being specific about what was faked and how.

When I say specific you are just saying "It was not a fake, if it was people would know...." this is not a specific argument.
You are saying things with certainty.... "It could not of been faked" OK provide specific evidence or reason why someone could not fake it...

To give an example, I have never argued they could not go to the moon, I have outlined reasons why they could or would lie about it.
I have said if they have the technology to make it then they certainly have the technology to fake it.

You want to refute this statement by saying "they could not fake it" OK why you are saying nothing of substance that shows me they could not fake it and get away with it?

King Mob wrote: »

No they didn't. If they did then please point them out and where they said it.

What do you think this probe into the moon landings is about?

But going back to the time frame some of the main Russians that voiced their concern

Yury Ignatyevich Mukhin (Politician)
Hey says the moon landing where fake and was a gimmick set up by the american government to essentially pocket the cash from the American tax payers.
Stanislav Pokrovsky (Russian and General Director of a scientific manufacturing) You can google his reasons.

These are but only a few.

King Mob wrote: »

So then if the people saying this had no influence on NASA's decision, why bring it up?


NASA fully believed they could land on the moon. The knew they wouldn't need to fake it.
People who believed it couldn't happen in the time it did happen weren't basing their opinion on good information.

This is a completely empty statement... NASA believed they could do it... What does that have to do with anything? Maybe I believe I can fly, but if I jump out the window two things could happen, I could fly or I could fall.

NASA knew they would not need to fake it? Again why do you think this?
Let me put this into perspective.
America spent 8 years putting a man on the moon.
China is probably one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world right now, we are using technology 5 generations more sophisticated than the technology from the 60s and 70s.
China is spending a lot on their space program and are too looking to put a man on the moon.

Despite all these advancements in technology it is going to take the Chinese longer to achieve this than it did the Americans and this is 40 years after.

King Mob wrote: »

No evidence that it isn't made by alien mind beams either.

But that's not how it works. If there's no evidence that there is fakery, why would you think there is?

But it's not a credible concern. It's closer to alien mind beams than it is to reality. Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't mean that it's likely or rational.

Every argument you are making in support of the conspiracy theory can be used to support my ridiculous theory, yet you reject it out of hand.

I've explained very clearly why I think the Russians would have found out.
If you think I've made a claim I need to support with evidence, point it out.

Or maybe you can suggest a plausible scenario by which the Americans could have faked something, how they could have done it undetectably, and give a good reason for why they would do so.
Otherwise, you're just saying it's possible without actually giving a good reason to think it might be.

I don't think you can do this.
None of the conspiracy theorists have been able to do so in over 40 years...

So why do you believe that we went to the Moon?
Why do you not believe the conspiracy if it's so plausible and rational?

I find the rest of this just remarkable.
You have shown no evidence to anything, quoted no one, made reference to no material and shown no one real definitive thing that could show beyond any doubt the Americans landed on the moon.
You run in circles with the same argument that the Russians would find out, NASA knew they could do it and there is no reason to fake it so why lie, all of these are empty statements.

You say there is no evidence of fakery but actually ignore everything I am saying.

At this point in time people are having trouble finding the samples.

The report says

"Nasa itself admitted that it had erased the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money"

You do not find this a little weird?

New tapes have appeared, how real they are I don't know showing deliberate manipulation of the view of the earth from the shuttle....

Questions have been raised about radiation and the van allen belt, I do not know enough about this but I do remember it being brought up around a manned mission to mars, I kind of thought it strange as why was this not a problem for the manned mission to the moon?

NASA seem to have lost or deleted a lot of the "evidence" for what would have been the most significant event probably in our history?

As for the footage, crosshairs, waving flags, falling astronauts, shadows, similar backdrops, similar stones yes these could be explained away they do not prove anything but they do not disprove anything either.

Given enough time you can probably explain just about anything.

Dohnjoe

Ignoring the fact there's no evidence for fakery at the moment, from a purely hypothetical point of view I don't think it would have been very easy to fake

Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to had been telling perfectly consistent lies without a single leak for decades, the US doesn't exactly have the best track record of this, that's a lot of deathbed confessions

As pointed out earlier in the thread the video footage would have been next to impossible to fake from a technical perspective

The role of the Russians can't be diminished, watching every movement, they tracked the mission from earth to the moon and back again (not to mention the use of first set reflective mirrors that suddenly appeared on the moon on 21st July 1969)

There were dozens of missions to the moon by both sides; orbiters, impacters, fly-by's, landers. Before Apollo 11, there were two successful missions, one in May, and one in December the year before, which both went to the moon, orbited it, and returned safely to earth. The second successful mission to land on the moon took place just 4 months after Apollo 11. Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 also landed. That's a lot of successful missions. We do know someone landed on the moon because we have the tech to see it now.

What would have been the rush to fake the first mission? The Russians were relatively far behind in the moon-landing aspect of the space race at that point in time because they lacked the rocket strength to get both a lander + orbiter up

Simply put, why fake the first mission, risk the dignity and credibility of the space program and entire nation when they clearly had the tech to do it, and do it multiple times.

Doesn't seem "easy" to fake at all, in fact in retrospect it seems more complex, more risky and more nonsensical to fake it than to land a man on the moon in the first place

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This break this down.
They where tracking the capsules, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing!
They where monitoring radio transmission, what does this prove? Again nothing....

In fact there is one CT around the radio transmission that it was allegedly over heard that someone from NASA tells the crew to leave a 4 second interval before answering any question to give the illusion they where further away..

If they were tracking the capsules they would have noticed something exactly like this and used it as evidence.

However it's totally made up...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

When I say specific you are just saying "It was not a fake, if it was people would know...." this is not a specific argument.
You are saying things with certainty.... "It could not of been faked" OK provide specific evidence or reason why someone could not fake it...

You want to refute this statement by saying "they could not fake it" OK why you are saying nothing of substance that shows me they could not fake it and get away with it?.

I've been arguing that point in several ways.

Maybe it would be easier if you could outline a plausible and specific idea of what was faked, how it was faked and why that specific thing was faked.

But I don't think you can do this. Conspiracy theorists have had 50 years and they can't do it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is a completely empty statement... NASA believed they could do it... What does that have to do with anything? Maybe I believe I can fly, but if I jump out the window two things could happen, I could fly or I could fall.

NASA knew they would not need to fake it? Again why do you think this?
Let me put this into perspective.
America spent 8 years putting a man on the moon.
China is probably one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world right now, we are using technology 5 generations more sophisticated than the technology from the 60s and 70s.
China is spending a lot on their space program and are too looking to put a man on the moon.

Despite all these advancements in technology it is going to take the Chinese longer to achieve this than it did the Americans and this is 40 years after. .

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Why would NASA want to resort to faking the moon landings?
They didn't doubt they had the technical ability by the time they were testing the Apollo vehicles.
They weren't worried about the Russians beating them by that time, because they had pulled ahead of them by a fairly wide margin and had been ahead of them for a few years.

So why after building Apollo and flying around the moon years before the Russians would be able to get there did they decide they couldn't do it?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Questions have been raised about radiation and the van allen belt, I do not know enough about this but I do remember it being brought up around a manned mission to mars, I kind of thought it strange as why was this not a problem for the manned mission to the moon?.

What questions?
They were an issue for the mission and NASA were quite concerned with their effects.
However while they would not be the healthiest thing, the ships would be passing through them so quick the radiation would not be a major issue.
(Though now most of the astronauts who passed through them have developed cataracts possibly due to the Van Allen belts.)

The radiation would not have stopped the missions or made them impossible.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

NASA seem to have lost or deleted a lot of the "evidence" for what would have been the most significant event probably in our history?
.

Not really. NASA is very bureaucratic and underfunded as well as a huge organisation. Slip ups like that happen.

However the alternative explanation, that it's part of some massive cover up for a giant, fantastical conspiracy is simply ridiculous on the face of it

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would have been the rush to fake the first mission? The Russians were relatively far behind in the moon-landing aspect of the space race at that point in time because they lacked the rocket strength to get both a lander + orbiter up

It wasn't so much a lack of rocket power, it was more that the Russian rockets weren't as reliable as the Saturn V.
They were as far as testing a mock up by the time Apollo 11 was launching.
But it blew up on the launch pad.

After that and the American landings, the funding started to dry up and they didn't get any closer for the 5 years before the program was canceled.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

If they were tracking the capsules they would have noticed something exactly like this and used it as evidence.

However it's totally made up...

Maybe maybe not but already stated tracking the transmission does not prove the put a man on the moon.
To go back to your earlier statement that the Russians would know, I will ask you again, how would the Russians know?

King Mob wrote: »

I've been arguing that point in several ways.

You have not made any argument, you have stated an opinion nothing more.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would NASA want to resort to faking the moon landings?

Is this a serious question? Because they realised they could not achieve it perhaps?? Maybe they never intended on landing on the moon in the first place but thought it was a good way to raised money?? Maybe they felt they needed to have something to show after blowing 23 billion dollars.

Take your pick.

King Mob wrote: »

They didn't doubt they had the technical ability by the time they were testing the Apollo vehicles.

You work for NASA in 1960s? What do you know about the engineering doubt, I already posted on how after the failure of Apollo 1 and the death of astronauts that it was deemed unsafe and not fit for purpose.

King Mob wrote: »

They weren't worried about the Russians beating them by that time, because they had pulled ahead of them by a fairly wide margin and had been ahead of them for a few years.

Really says who? You? They plowed 23 billion into something because they where not worried.... OK

King Mob wrote: »

So why after building Apollo and flying around the moon years before the Russians would be able to get there did they decide they couldn't do it?

Again is this a serious question?
Are you asking why they decided they could't do it?
Like saying Albert Einstein decided we cannot travel faster than the speed of light...

How many other nations have had a manned mission that has actually left the earths orbit?

Your argument makes no sense. This is not about making decisions, it is very possible it became apparent the logistics of landing on the moon and having a craft get off it again where beyond what they could achieve at that time. It perhaps was just a step too far.

King Mob wrote: »

What questions?
They were an issue for the mission and NASA were quite concerned with their effects.
However while they would not be the healthiest thing, the ships would be passing through them so quick the radiation would not be a major issue.
(Though now most of the astronauts who passed through them have developed cataracts possibly due to the Van Allen belts.)

The radiation would not have stopped the missions or made them impossible.

Yeah I read this explanation also, there seems to be a bit of debate around how dangerous the Van Allen belts are.
I say you know about as much as me on this... Not a lot.
I've listen to scientists say it would be mild to moderate radiation and other say it could be or would deadly.

The mars mission Orion are to send a unmanned probe 36000 miles above earth to measure the level of radiation for two reasons.
1. To measure the amount of radiation and 2. To test the shielding in Orion.

I find it somewhat strange they are only looking at this now and still do not know if it is safe, if we went to the moon would be not know already?

King Mob wrote: »

Not really. NASA is very bureaucratic and underfunded as well as a huge organisation. Slip ups like that happen.

However the alternative explanation, that it's part of some massive cover up for a giant, fantastical conspiracy is simply ridiculous on the face of it

OK - Sure man on the moon 23 billion, Oh we lost the tapes!
There could be many reason, and yes losing over 200 tapes could of happened.

Or perhaps they just don't want anyone to look at them.

What i find funny is this.
I am not saying the moon landing was faked, I am saying it could be faked.

A hard core CT fanatic will flat out say it is a fake.
On the flip side of that coin you are saying there is no way it could of been faked.

I would consider that type of thinking the same.