Do you believe that Man walked on the moon, or do you believe it was a hoax?

It\'s hard for me to say. I would like to believe that it happened, but my head tells me it didn\'t, and that it was indeed a hoax.

Oh look its our resident nutter....

Of course they were fake...

CLICK HERE for the final, irrefutable facts.




Disclaimer:- Of course they weren't faked you mad mad mad mad doo-dar. It would cost the tax payers many more millions to simulate it than to actually do it. Anyone fancy creating a set that looks miracoulousy like the moon and using 60's technology simulate the moons very different gravitational effect on a the craft as well as the humans.....???

and to add to that...

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20l...0the%20Moon.htm

Fascinating subject . Im old enough to remember watching it happen ,and yes it would be very difficult/expensive to fake that with the technology at the time . :huh:
Plus it would be hard for the astronanuts to keep lying about it all these years ... ;)

Erm, sorry to say it but Selesfan has a good point. I've seen and read a lot about this and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it was another conspiracy. I personally do not believe that man walked the moon as suggested, because there are too many facts to refute that he did so. There was also a goo dmotive to fake it, to make the USa look better than Russia. Until I get complete and irrefutable proof I will remain sceptical. . I'm not saying I am correct, just my belief. The evidence simply isn't concrete enough for me, old scpetical git that I am. ;) And what about that American flag, hmm .......

:rolleyes: I didn't realize there were still people around who believed the whole thing was faked.

Well there are still a lot of programmes and articles being publicised in this country at least that would make one feel somewhat sceptical. And if you are being totally logical and strict about scientific proof then then you could never fell 100% certain about the whole thing. If it is so certain that it were true, where did all these disproving theroies come from?

No offence, but I am entitled to beleive what i like after considering the evidence.

Yes, i believe it was done in my backyard roflmao

Yeah. There's still a "Flat Earth Society", too.

Yeah whatever. :rolleyes:

My tea towel arrangement was very effective roflmao

But you are, of course, entitled to believe as you choose, and my apologies, if you happen to be a member of the Flat Earth Society.

I wonder how many members they have roflmao

SB you are of course entitled to your opinion.

I, myself, had very slight doubts and did raise my eyeborws when I read certain websites and TV progs but a few years ago I read the very samelink that timmadigan has put up in this thread and all my very slight doubts were pretty much erased....

That link again....

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20l...0the%20Moon.htm

Even if it doesn't sway you, it does blow away alot of the ideas that it was faked. But I did wonder also when Armstrong and Aldrin didn't report the moon as smelling cheesy..... ;)

I'd still be interested in finding out how the hell they did fake it though, hoe do you simulate that kind of gravity on such a large scale with a set like that? Especially in the 60's....

Actually...scrub that..... that particular argument from me is wrong.... As they managed it very well in 2001: A Space Odyssey very well and that was 68......

Still don't think it was faked though. ;)

Cheers Gav. :) I\m not totally convinced by some of the explanations given, as I am knackered I can't be bothered to dig stuff up but I've seen quite a lot of people refuting some o fthese explanations so i don't think they should be believed without question . NASA did themselves few favours by taking so long to answering the conspiracy theorists and the track records of some involved and lack of transpaIency doesn't scream integrity, so I dont; blame people for being scpetical at all. I actually find the tone of this article patronising and rude to those who question the whole thing. I personally find it quite pig inorant to just accept that NASA are telling the truth without question and to laugh at anyone who questions it. So much for freedom of speech, must be a a cultural thing George has just fallen of his chair in laughter and says best not say what he thinks about it for fear fo causing offence to certain people. ;) roflmao


Does anyone know what Karl Popper thinks? ;)

I certainly wouldn't want George to come on here and beat me up.... I will do a quick Rimmer like move and hide under a table somewhere.. :o

On this subjet.....Was Button Moon faked? I did wonder about the rocket being slightly heinz baked beans like....

Oh don't worry, he has no bone to pick with you and he is soft as shite anyway! it's my bessie mate you must watch, she came to see me this weekedn and came with some lunchackers, or however you spell it. roflmao

Button Moon faked? roflmao Can't say I was mor einto the Clangers myself. The Soup Dragon was a legend. :D

On the other hand, SB, I haven't seen a single bit of "hoax" evidence that seemed even remotely convincing. I mean, the American flag bit is a joke. You can easily see that the top edge of the flag is in a nice rigid line. Why? Ummm . . . maybe because of the support rod that was there to hold the flag out, because there is not any wind. :doh:

It's all little stuff like that, which comes across as people desparate to believe it was a hoax, grasping at straws.

Maybe nothing we see is real, and it's all just a part of The Matrix. :rolleyes:

Wow you are very open minded ;) roflmao I am NOt desperate to believe anything I personally don't care whether they landed on the moon or not, it all seems rather pointless now like some huge and expensive publicity stunt and I cringe at the 'giant step for mankind' stuff tbh.

Seriously though don't you find elements of it dodgy? I'm not saying it is completely untrue, I just find it hard to be totally convinced that it is true. In the same way that many people will never think that God exists, cos there is conflicting evidence. I doubt I will ever feel certain one way or the other. But as you are so convinced it is all true, can you tell me what one thing really convinces you? And do you know why scientists disagree on certain so called rational explantions of things, such as light, shadows, surface disturbance ad whatever else? Just wondered cos I've read the conspiracy arguments, seen the response to refute it and then seen others say that some of that is not right either I could not say for sure if some things are right or wrong as I simply don't know :shrug:

think you'll find that it's not the fact that the flag is straight out Nick, but that it moves slightly - Lunar Wind?

The shadows indicating different light sources are also interesting as is the well lit astronaut's face when it should be in shadow

Now if we could see some realtime modern shots of the landing site complete with flag, reminants of the landing vehicle and the Lunar Rover, then I reckon that would convince alot of sceptics.

I just find it hard to accept, that Jack Kennedy says 'we're going to the moon' and what? 7 years later they'd done it? With the 1960's technology that wasn't capable of providing a mock-up?

Hmmm, I want to believe, I really do, I'd just like some modern-day hard evidence that's all.

Hi SB,

I agree with one thing: the article is too confrontational for my liking; it is unlikely to convince people who have doubts. It is one of the problems that science seems to have these days --- knowing how to react to people who do not have much of a scientific background, and therefore express some (often very very naive) doubts about theories which have been well-established. All too often, there seems to be an "argument from authority". Partially this is because the scientific background is complex and has been established over many decades; however I think there is grave danger in giving off the impression that science is some kind of closed community into which outsiders cannot really venture. This is the opposite of what science should really be. This is similar to the "discussion" about evolution, predominantly in the United States. One of the problems is that most television programs I have seen that defend evolution seem to be not that far removed in their missionary zeal from those that stand against it. Of course if you have the scientific background, you can see which of the arguments make sense and which don't (have a guess ...), but it hardly helps to win people over who do *not* already have this background.

On the other hand, looking at the site provided (and ignoring the disparaging comments) the arguments he puts up are rather sound. I think it is incorrect to say that the author "just accepts what NASA says" --- he gives clear reasons for things. You cannot call him ignorant; he has clearly thought about these things. And in most instances, he not only gives a clear, logical argument, but also a way for you yourself to go and test these theories. And that is what science should be at its best --- something that you can go and test and verify (at least to a degree) on your own.

PS. A good conspiracy theory should be one which is hard to refute; unfortunately the moon-landing one is not ... that is why I prefer Nick's "matrix" theory, which is completely impossible to disprove ... :)

I haven't reviewed the video footage myself, but to me it makes perfect sense that the flag would move for a while after it has been handled by the astronauts ... after all, on the moon it would take a lot longer for such movement to die down than it does on earth.

I'm not aware that there are any shadows that indicate different light sources. The extra light that I am aware of being there is from the moon's reflective surface. Do you remember the lunar eclipse a few weeks ago? The moon wasn't invisible, even though it was in the shadow of the earth --- because the earth reflects some light back, and this light in turn is reflected back by the moon. It's the same principle that we use in our home for "indirect lighting".

I reckon they'll find some way around this (E.g., the photos were faked, the lander was put there after the fact etc.) A true believer isn't that easily swayed ...

Anyway, we will get such photos eventually, that much is for sure, but it may be a while longer.

I tend to think that he wouldn't have said it if they didn't already think that they could do it. And since you cannot dispute that the Apollo spacecraft actually went to the moon (it was followed by many amateur astronomers, I believe, and almost certainly by the Russians), I don't find it all that hard to believe at all.

Not sure that God is a good analogy SB - because there are people alive on the planet today who absolutely know the truth - they don't rely upon faith etc. for their beliefs, they have knowledge one way or another, period. There is, on the other hand, nobody who "knows" whether God exists in that sense.

It is difficult (and dare I say it, intellectually lazy) to be agnostic about the truthfulness of a fact when there are only two explanations: A. it is true; B. it is false and is being concealed by a huge conspiracy involving many hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have lived a lie daily for the last 38 years. Even by being agnostic, and purporting to rely upon the need for "scientific proof", you are countenancing the possibility of such a huge conspiracy - I suggest you consider that possibility first.

For me the answer is to hell with all the scientific theories, if hundreds of people are saying it happened and nobody has yet broken ranks the overwhelming likelihood is that they are not all lying. If you think about it we are not discussing a conspiracy of a few figureheads like politicians and astronauts whose reputations depend upon the truth, but a vast army of people who made it happen if it was a fake and who have much less at stake - cameramen, technicians, engineers, set designers, dress-makers, make-up artists, crew members, runners, caterers, editors, producers etc. - all these people are sworn to secrecy and none of them have revealed their small part in helping to perpetrate the biggest lie since WWII....? They apparently even deliberately made a mistake when Armstrong's first words "one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" were broadcast without the "a".

Here's another one - where did Armstrong, Aldrin et al go for the few days between blast-off and being fished out of the sea as heroes? If it was a fake somebody had to hide them, look after them, feed them and then get them up into the air before dropping them into the sea again (or smuggling them out to sea with a faked spacecraft and filming them being fished out) without anyone spilling the beans or others noticing what was happening - including the Russians with all their satelites & radar etc..

This illustrates the trouble with too many conspiracy theories, they divorce themselves from simple details of how things get done, how many people are needed to get things done, how real people think, work, and operate (simple pride might have encouraged some people to break ranks and tell us quite how clever their deception was), how the vast majority of people are reluctant to lie directly. Instead, those who propound the theories, and those who follow them, ignore such realities in the headlong dive into high theories etc. and perhaps the desire to believe that something quite so outrageous and exciting might be true. Ultimately, it's not about science. First and foremost it's about the likelihood of so many people being able to keep such a huge and devastating secret for so long.

Seriously? That seems even more flimsy. I thought the gullible ones were fooled by the conspiracy theorists because it would take wind to blow the flag out straight. If it's just the ripples in the flag that show movement, that's about stupid. Why would the flag not be moving, when they put it up? You would expect that to cause some movement and would expect the lack of atmosphere and low gravity on the moon to mean there would be little to stop the movement.

After reading that, I looked up a little more info. Apparently, if you were to look at the full footage of that moment, it does show that these ripples in the flag do die down after a few minutes, after which the flag just hangs there still. I haven't reviewed that footage myself, and I'm sure someone convinced that this was not true could claim that such additional footage was only fabricated to debunk the people who were "on to them." :rolleyes:

I find the trip to the moon more plausible than the belief that my goverment could have perpetrated that massive a hoax. It was such an enourmous effort. My uncle was one of the literally thousands of engineerw on the Apollo programs. I assure you, I'm quite convinced it was not just an elaborate hoax.

it's a while since I saw the footage but can accept the argument for the lack of gravity means the flag takes a while to slow down - depending on the weight of the flag of course.

The shadows in different directions due to the natural reflections off the moon, hmm, if I have a single light source shining from a vast distance, then if light strikes objects on an uneven reflective surface I would expect all the shadows to go pretty much in the same direction. I really don't see the surface of the moon being so reflective as to have been able to reflect light in sufficient intensity to have 'removed' the original shadow from the object and give another of its own.

I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here, I am of the generation who watched this first hand on TV and deep down believe it to be true, however, in the political days of the mid/late '60's when the cold war was pretty much at its height, Vietnam was kicking off big time and there was civil unrest, would the US really have broadcast an unmittigated failure to the rest of the world?

I agree undoubtedly that the Apollo program sent rockets around the moon and in all probability actually landed there. There is just this little niggle - can we all really have been hoodwinked?

Do you have any good examples of this? The photos I've seen of supposedly "wrong shadows" haven't seemed all that wrong to me at all. The one cited in the link above in this thread is one example, but it suggests not that there is a separate set of shadows, but that the astronaut in the shadow of the lander is illuminated more than he should be. Doesn't seem wrong to me, though, considering how bright the surface of the moon was. The explanation is that all that surface light is illuminating the man's white space suit, not that it's casting a separate shadow.

But there may be some good examples of what you describe above. :shrug:

I'm with you on this one, barrystar. I don't think comparing the moon landing to the existance of God is even a remotely close analogy. I think those who believe the moon landing was a hoax can be compared more readily to those who still don't accept that the earth is round or refuse to believe that the holocaust happened.

This site answers some of the questions Nick, it's quite a lengthy piece but interesting

Was The Apollo Moon Landing In 1969 Faked?

Lex, I may be butting in between you and Nick, but I would respectfully suggest that this one quote from the article shows what a load of old tosh it is:

"The other part of the question, why did NASA fake the moon landing, is relatively easy. It was a widely held opinion at the time that whoever won this leg of the space race would also win the cold war. So this, and the fact that in 1961 the President of the USA, John F. Kennedy had said that within the decade America would put man on the moon, seem like good enough motives to fake the moon landing."

That simple superficially plausible description of motive is seen as a decent reason to get into exciting debates about cross-hairs on photos. This description of a motive entirely glosses over the far less sexy, but more difficult and vital question of HOW an organisation of several 000's of people could "fake" such a big event and have kept the secret for so long.

The only answer that fits for the theory is that all of them (or large numbers of them) are liars, and have stayed liars for 38 years. This also involves accepting that some will have taken the lie with them to the grave in the last 38 years. Experience of human nature suggests that is inconceivable - several people would have broken cover in the meantime. That is especially so when the purported motive, and hence the need for secrecy, was over with the end of the cold war - you can imagine deflection of criticism with the line, "how we helped win the cold war by faking the moon landing."

So I cannot accept that this pseudo-scientific article is interesting when it ducks the big question - do you hold that it is remotely possible that NASA and the US Government was packed with liars who remain such? If you don't, let's hear no more about cross-hairs etc. because it is all irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that this statement:

is not even true. The space race was a part of the cold war, with each side trying to prove its superiority, but from what I've read (as I was a bit too young to being thinking in those terms at the time), I don't believe there was any sense that winning the space race was considered sufficient or even all that important for "winning" the cold war. And I certainly don't remember any sense of feeling that we had won the cold war, because we were first to land on the moon.

It was playing on national pride, big-time, but it wasn't that important in the grand scheme of the cold war.

Apart from what has already been mentioned, I would also point out that the result of creating a hoax and it then coming out would probably have been infinitely more damaging than failing to reach the moon (and, as Barry has pointed out, there would seem to be little chance that such a hoax would *not* come out, given how many people would be required to be quiet).

I found what looks like another good website:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Some quotes, apart from the science:

Yeah, that's a good site. I like the way he amends his views in response to emails etc. and explains why he has done that.

Now, perhaps we should discuss whether Diana's death was an accident..... :hide:

best get comfy with a vat of janx if you are going to start that discussion hun :blink:

April Fool :party:

roflmao

Hey Jed :)

Yes you are right abotu how science purports to be some kind of sumpreme authority and can often come across as condescending and unwilling to discuss other possibilities. I am not a scientist, but I have however studied the philosophy of science, ideas and truth (although a littel rusty on it nowadays) and it is really fascinating stuff, Kuhn, Popper, Appleyard? i think and stuff. This theme is often discussed in there.

I didn't mean that this guy was ignorant, I just found his attitude ignorant as in patronising and rude to others. es his arguments sound reasonable, but then others still argue against them and sound reasonable also. I have no idea who is right. :)

SB, putting science to one side for a moment, how do you deal with what I think is the real question, namely whether there is a huge conspiracy involving 00's or 000's of people who have managed to cover up the lie for 38 years?

Barrystar/Nick - dont; read to much into the analogy of God existing, it was just something that came into my head. There are however people who claim to have seen God, but I have no idea if they have or not - I don't knwo what God would appear like and I wasnt; there when he/she appeared so cannot say. I feel kind of similar about the moon landings - I wasnt; there and how would I know that the TV footage was actually coming from the moon? I've never been there and only have the image of the moon that has been given to me by others. I am convinced that the world is not flat btw, but when it comes to space I feel I littel less confident. Maybe reading 1984 made em too cynical roflmao

I think it is perfectly feasible that NASA and the US Government were packed with liars who managed to keep quiet for many years, and still are quiet. If anyoen can pull off a cover up it is them. After all arent; goverments and their secretive agencies renowned for such things? Not saying they were in thsi case BUT it is not impossible that so many people could lie for so long - it's been done before. I can't give proof of instances where no one foudn out though, as the fact that no one found out means there is nothing to tell, if that makes sense. :wacko: roflmao