Did they land on the Moon?

[RichieB16]

what he's saying is that they were all set up to fake a successful moon mission, and some of the stuff they filmed actually made it to the public.

I don't think that is correct.  Doug hasn't once said that the Apollo 11 landing was faked, that they were ever even set up to fake it, or that they filmed anything and released it as something that it is not.  He is simply saying that there was probably a last chance emergency backup plan option for the government to fake it if they felt that they might lose the space race.  Nothing more than that.  My point that the Soviet Union released training film of a cosmonaut practicing a for the first spacewalk is evidence that a government has released a video of a space releated event claiming it was something that it wasn't.  

I hope that made sense.  

[H]

Depends upon how sensible we are, I guess. By the amount of this thread relative to it, we each have different sensitivity.

[Hagar]

[quote]OHHHH! Are you saying, Hagar, that the footage we see may have been filmed on a set PRIOR to the landing, and they showed THAT to us instead of whatever they filmed on the moon.

[beaky]

I'm not actually saying that as I have no way of knowing. What I'm saying is that it would have been possible to slip some pre-filmed footage into what was being shown on TV if something had gone wrong with the cameras on the Moon & they lost the live images at a vital moment. This could have been done with only very few people being aware of it.

Would those who support the "lost footage" theory (which I guess involves the simultaneous failure of something like four video feeds, or the loss of God -knows -how- many tapes) also claim that by an amazing coincidence, all the still photos were lost as well, so fake stills also had to be inserted?
I think theorizing that Apollo11 made it into lunar orbit, successfully carried out the lander rendezvous and separation, then made it home, but did not actually touch down is really pushing things a bit. If Eagle failed to land successfully, what was the problem? What really happened? I've yet to hear anything resembling even an intelligent speculation regarding that. I understand from NASA's voluminous pictures, etc. that Eagle very nearly aborted- the original landing zone proved unsafe (boulders), so it was flown manually beyond that point. Why would this near-failure be admitted, if the whole story was fake? To add drama, maybe, or make Armstrong appear more heroic, perhaps... ?
These ideas seem to be nothing more than wish-fulfillment; another case of trying to refute scientific data with mythology. And I'm sure for many "Apollo conspiracy theorists", all of this nonsense has provided them with the attention they crave, and some money, too...

[Hagar]

Would those who support the "lost footage" theory (which I guess involves the simultaneous failure of something like four video feeds, or the loss of God -knows -how- many tapes) also claim that by an amazing coincidence, all the still photos were lost as well, so fake stills also had to be inserted?
I think theorizing that Apollo11 made it into lunar orbit, successfully carried out the lander rendezvous and separation, then made it home, but did not actually touch down is really pushing things a bit. If Eagle failed to land successfully, what was the problem? What really happened? I've yet to hear anything resembling even an intelligent speculation regarding that.

I have no knowledge of any specific theories & therefore am not trying to support them. Everything I've said here has seemed quite obvious to me for a very long time. I'm simply trying to point out that it would have been possible to fake a Moon landing if thought necessary by the highest authority or even by someone acting on their own initiative with the best of intentions. This would not need to be a deliberate plot involving thousands or even hundreds of people & very few would need to know about it. This was a very complex & highly dangerous mission & even now it seems almost impossible to believe that it all went almost according to plan. To put two men on the Moon within a short distance of their objective & then bring them back safely to Earth is almost impossible for an ordinary person like me to comprehend, never mind watching the whole thing broadcast live on the TV screen in my own living room. I never said I didn't believe it & whatever the truth of it there's no doubt it was an amazing achievement by any stretch of the imagination.

PS. This is history & purely academic. I have no strong feelings either way & am only interested in the historical aspect. All I have to gain by telling you what I & many others thought at the time without the benefit of hindsight is ridicule, accusations & loss of respect by my friends who suspect that I have finally lost my remaining marble. It would be so much easier to bite my tongue & remain silent. If nobody is prepared to listen it makes no difference to me whatsoever.

[Jakemaster]

I get you hagar.  You are saying that while theres really no way of knowing if they landed or if it was fake, it is possible that in order to make sure that the public knew that a landing took place, they may have filmed earlier to test equipment, and also incase of failure they could use this prefilmed stuff to show the "landing" to the public

[eno]

Let's try and put it simply for those who can't or won't understand.

Apollo 11 .....

Political Situation at the time ..... Fierce Arms race between east and west. Main propulsion for said arms ROCKETS.
BEST ROCKET WINS THE RACE AND OBLITERATES THE OPPOSITION. Ergo the need to prove who has the best rocket and therfore the territorial advantage.
At the point before Apollo 11 Russia is 3-1... First satellite .... First animal in space.... First man to orbit the earth. ergo they are showing the advantage. How to nullify said advantage..... LAND A MAN ON THE MOON AT ALL COSTS.

Now we reach the mission ....... Apollo 11 takes off sucessfully. Only a handfull of people on earth have the knowlege and understanding of how all the new technology that is involved works. TV is fairly new so you can show anything as being LIVE and with a delay on the pictures transmitted from space if something goes wrong slap some pre-recorded stuff on and cut the live feed.

Therefore there are 2 plans for the mission as it is so important that it must be seen to succeed. Plan 1 is the stated mission to land a man on the moon. Plan 2, should plan 1 go horribly wrong,  fake a landing because only a handfull of people would ever know.... and who's going to be able to challenge some of the greatest minds on the planet.

The stakes for failing are enormous and threaten the whole planet....... success means that the Russians will spend enormous amounts of money attempting to be better and therefore have less to spend on developing other weapons.

With hindsight ....... it was a success wether it happened or not. We now live in a more peaceful world with less of a threat of Global War to complete obliteration of the planet.

Is that simple enough .......?

[RichieB16]

I think eno has a pretty good explaination here.  I would argue with the Russian 3-1 lead as it is not completely correct but his overall point is accurate.

[Rifleman]

...........and Finally, ....I get Hagars point.........

......I guess its not so far fetched to suggest that Charles Lindberg or, Alcock and Brown, really in fact, didn't cross the ocean, as there was one at the take-off point of either, present in person to see the arrival, and be able to say that they did in fact see the entire trip from start to finish.......all we can do is take the words of reporters of history, and ordinary people..........
....even if someone goes to the moon to prove or dis-prove the facts....we still have to believe these folks word, as we all can't go there and see it for ourselves.....  ::)

I'm not saying that these feats were or weren't accomplished, but all we can do is move forward and accept what is written as history .......same for the space race.....what is written as history is what we give our kids to believe......lets let the sleeping dog lie.......

[WebbPA]

At the risk of reopening a thread that should have been long dead I take issue with eno's recent post.

Rockets - The Soviet Union had vastly superior rocket boosters as a result of the inferior design of the size and weight of their nuclear weapons.  The bombs were heavier than their western counterparts and they were forced to create larger rockets to propel them the same distance that western rockets could propel smaller, more lightweight weapons.

3-1 advantage.  There is no doubt that the Soviet Union was the first in some milestones.  But the Soviet Union was a closed society so we will never know how many failures led to these milestones.

I am surprised that eno didn't mention "the first 2 man spacecraft", which was nothing more than cramming 2 people into a spacecraft designed for one.  The US designed and launched the first true 2 man spacecraft.  The US was far ahead of the Soviets by 1963.

I don't know when you were born but TV was hardly "new" in 1969.  NASA showed the first US spacewalk on live TV in 1965.

Now we reach "the mission".  I'm going to cite the first available source but the truth of it is not disputable.  Why would President Nixon have a speechwriter prepare a "disaster" speech if success was a foregone conclusion?

http://watergate.info/nixon/moon-disast ... 1969.shtml

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Thats the speech I was getting at! Thanks, Webb.

Damn guys! It took you 7 pages to understand Doug's point? Clap clap for the handicap!


A.

[RichieB16]

[quote]I am surprised that eno didn't mention "the first 2 man spacecraft", which was nothing more than cramming 2 people into a spacecraft designed for one.

[eno]

Now we reach "the mission".  I'm going to cite the first available source but the truth of it is not disputable.  Why would President Nixon have a speechwriter prepare a "disaster" speech if success was a foregone conclusion?

http://watergate.info/nixon/moon-disast ... 1969.shtml

Why is it the populace of the US can't conceive of the fact that even "The President" might not have been told of 2 plans? Even if he was, writting a speech to mourn the loss of the astronaughts would have been the perfectly NORMAL thing to do.
I would assume that any state leader would write such a speech for any momentous occasion taking place should it go wrong ...... and another one should it go right.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]3-1 advantage.

[beefhole]

Now we reach "the mission".  I'm going to cite the first available source but the truth of it is not disputable.  Why would President Nixon have a speechwriter prepare a "disaster" speech if success was a foregone conclusion?

That's easily explainable, if we follow the theory presented mainly by Doug.  

They were going to attempt to land on the moon-if that didn't work out, they were going to say they did and fake it.

Well, what if the attempted landing met with disaster?  They couldn't fake it then, somebody would probably notice the astronauts not returning home.  Even if they decided to fake the landing and claim Apollo 11 was lost on its way back from the moon, a disaster speech would still be necessary.

So a speech really isn't proof of anything.

edit: I see eno got the jump on me