Did Man Land On The Moon?

[naomi24]

I watched a documentary last night offering some compelling evidence that he did not. However, it occurred to me that the Americans claimed not one manned mission to the moon, but six, so if the first was a hoax they got away with, why would they bother to manufacture five additional hoaxes? Seems to me they’d have been pushing their luck!

(‘Did we land on the moon’ - repeated today – channel 5 – 12.15pm).

[chrisgel]

Youtube is awash with videos purporting to be "Pictures Nasa don't want you to see" The fact that the pictures are on Youtube must mean that security at Nasa is not what it could be. Or, alternatively, some people have way too much time on their hands.
Still I suppose it keeps them off the streets.

[naomi24]

Trigger, I can't say I'm seeing what he's seeing, but the bird looks convincing. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely.

[andy-hughes]

It's acknowledged by psychologists that the human mind likes order and explanation in order to feel comfortable.

If a massive event happens - moon landing / 911 / death of Elvis / death of Diana, and so on, the mind likes comfortable facts to ensure that everything is as it should be.

The obverse of this is the conspiracy theory - that massive events do not have simple rational explanations - Elvis is alive and working in Tesco, Diana was murdered, 911 was a CIA plot, and of course, the moon landings are a myth.

You can debunk any major conspiracy theory very simply - just work out roughly the number of individuals whose complicity and subsequent silence you would need to make it work, and figure out the odds of any one of them not making the limitless money and fame out of proving any of these events to be untrue - and realise that it is simply not feasible.

All consipracy theories are just that - theories - the product of an inventive and enquiring mind with too much time on its hand.

[naomi24]

//All consipracy theories are just that - theories - the product of an inventive and enquiring mind with too much time on its hand. //

That's a bit of a sweeping statement and not necessarily true at all. When things don't appear to 'gel' there's nothing wrong in having an enquiring mind. However, in this instance, I think the conspiracy theorists are wrong.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - but the only conspriracy theories that reach the wider world are the ones used to try and get heads around massive events - which underlines my point.

Wondering if the media have a routine telephone hacking policy is one theory - and well worth investigation. Considering that the Americans' moon landings are a hoax is another - and patently nonsensical for the simple reason I have outlined.

Next week - the grassy knoll ...

[jim360]

[naomi24]

Andy, //but the only conspriracy theories that reach the wider world are the ones used to try and get heads around massive events - which underlines my point. //

Unless you're saying that the public is never fed propaganda, you've lost me.

[New Judge]

Sorry, some of this may already have been said as I got sidetracked by a phone call just before I’d finished my draft.

“And, given that there is no air on the Moon for the landing craft thruster to push against, the downwards force to hold the landing craft in the air would have to be massive“

You need to brush up on your rocketry and laws of motion, Jayne!! Rockets and thrusters do not push against air (even when it is available) or against anything else for that matter. They work equally well when there is no atmosphere as in the near vacuum that exists between the earth and the moon. (Indeed if they needed something to push against “mid-course corrections” necessary to keep a spacecraft on track once it had left the earth would not be possible).

The notion that the US missions to the moon were faked is so preposterous as to be laughable. I followed the US projects Mercury, Gemini and particularly Apollo closely and with great interest in the 1960s and 70s. There is adequate evidence that the missions were genuine not least in the instruments that were left on the moon’s surface (including a mirror that has been used to reflect laser beams shot from earth). These instruments have been monitored by many agencies outside the US.

Nine Apollo missions went to the moon. Apollos 8, 10, and 13 went there and back without landing and the other six landed astronauts on the surface. If these were faked somebody (outside the world of sensationalist TV) would have established that beyond any doubt many years ago. And nobody has.

[Uriah Heep]

A-H I Can't wait to get my mower out.

[FredPuli43]

Naomi, the one body with the resources and the best motive for proving the hoax was the government of the USSR. They never doubted that the landing happened. When the first Sputnik succeeded, there were plenty of Americans who thought that was a hoax too; it suited their mindset

[naomi24]

Fred, yes indeed.

[joggerjayne]

//You need to brush up on your rocketry and laws of motion, Jayne!//

Yeeeah. Or I could just go and sit outside The Cricketers with a vodka and tonic.

Thinks, thinks ...

[Teddio]

The thrust needed for the lunar module to hover over the Moon's would only be one sixth of its weight on Earth.
In the vacuum above the Moon's surface the exhaust plume from the rocket engine would fan out massively, unlike the rocket plume seen when a rocket takes off from the Earth's surface.
Therefore the rocket exhaust would throw considerably less dust than it would if it were above a dusty surface on Earth. dust.
On the subject of "floodlit" astronauts, the Moon's surface is a bright source of light, as is the sunlit Earth.
Recently Buzz Aldrin was confronted by a journalist asking him to refute the Moon landing: he answered with his fist !

[New Judge]

Enjoy it Jayne, so long as you don't sit there believing that rockets push against anything that is behind them. :-)

[ToraToraTora]

This comes up all the time. All the so called anomolies have been explained to death. Really anyone who thinks it's a hoax is so moronic that nothing will persuade them otherwise. There is a whole industry selling conspiracy theory books/DVD's etc to the terminally stupid so these conspiracy theorists keep it all going so they can earn money out of the idiots who believe whatever twaddle it is.

[belrec]

yes

[jim360]

//"The idea that we didn't go is so insane that its not worth presenting any facts" sort of thing.//

Until peopel can get past:

-- The fact that the Russians have confirmed that these missions were genuine;
-- The fact that the entirety of NASA staff and associated scientists (running into the tens of thousands of people) have said nothing;
-- The fact that we left equipment on the Moon that is stil in use frequently;
-- Naomi's point that this hoax would have had to have been perpetrated a further five times without anyone catching on;

No-one needs to spend any effort debunking the remainder of the claims against the Moon landings, or at least any more effort than has already been taken.

[ToraToraTora]

yes jim but some of them can't even get past the fluttering flag or the no stars in the sky! Then there's the 800 pounds of moon rock that 100s of labs around the world have examined. BBC2 Horizon attempted to fake moonrock once but they gave up in the end saying that it would be easier to go and get some!

[ichkeria]

Plainly the conspiracy theory here is wrong, but how DOES one explain the fluttering flag, the lights etc.?
On reflection this was a pretty poor documentary, albeit it was very interesting.