Re: The Lunar Landings

[Fester]

I too am quite sure that the UNMANNED Mars rover landed on Mars.

It's the issue of getting human beings to the moon and back in 1969 that I have doubts about.

What's your view Merddin?

[Welshmunchkin]

I've been  watching this thread with interest to see how it would develop, but  seems Fester is a lone voice, so I'm going to join in by saying, at risk of the usual ridicule, that in the early years I had doubts about the moon landing, but in more recent years, as more evidence has come to light, I have become convinced that it never happened. I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people who refuses to believe everything I'm told by people in authority, as I think they have their own agenda. there are MANY subjects in which I think we are being misled, and I think we should question everything, keep an open mind and trust our instincts.

[Merddin Emrys]

I too am quite sure that the UNMANNED Mars rover landed on Mars.

It's the issue of getting human beings to the moon and back in 1969 that I have doubts about.

What's your view Merddin?

As you ask I think that they did go but were warned off by aliens, I do find the UFO subject interesting and cannot believe that we are alone in the universe! On the otherhand I certainly do not believe every strange story that we hear!

[Ian]

I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people who refuses to believe everything I'm told by people in authority, as I think they have their own agenda. there are MANY subjects in which I think we are being misled, and I think we should question everything, keep an open mind and trust our instincts.

There's a lot in what you say, but instincts alone are not a substitute for empirical evidence, rational thought and sound logic. The main reason why those who believe the lunar landings were all faked - besides the wealth of evidence, the sheer numbers involved, the mere fact that no government anywhere has ever managed to keep anything secret for long - are being hoodwinked in a merciless way is actually based on simple logic.

Even if not one of the 400 000 people involved in putting men on the moon has ever 'broken ranks', even if all the world's developed nations have been studying the samples of lunar rock returned from the moon for more than forty years, even if the Chinese and Indians have photos of Apollo LEMs taken by their own orbiters, even if sending men to the moon and brining them back is nowhere near as fearsomely complex for the burgeoning technology of the '60s as some would have you believe and even if independent monitoring stations around the world - including those in actively hostile nations, such as Russia, China and other non-US countries all - without exception - verified the success of the US missions, albeit grudgingly, (one that didn't BTW - was Uganda under Idi Amin, who alleged it a fascist plot, so good company there, then) - the simple, utterly and glaringly obvious flaw in the conspiracists' theories is that in the history of the world no secret has remained so for any length of time.  And there's good reason.  Keeping any secret is actually quite a stressful experience, and the bigger the secret the harder it is for any individual to keep it.  But according to the conspiracists, we're expected to believe this wasn't a small secret; this was a colossal, a mammoth exercise in duplicity and obfuscation which - as the Manhattan project had amply proved some time earlier - was simply too big to work.  In WWII it was common knowledge that no matter how crucial the secret, how vital it was to saving lives, you simply can't trust people to keep it secret.

[DaveR]

I was kind of dreading looking on this topic tonight, to see if Fester had answered my question about the NASA scientists supposedly killed in car crashes and suddenly made me think, ''yes of course, how stupid of me, it was all staged and I as wrong''

But no!   Yet more questions to divert attention away from the issue is all I see.
Interesting they may be, but hardly helpful in a sensible debate.
So where does all this take us?

    

Actually Dave, seeing as you told me today that you didn't even spend 3 minutes watching the EVIDENCE that I posted of the astronauts press conference, (yet you felt free to comment on it) .... then I just couldn't be arsed spending a lot more time getting that list together.  What would be the point?

As you well know, I did watch that video and, as I pointed out, whatever the demeanour of the astronauts, it could be construed as 'evidence' they were involved in a conspiracy.

If they were smooth and polished in their answers at that press conference, you would no doubt say it was because they had been well rehearsed.

If they were nervous and hesitant in their answers at that press conference, you would no doubt say it was because they did not feel confident lying to the world's media.

To go back to the 'list of scientists' issue, you presented it as a fact that a lot of NASA scientists had died in a car crash, yet you now say that you don't actually have the facts to support that statement? You ask questions of others, but don't accept the answers from Ian even when supported by reams of facts...yet make assertions yourself without any facts of any sort to back them up!!

There's only one icon needed here... 

[Fester]

Calm down Dave!

As YOU well know, when we actually spoke face to face yesterday, had not looked at the clip before that point.
Now you have, and that's fine.  You see it a different way to me.  Thats what a Forum debate is all about, surely?
I also told you that you will get your list, when I have some time to search.... you KNOW how busy I am.
Work.... pub with you....darts....home...work... pub with you...... (and so the circle continues)

Ian's assertions are indeed powerful, they are based on sound logic and the weight of numbers.
The only flaw I see there, (as I've mentioned before) is that not 400,000 people would be 'in on it', only a few at the highest level.
For example, if say 100,000 were needed to launch a rocket, then that is exactly what they did.  But it doesn't mean it penetrated the lethal Van Allen radiation belts and went to the moon and back.

But, Ian's logical points explain much, but there are always loose ends and niggles which have never sat well with me.
Thats why I remain on the fence, and I have still NOT voted in the poll.

[DaveR]

So...if Apollo 11 spent 3 days in orbit around the Earth, how come no-one saw it? Considering there were hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers, foreign governments etc etc, all keenly watching progress of the lunar expedition?

What you're saying just does not make any sense?

[Yorkie]

In defence of the disbelievers, it would be fair to mention that Professional Illusionists can make Sherman Tanks and Battleships disappear for periods of time.  Why not a Lunar Space Ship?    ZXZ

[DaveR]

That's generally only in front of a specific audience, Yorkie, not millions of people spread out around the world. 

[Yorkie]

I will do nothing more than to refer you to the The Philadelphia Project, U.S.S. Eldridge and Project Rainbow.  I think Ian will consider it an excellent read, others may also!   ££$

[Ian]

Professional Illusionists can make Sherman Tanks and Battleships disappear for periods of time.  Why not a Lunar Space Ship

As Dave points out, that requires the knowing connivance of a large group of people, al of whom are aware of the trick and prepared to keep their mouths shut.,   Although, eventually, they do talk.  It's a tad trickier to conceal several tons of metal hurtling around the globe at 17000 mph.

not 400,000 people would be 'in on it', only a few at the highest level

You might have a valid point, were the launching of an interplanetary mission not such a specialised field. Once you realise, however, that right down to the guys who 'top up the tank', as it were, details matter and would be known to everyone involved.  Almost all the 400 000 involved were academically well qualified people;  when NASA started recruiting the best and the brightest fought tooth and nail to get a job - any job - that secured them a place in the team. Now, to keep it all a big secret, how were the Chinese and Russians persuaded not to say anything? Not to mention every nation with an astrophysical research chair, and the means to research the subject.  In simple terms, that means lots of highly accurate telescopes - radio and optical - and if you can seriously imagine that this mass of electronic and optical instrumentation around the globe was aimed anywhere other than at Apollo 11 during the entire mission, then you have a better imagination than any author.

[Ian]

The Philadelphia Project, U.S.S. Eldridge

Good fun, indeed.  They made a film out of it, I seem to remember.

[Yorkie]

This is an excellent read on the Debunking of the Moon Hoax Debate and covers more points than has been mentioned on this Forum.  Every aspect of doubt as to the Apollo landing and the Moon walk seems to be covered in some detail.  But in the end one will still have one's own opinion, unless convinced by some of the counter arguments presented.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

 [*££]    ££@@

[SDQ]

This is an excellent read on the Debunking of the Moon Hoax Debate and covers more points than has been mentioned on this Forum.  Every aspect of doubt as to the Apollo landing and the Moon walk seems to be covered in some detail.  But in the end one will still have one's own opinion, unless convinced by some of the counter arguments presented.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

 [*££]    ££@@

I enjoyed reading that, very informative. It would be interesting if some of the doubters read it and reported back if it has helped them make a judgement.

[Fester]

I too enjoyed reading that, and it gave some very good technical supporting evidence to refute some, maybe most of the hoax claims.
Of particular interest to me was the explaination of why there was no dust on the feet of the lunar lander.
I have always wondered this.  But now I realise that in zero gravity, dust will not 'settle'
Instead, once disturbed, it will continue to move away from the point it was disturbed.
That is the sort of answer I like, concise and unequivocal.

On some other points, the good Doctor is more fervent in his desire to end the theory, but his reasons are less understandable, and more like opinions on his part.

However, I am a reasonable man, and it did move me more towards accepting that the lunar landings could have happened.
I am not certain, I don't think anyone ever can be 100% certain,.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the article, but please bear in mind that it is only the views of one individual.

It is written in a style that 'beats you over the head', and rather than debate each point, it pours ridicule on the reader for daring to think it!