Did they land on the Moon?

[dcunning30]

Secondly, it's been openly admitted that some of the video footage was not actually what it was supposed to be. This could have been a mistake or intentional but after seeing the first Moon landing shown continually on TV programs for many days afterwards I suspected even then that all was not what it appeared to be.

Bletchley Park was a top secret organization with employees with top secret clearances in a time of war.  And in this day and age, many details that were once secret have been well documented, discussed, and accepted as fact.  The same cannot be said of the notion that the moon landings were fake.

And regarding this openly admitted erroneous video, would you please elaborate and provide links?  I've never heard of this.

[dcunning30]

From what your saying you make it sound as if the entire space programme was said to be fake.

What I am saying is the number of participants that would be needed to pull off such a act of fakery right under the noses of the whole world who was watching would number in the hundereds, if not thousands.  The Apollo program employed thousands of people.  Do you think a small circle of conspirators would be able to conceal such a ruse right under the noses of an army of employees whose daily tasks would be cause for them to be involved in the program at various levels?

Consider this one scenario.  Procuring the props for the fake landing.  How are they going to get this on the grounds?  The supply clerks for the suppliers know what they were shipping.  A dirt supplier might wonder why they're shipping all that dirt to NASA.  The trucker would wonder why does NASA want several tons of dirt.  The procurement clerk would wonder why they're taking delivery of dirt, the accounts recievable clerk would wonder why dirt is on the bill of lading, etc, etc.

[Hagar]

[quote]Bletchley Park was a top secret organization with employees with top secret clearances in a time of war.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

What I am saying is the number of participants that would be needed to pull off such a act of fakery right under the noses of the whole world who was watching would number in the hundereds, if not thousands.

[4_Series_Scania]

Having read the further comments, and browsed links, I'm still as convinced about the Moon landings as I am about the theory of the RMS Titanic being "Practically Unsinkable".  ;)

[dcunning30]

Not so. Nasa is a huge government agency. How hard do you think it would be for them to rent a film studio or something under an alias where no one would ask questions?

NASA renting a studio under an alias?  That's the stuff spy movies are made of.

I'm tiring of this discussion.  If you want to beleive the lunar landing was faked, we'll certainly there's nothing I or any millions of people, reams of documentation, many specimines of lunar rock, not any of the 'faked' video will convince you of otherwise.  

[Hagar]

[quote]I'm tiring of this discussion.

[dcunning30]

It's quite obvious that you don't want to listen to any other point of view as you're completely misunderstanding much of what I've been trying to say.

I believe I understand what you're saying.  I believe you're saying mistakes and errors were made, so based on that, it is possible that these errors might be intentional, and could leand to the whole lunar labnding thing may never have happened.  But since the US and the Soviets were competiong, and the Soviets were convinced (because they had a vested interest) it might be true that the landings may have taken place.

[Hagar]

[quote]

I believe I understand what you're saying.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Hey,

A few things.

A) Stuff Mars. I do not want to see Martians eating McDonalds and signing "Amerika

[beefhole]

B) What is the point of faking it? With billions of dollars poured into NASA it is not economically viable and at the time the landings were done, every dime involved in spatial-martial endeavours had to be spent wisely and therefore it would make no sense to fake it.

C) The Leaky Commie argument. With all the people invovled, and the all pervasive nature of the KGB, how hard would it be for the Russians to paint some poor chap Red and have him reporting on the "fake" for 10 rubles a month and some Russian actress in his bed every night, reporting on his every move?

D) If the Russians suspected it was a fake, wouldn't they have said something? Thus the Russian acceptance of the event itself is proof that it DID happen.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, because most of those would be perfect examples of "fallacies of argument" for my English class.  Like I said, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic so I won't jump on it-yet.

[RichieB16]

Right. I never said that the Moon landing (we're talking about the first one) was faked but that it would have been possible if all else failed.

To me, this is a very interesting thought which I have never considered before.

[Hagar]

It seems to me that many of the people discussing this subject either conveniently forget or never realised the importance of that first Moon landing & the reasons behind it. This was a matter of vital international importance that could well & probably did affect the history of the whole world. It was generally thought at the time, possibly incorrectly, that the USSR had the lead in missile technology & was capable of launching an attack on any country it wished from space using nuclear weapons. Bearing that in mind I suggest that NASA, a government agency directly responsible to the President of the USA, would use any means at its disposal to convince the USSR that it had succeeded in putting a man on the Moon. Not only that but it was essential that the first man on the Moon was an American. Failure was not an option & unthinkable. To understand the full implications behind it do a search on < cold war space race > to find out what the situation was like at the time. Once this is understood perhaps we can discuss this sensibly.

PS. I posted this before reading Richie's last reply. While we might be on opposite sides of the fence I respect his great knowledge on the subject. Richie, you are one of the few who know what they're talking about that have been prepared to listen to other points of view without rejecting them out of hand or ridiculing the people trying to explain them. Thank you. Our views are not really that different.

[masmith]

Well if they did not go to the moon were did the moon rocks come from?

[myshelf]

Well if they did not go to the moon were did the moon rocks come from?

out of somebody's backyard?


but seriously....

i can't remember the name, but one of the astronauts obviously had severe problems keeping on his feet.
now i never did the maths, but it seemed to me he fell pretty much "earthlike", not what you'd expect of falling in 1/6 G.