Did US Astronaut land on the moon for real?

[Simon]

look, there are people that believe that the earth is flat and will nearly kill themselves in amateur rocket launches so that they can take a photo because they can't trust the entirety of the scientific community that has simply provided free to all the relevant information that the earth is round with no reason to lie.

We live in a society. Unlike in past millennia being smartish is no longer the minimum requirement to stay alive because societies infrastructure will keep you alive and now more than that even the stupid ones get to reproduce....

[taydin]

If something is technically possible and if there is a huge benefit in doing that thing, it will be a VERY safe bet to assume that somebody is doing it. You don't need a "smoking gun" type of proof for that.

For example, it is technically possible to use smart phones as surveillance devices and it has a huge benefit, so it is pretty much a certainty that somebody or some entity is doing that. You don't need to see actual surveillance information flowing out over the network link, or open ports listening, or hidden code in the firmware that wakes up under certain conditions.

Thus, given that the rocket science, orbit dynamics, and everything else that it takes to land on the mood was already available, and given all the expected benefits at the time, one would rather ask "why didn't the US put a man on the moon?" if the space program had been done in secrecy.

[vk6zgo]

Not all experimental proof comes from NASA. There's an extensive list on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

When I visited the Kennedy Space Center, I had an eerie sensation that the moon in particular, and space in general had been privatized. Much like the Portuguese and the Spanish who divided the world in two equal parts in 1494 with the Treaty of Tordesillas to the exclusion of all other European nations for colonizing the non Christian lands. Although ignored later by the other nations, scars of this treaty can be seen in the maps of the world.

Given this precedent, it should be of no surprise if one day it come to light that those "independent" third parties had to sign an NDA.

Notwithstanding, the junk found on the moon doesn't mean someone landed there. In 1972, Lou Reed had a premonition:

Satellite's gone way up to Mars
Soon it'll be filled with parkin' cars

Up to now seven rovers have been dispatched there, and not a single terrestrial microbe had that chance.

Much of the evidence for the fact of the Moon Landings is from 1969 & the early '70s, when nobody would have known what an "NDA" was.
In any case, they are a poor protection, as a Congressional Investigation or a Royal Commission can turn your NDA into confetti any time they want to!

The "junk" had to get to the Moon somehow, which means  transporting quite large pieces of equipment there, positioning them quite accurately, somehow make astronaut footprints, somehow drive the buggies around, all without leaving any evidence of artifice.
This would be hard to nearly impossible to do with today's technology, let alone that available in 1969.

NASA didn't know that they had such a long "breathing space" as it transpired they did.
For all they knew, a Soviet landing or even a manned orbiting mission could have "blown everything", so they somehow would have had to develop all this advanced automatic  transport & equipment handling capability before the deadline set by JFK, whilst running a "fake" parallel Apollo program.

They then, in a huge rush, had to use it to plant Apollo 11 evidence, & continue to do the same thing in secret for all the other missions.

This is when the technology "wasn't good enough for a manned mission", according to your unsupported statement!

[james_s]

That's another good point, at the time people fully expected permanent moon bases to be in the near future and orbiting stations likely before that. Turned out there wasn't much point in a base on the moon so nobody ever bothered to build one. I do think it would be interesting to send a rover to the moon to check out the old landing sites up close. Wouldn't convince anyone who thinks it was fake but it would be interesting for the rest of us.

[Bud]

Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.

It seems it still may happen
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-to-check-truth-of-1969-us-moon-landing/a-46441264]  

[Simon]

Sounds like the russia space program is trying to make ties where putin seems eager to break them.

[tggzzz]

Plus the Soviet Union would have loved to prove it fake.

It seems it still may happen
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-to-check-truth-of-1969-us-moon-landing/a-46441264]  

I have some distant relatives where I know the father and daughters. The grandmother worked closely with Putin (so less than 6 degrees between me and Putin!).

The grandmother and mother both seriously believe the 1969 moon landings are only US propaganda.

[CatalinaWOW]

Hey, I have many friends and relatives who believe in astrology.  If people can do that, believing fake moon landings is a piece of cake.

[Simon]

Essentially we are talking IQ and education. People always have seek to have an explanation they don't like the unexplained. An explanation will come at any cost to rationality. With a lack of education people have very little reference framework to draw from to validate an idea and with less IQ are unlikely to be capable of working out truth from lies. Low IQ and lack of education tend to coincide and make one the most vulnerable to manipulation.

[German_EE]

At great expense I have finally secured proof that man landed on the moon in July 1969. These pictures were taken by a third party and show clearly an astronaut leaving a lunar module and collecting rock samples.



Happy now?

[bsfeechannel]

I can think of one way to prove that Armstrong & Aldrin landed in 1969,

It better be true. I'd hate to think that I've been duped after all these years.

but the USA won't like it.

While I'm happy that this thread didn't degenerate into a flamewar between "flatearthers" and "nasatards", I expected a less Kafkaesque discussion.

Can we have access to the engineering details of the landing on the moon? Nope. They're classified.
Can we go to the moon and independently ascertain the viability of such a project? Never. After the first landings, there's no point going there.
Can we at least discuss its plausibility? Impossible. The astronauts were from a land of risk-takers, therefore the landings indisputably happened.
What about expressing some doubts that it might not have happened? Out of question. That belongs in the forum of delusional members.

By Kafkaesque I mean the frustration of not being able to ascertain the truth behind a certain fact, having as the only option to accept resignedly the official account.

But as the philosopher Jagger used to say: "You can't always have what you want".

So happy New Year, everyone.

[Mr. Scram]

While I'm happy that this thread didn't degenerate into a flamewar between "flatearthers" and "nasatards", I expected a less Kafkaesque discussion.

Can we have access to the engineering details of the landing on the moon? Nope. They're classified.
Can we go to the moon and independently ascertain the viability of such a project? Never. After the first landings, there's no point going there.
Can we at least discuss its plausibility? Impossible. The astronauts were from a land of risk-takers, therefore the landings indisputably happened.
What about expressing some doubts that it might not have happened? Out of question. That belongs in the forum of delusional members.

By Kafkaesque I mean the frustration of not being able to ascertain the truth behind a certain fact, having as the only option to accept resignedly the official account.

But as the philosopher Jagger used to say: "You can't always have what you want".

So happy New Year, everyone.

You seem to suggest you have no proof or no access to any proof. However, there does seem to be a large body of evidence both from NASA and third parties. How is this not allowing you to ascertain "the truth behind a certain fact"? There's extensive documentation on how things were done and how they happened. Perhaps it would help if you indicated the reason for your dissatisfaction.

[Simon]

Basically do you trust the evidence you have available? the whole thing was filmed, what more do you want?

[soldar]

It is interesting to observe how different people form their opinions and what weight they give to the different evidence.

I have never been to Australia but I am quite sure it exists based on all the evidence I have at hand. Some people could weigh the same evidence and distrust it but that says a lot about them and their mental processes.

I know someone who is distrustful by nature and dealing with him is a pain because he is always afraid he is being cheated or lied to.

Evidence is a small part of how we form our opinions. If you are a science guy and surrounded by similar types then your interpretation of the evidence is supported and reinforced by your social circle and that helps support it. It is social, not reasoning.

People with limited education form their beliefs mainly through social means and find plenty of support for the most crazy ideas.

So, arriving at the right conclusion is a matter of choosing to believe the right evidence and disregard the wrong evidence. But how to decide?

Free unlimited power inventors continue to part the credulous from their money and there's a new one born every minute. 

Ridiculous "experts" testify in courtrooms and defendants are convicted on incredible grounds. Years later the whole thing is seen to be crazy but at the time it seemed sound.  Every country and culture have their witch hunts.

Once you get into religious or political beliefs facts have almost nothing to do with them. People believe whatever they want to believe and no amount of facts is going to change their beliefs. Any evidence which contradicts their beliefs is just discounted and flimsy or ridiculous evidence which supports it is given a lot of weight.

We are much less rational than we would like to think.

[German_EE]

Basically do you trust the evidence you have available? the whole thing was filmed, what more do you want?

So was Jurassic Park, and I don't intend to use it as proof that dinosaurs exist even though they look damn realistic on the screen.

Anything can be faked these days. Decades ago I remember seeing a faked picture of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan walking through the garden at 10 Downing Street. Thatcher was on Reagan's right, she was wearing a blue suit and the roses were pink. By the time they had finished Margaret Thatcher was on Ronald Reagan's left side, she was wearing a pink suit and the roses were blue.

As I said before, the evidence I have seen makes me conclude that man landed on the moon, especially the experiment with the hammer and the feather. There are however certain inconsistences with the 'plot' which mean that I am not 100% certain.

[Simon]

Well I was referring to the sheer amount of the filming.

[HighVoltage]

As I said before, the evidence I have seen makes me conclude that man landed on the moon, especially the experiment with the hammer and the feather. There are however certain inconsistences with the 'plot' which mean that I am not 100% certain.

The Hammer and Feather experiment was for the longest time on my checklist for a good proof that it was indeed filmed on the moon under vacuum and different g-forces. But then I came across this video and many others:



So, as I said before, it will be extremely hard to proof that they really landed on the moon.
But it is also extremely hard do disproof.

In my own opinion: We might never find out the truth.

The Russians would not start their own investigation, if they were convinced that it happened.

[Simon]

Oh my god! So a guy sits there and claims it is a fake with no counter proof and you believe it? So how did they drop the hammer and feather in their mock up and have them land together. Did he forget to mention that it is a metal replica feather? In that vein this guy can "prove" that anything is fake by just sitting there and saying it is fake. Why should i believe him?

[Simon]

The Russians would not start their own investigation, if they were convinced that it happened.

The russians are 19th century humans in a 21st century world. That is why the guy announcing that they were going to the moon to check was seen to be tongue in cheek. He knows it's silly but his 19th century boss putin has told them to do it to perpetuate the narrative to the people. And of course it will take them 10 years to be ready, so another 10 years of free propaganda.

[HighVoltage]

Oh my god! So a guy sits there and claims it is a fake with no counter proof and you believe it? So how did they drop the hammer and feather in their mock up and have them land together. Did he forget to mention that it is a metal replica feather? In that vein this guy can "prove" that anything is fake by just sitting there and saying it is fake. Why should i believe him?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I believe him!
The only thing this video is proofing, is the fact that the "Hammer Feather" experiment can be faked.

If we assume that NASA faked the moon landing with this elaborate hoax, then they must have faked this experiment as well.  And since it is on video, it seems that it can be faked.

We do not know the truth and talking about this experiment will not get us closer to the truth.

[Simon]

actually if you look at the feather in the real landing you can see that it is very fluffy and probably chosen deliberately to avoid the claims of fakers as making a metal replica would be impossible. In your debunking video they used a much more dense feather that can easy be made out of a heavy material. The problem with the internet and in particular google's services is that it is driven by advertising and everyone wants a slice of the "easy money" so there are plenty of channels that should not even exist but do because they make money and the content is irrelevant.

[Simon]

also the studio demo has the feather bounce due to it's weight. the feather on the moon does not bounce. The snide text all over the video is childish at best. The scene in the film will have been done with CGI not available in the 60's but of course the fraudsters making these videos are too thick to take in the full picture.

[Nominal Animal]

As a connoisseur of conspiracy theories, I think some very high-ups in US had an actual backup plan to fake the landing, if they couldn't do it for real; possibly with Stanley Kubric as the consultant.

There isn't any actual evidence to back that up, only hearsay and conjecture, but it sure would not be out of character for CIA at that time; and in my opinion, is the simplest explanation for any odd discrepancies that might crop up in the records. (For example, if some fake moon landing clips are/were ever uncovered.)

[Mr. Scram]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I believe him!
The only thing this video is proofing, is the fact that the "Hammer Feather" experiment can be faked.

If we assume that NASA faked the moon landing with this elaborate hoax, then they must have faked this experiment as well.  And since it is on video, it seems that it can be faked.

We do not know the truth and talking about this experiment will not get us closer to the truth.

The problem seems to be that people look at all the pieces individually and try to discredit them. What's often ignored is that there's a large amount of pieces which are all internally and externally coherent, with little to no pieces opposing the story they tell. If it were to be all an elaborate hoax with this many people and moving pieces involved, that's absolutely remarkable. You'd expect more issues with the presented facts as new discoveries are made, or people or documents contradicting the official story surfacing. If you weigh the chance of that all working out against the possibility of there actually being a landing, the latter seems to be more likely. No matter how amazing the feat of landing on the Moon is and how much our monkey brains object to the notion of something so unnatural, Occam's razor still applies.

[cdev]

    Apollo 11 plaque inscription:
"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We came in peace for all mankind"

 The statement "We came in peace for all mankind" is derived from the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act's declaration of policy and purpose:

        "The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind."

Really, when either the US or other countries go into space, its something that transcends politics, its all of us as human beings pushing back the frontiers of human experience and knowledge. Together.

Because science, each science discipline, are global communities.

Maybe that seems unfamiliar to the younger generation because nowadays everything has been privatized as somebody said earlier. That's exactly what has happened.

And corporations rarely if ever fund truly ambitious programs any more.

We all should get out more!