Did they land on the Moon?

[TacitBlue]

This is probably the first time I have ever seen this discussed in a mature way, here or anywhere. Personally I believe the landings were real, but I don't have a lot of info about it, and I hate arguing. The only time I ever entered the debate was when one of my best freinds made the old claim the the landings were a hoax, unfortunately his only defense of that theory was "NU-UH!! GOVERNMENT BAD!". Amazing considering he is normally a very intelligent person. It amazes me how people take this debate so seriously when now, despite what the political situation was in the 60's, it really doesn't matter. As I said, I believe it happened. But really, what would it change if all of the Apollo astronaughts, technicians, controllers, and the NASA chief himself came out and said "Umm, yeah... sorry, it was all fake"? The sky would still be blue, the sun would still come up, and the USSR would still be gone.

[Hagar]

You're quite correct of course Tacit & apart from the historical interest I never understood the reason for all the passions either. I think the way it's usually 'discussed' causes it. You get the two sides with fixed views repeating the same old things without stopping to consider that there could be something in what the others are saying. Unfortunately most people seem completely unaware of the historical facts behind the manned space program or the Space Race as it was commonly called. The hoax theorists don't help their case by coming out with ridiculous claims like the flag looking fake. Of course it looked fake as there was no wind on the Moon so it had to be artificially supported or you wouldn't be able to see it flying proudly from the flagpole.

The pro-space lobby seem to assume that the hoax argument is about the whole space program which of course is complete nonsense. Put simply, all I'm saying is that blurry TV images of a man in a space suit could have been taken anywhere & at any time. If these had been shown during the mission & we were told it was happening right now we would have believed it. People expected to see live pictures & if anything went wrong with the camera, previously shot film could have been shown instead. This doesn't mean that the events didn't happen but they had no film of it happening. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I think I've given Richie something to think about that he'd never considered before. Although I was affected by it as much as anyone, maybe the fact that I was on the other side of the Atlantic when it was all happening & not so close to it enables me to see all this from a slightly different angle.

[H]

Hey, A few things...

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.

He can speak for himself but, knowing Andrew, probably all of the above. He does a "mix 'n' match" and sometimes states things, though certainly not out of stupidity, in a foolish manner. However, it can give him a little more versatility as things 'unfold'.

i can't remember the name, but one of the astronauts obviously had severe problems keeping on his feet... ...it seemed to me he fell pretty much "earthlike", not what you'd expect of falling in 1/6 G.

A 180-pound man falls to gravity -- so does a 6-pound baby. Would you expect it to fall up (thought some of those old late-night b/w space shows, with their upward-curving rocketship flames, were rather humorous )?
The first time I remember hearing about the Moon landing being faked was from (and mentioned in another post) adherents of the Flat Earth Society, who refute the commonly accepted scientific standard and insist that they are throwing no curves. As Tacit, et.al., indicate, the landing validity is futile to debate and the only ones who would truly be concerned and affected are those trying to substantiate their own devices (which, admittedly, would also have had some basis during the 'cold war').

[Jakemaster]

Theres no way it could be faked.  The task of faking a moon landing and covering up the hoax would be so difficult that it would be easier to go to the moon.  Think about it:  You would need to build a set, film hours of footage, not to mention fake a launch, fake an actual landing, and somehow put 3 guys in a capsule and drop them into the ocean without anyone knowing that they werent in space.  Then you would have to produce fake moon rocks, etc.  Its preposterous.

Ive seen on tv all of the various evidence that shows it being a hoax.  The 'no stars'?  The moons surface is extremely bright, so naturally the stars will not be picked up on film because the camera will have too much difficulty focusing.  Dont believe it?  Next time you go camping, bring a camera.  And on a starry night, have your friend hold a flashlight and light up the ground infront of you.  Kneel down, and take a picture straight ahead.  YOu wont see any stars when its developed.  

Other evidence was that a rock had what looked like a C on it, symbolizing that it was a prop.  Well, that C was a piece of hair or dirt.  Alll other evidence against a moon landing is crazy.

Think:  Would it make any sense to fake several moon landings, fake an almost fatal accident with Apollo 13, all to beat the soviets to the moon?  NO!

[Hagar]

[quote]Theres no way it could be faked.

[Jakemaster]

The one way to prove it is to find the landing site on the moon.  They left the bottom half of the capsule, the lunar lander, and their footprints will never blow away.

Being in houston means that I take the space program pretty seriously, so theres no way to convince me that there was no moon landing (which I know youre not trying to d) except for going to the moon and coming back with no evidence of a landing.  I saw the Apollo 18 LEM (the program was cancelled before its launch) at the Cradle of Aviation museum in new york and I must say, that thing looks like it was definately made to go to the moon, not sit in a studio in the middle of a desert somewhere and be filmed.  

[myshelf]

A 180-pound man falls to gravity -- so does a 6-pound baby. Would you expect it to fall up (thought some of those old late-night b/w space shows, with their upward-curving rocketship flames, were rather humorous )?

the gravity accelaration on the moon should be 1/6 of that on earth. yet it looked to me like he fell just as fast as someone on earth.

[Hagar]

I saw the Apollo 18 LEM (the program was cancelled before its launch) at the Cradle of Aviation museum in new york and I must say, that thing looks like it was definately made to go to the moon, not sit in a studio in the middle of a desert somewhere and be filmed.

You're still missing my point. Nobody is disputing that or suggesting that Apollo 11 didn't reach the Moon & go into orbit around it. That would be ridiculous as thousands of people actually witnessed the rocket launched with their own eyes & the Soviets would have been monitoring it the whole time. The way I see it the only thing that could have been faked was that first Moon landing & the moon walk itself.

[Woodlouse2002]

The way I see it the only thing that could have been faked was that first Moon landing & the moon walk itself.

Which as I've been saying is the only bit that would have to be faked.

[Hagar]

Which as I've been saying is the only bit that would have to be faked.

Indeed Woody. It's a shame that everyone can't see that simple fact.

[eno]

Indeed Woody. It's a shame that everyone can't see that simple fact.

Doug ........... I think it's an age thing.

[RichieB16]

Doug ........... I think it's an age thing.

I think this is a very good point.  Especially since these events basically occured in a different world.  In 1969, the world was very different.  People from my generation really have no understanding of what it was actually like in the Cold War (we may think we do, but since we didn't live threw it we honestly don't).  Perhaps if we really understood the seriousness of winning the "space race" by living threw those events at the time, a backup plan to fake the first landing may seem more believable.

[H]

the gravity accelaration on the moon should be 1/6 of that on earth. yet it looked to me like he fell just as fast as someone on earth.

There's too many variables involved at the start of an 'accelerated' fall. His suit increases his weight but, even though his body can feel this bulkie mass engulfing it, his muscles are made to overcome resistive "Earth" forces, thus he may overcompensate. Initially, he could fall even faster.

[Hagar]

[quote]I think this is a very good point.

[myshelf]

There's too many variables involved at the start of an 'accelerated' fall. His suit increases his weight but, even though his body can feel this bulkie mass engulfing it, his muscles are made to overcome resistive "Earth" forces, thus he may overcompensate. Initially, he could fall even faster.

well, he can't fall faster than 1/6 g, that "lighter objects" fall slower on earth is due to atmospheric friction.

on earth, in the first second an object falls about 5 m (1/2*9.82m*1s