Did US Astronaut land on the moon for real?

[rrinker]

 If she's a Pug, then she definitely is an alien masquerading as a dog. Didn't you see Men in Black?

My two Pugs are most definitely aliens, not dogs.

[MrW0lf]

Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.

https://scottishrite.org/scottish-rite-myths-and-facts/featured-artifact-scottish-rite-flag-went-moon/



http://www.rizpahshriners.org/famousshriners.htm

The Shriners, or Shrine Masons, belong to Shriners international. The Shrine is an international fraternity of approximately one quarter of a million  members who belong to Shrine Temples throughout the world. Founded in New York City in 1872, the organization is composed solely of Master Masons, 32nd degree Scottish Rite Masons or Knights Templar York Rite Masons.

[tpowell1830]

Everyone involved understood the risks and just accepted them.

I know many would take the risk, so I started a poll on another thread and, so far, almost 45% say yes, they would do it.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-many-would-go-to-the-moon-today/msg2061427/#msg2061427

[CatalinaWOW]

To put another perspective on the risk, it is reported that there were multiple astronaut candidates who weren't deterred by the early lack of a technical solution for returning to the earth.  They were willing to be sent up and wait for someone to figure out how to get them home.

We have become much more risk averse as a society over the last few decades.  Take the more risk accepting public of the time and then add the normal distribution of risk acceptance within a population and it is easy to understand how they went.

[fsr]

This thread if filled with evidence. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The moon landing is a fact.

I don't have a problem. We're not trying to prove whether it is a fact or not.

If the OP asked "please show me the evidence that those guys landed on the moon because I want to believe", those posts would count.

Instead, he said, and I quote, "In my heart I believe a man was walking on the moon, but my brain is still not 100% convinced. It seems technically impossible. Please help."

He started to question the evidence itself. Which is an absolutely healthy intellectual exercise.

So, posting "evidence" in this case is like preaching the gospel to a convert. That won't end the issue, even if he says he is now 100% convinced.

Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.

For instance, there is a creature lying on the floor in my bedroom eating a pigs ear.
All the evidence points to her being a dog---- crazy little waggy tail, cold snotty nose, silly lop ears, fur, feet she delights in putting places she shouldn't.

But maybe she isn't a dog, maybe a really funny looking cat?, or an alien creature masquerading as a dog?
The biggy, is I saw her born, & am pretty sure her parents are dogs, so that convinces me.

However, not being a biochemist, I can't look at her DNA to positively prove she is a dog.
Sometimes, though, you just have to accept the evidence, as it isn't as silly as the alternative explanation.

Indeed, at some point, you must "draw the line". What's the evidence that supports that it is real? What's the possibility of this been faked with the technology of the time and kept secret by everyone involved, including the russians?
When there is a ton of evidence, and the possibilities of the second question are abysmal or just impossible, well, it's delusional to think it's false. If you think that way, you can pretty much doubt about everything, no matter how solid the evidence is. You cannot really believe in anything at all.
Most of the time, people doubt about something that they really don't know, like the flat earth issue. No matter that people in the nortern hemisphere can see constellations that we at the south can't, and vice versa. I cannot see Polaris, and people in the North can't see the Southern Cross. How that could be possible in a flat Earth? Just impossible.

[bsfeechannel]

Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.

I hope you never get accused one day based on false evidence. Because your lawyer will have a hard time with your defense.

Questioning the evidence is everyday practice in whatever investigation, be it legal, forensic, scientific, academic, journalistic, etc.

The landing on the moon is a fact like any other and is not above scrutiny.

I know many would take the risk, so I started a poll on another thread and, so far, almost 45% say yes, they would do it.

Yeah! What we're waiting for? Let's send them to die on the moon right away.

I can imagine the headlines the following day: ELECTRONICS FORUM KILLS HALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN SPACE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.

I love you, guys. Merry Xmas.

[fsr]

Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.

I hope you never get accused one day based on false evidence. Because your lawyer will have a hard time with your defense.

False evidence isn't really evidence. That's what the word "false" implies.
Do you think that the evidence on the moon landing is false? Why?

[james_s]

It's fine to scrutinize, and the moon landing has been scrutinized to death many times over. At some point it has to be accepted as absolutely zero of the "evidence" against it stands up to scrutiny.

Why would the headline accuse the forum of killing members? The forum does not own or command any of its members, if a group of people chooses to go on a suicide mission that is their personal choice, not the responsibility of the forum.

I distinctly remember my friend's dad saying he'd love to go into space, and that even if there was a 100% chance that he would die before returning he would still go in a heartbeat. Plenty of people do not mind the risk at all.

[chris_leyson]

@bson. Thanks for the posting the missing Apollo 11 footage, absolutely brilliant 

I like the story about the Apollo 11 ascent engine arming breaker. Somehow Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin had managed to break the ascent enginge arming switch whilst clambering about in a full space suit with a life support back pack. Buzz Aldrin just jabbed a pen into the breaker and the problem was fixed. It definately takes the right stuff to remain calm and clear headed under those circumstances. https://www.cnbc.com/id/42592372
There was also a small chance that the hypergolic ascent engine could misfire as they couldn't be test-fired prior to flight because the fuel was so corrosive. Fixed-thrust and nongimbaled so it's a timed burn with small trajectory adjustments from fixed thrusters. Nice overview of the LEM propulsion system here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016298.pdf. WTF I wouldn't want to climb into that.

[Kilrah]

I can imagine the headlines the following day: ELECTRONICS FORUM KILLS HALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN SPACE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.

The forum has nothing to do with it.

But not everyone can blindly follow the proberbial, usually religious "life is a gift you should forever be grateful for and you should blindly accept everything it throws at you". And as this poll kinda confirms, for quite a few engineers and other people with enough time to think about it life here can actually be a bit underwhelming if not quite boring. So yes to some/many? spending a few months/hours/minutes? of something "out of this world" can be worth more than an eternity of "meh".

As for First Man I was a bit deceived about the lack of emphasis of Neil Armstrong's skills, almost nothing explained/showed WHY he was selected, just that he was, could have been out of luck or something, totally glossed over the crucial decisions he made. And the "problem" sequences were way overdramatized and technically incorrect (360° roll rate with the image doing 5 turns a second? yeah right).
But the Moon sequences were presented absolutely perfectly. I don't know of any other movie that can keep a packed theater absolutely quiet through 2 minutes of total silence... twice.

[Nusa]

Theory: People who scream fake news like to ignore facts and evidence.

Theory: People who scream fake news want attention. Truth, even if they know it, is besides the point.

Theory: People who scream fake news are so gullible they believe other people screaming fake news.

Plenty more theories where those came from. Plenty of evidence too, but it'll just be ignored by people who scream fake news.

[CatalinaWOW]

One other theory to go with yours.  For the conspiracy types all evidence for the conventional understanding is suspect, no matter how strongly buttressed, while evidence against is unassailable.

[vk6zgo]

Questioning the evidence itself is where madness lies.

I hope you never get accused one day based on false evidence. Because your lawyer will have a hard time with your defense.

If all my lawyer offers is "I don't believe he did it, & besides that, I don't think the technology he had access to would allow him to do it", I'll start getting used to the idea of wearing a stylish orange suit.

Questioning the evidence is everyday practice in whatever investigation, be it legal, forensic, scientific, academic, journalistic, etc.

The landing on the moon is a fact like any other and is not above scrutiny.

OK, but the evidence for "faking it" must stand up to scrutiny as well.
As it universally consists of vague feelings based increasingly as time progresses on ignorance, it fails any serious scrutiny.

Going back to the OP, who didn't know there were multiple trips to the Moon, we see this lack of knowledge played out.
He then compounds it by saying "It seems technically impossible".

There seems to be a widespread belief amongst those born much more recently, that technology was "primitive & unreliable in the 1960s.

They state that, without one bit of supporting evidence, then build a magnificent edifice on that suspect foundation.
We have "Sending them to almost certain death" putting in an appearance, based upon that original supposition.
In fact, NASA was fairly confident that the Moon landing would be successful.

This is what I call the "Von Daniken" school of debate.
You make some way out suggestion, then say:-" Because of this, this happened, then that, then that, hopefully losing the reader in a huge pile of "evidence" which is nothing of the sort.

Do some research on the Internet on "Moon hoax", & you find yourself rapidly spiralling down the rabbit hole to "nutville".

We find such luminaries as the lady who supposedly saw a "coke bottle" in the coverage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.
This same lady remembered this as happening at night, when she lived in Western Australia.
The problem is, the Moon walk took place in the mid morning WAST.
There are definitely people who may not really believe, but have a financial interest in maintaining the conspiracy theory, although they are pretty much swamped by the "true believers" who spread the BS free.

I know many would take the risk, so I started a poll on another thread and, so far, almost 45% say yes, they would do it.

Yeah! What we're waiting for? Let's send them to die on the moon right away.

I can imagine the headlines the following day: ELECTRONICS FORUM KILLS HALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN SPACE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.

I love you, guys. Merry Xmas.

[German_EE]

Probably.

The evidence that I have seen means that it's almost certain that the guys walked on the moon, just as other evidence points towards evolution being the best explanation of how we all arrived here. However, please consider the following:

1. In December 1968 there was an urgent meeting called at the White House and all heads of the TV networks were ordered to attend. No minutes were ever taken and none of those present have ever revealed what took place in the meeting. Was this when the TV networks were told that NASA were unable to meet JFK's deadline?

2. The staff sitting in Mission Control had been trained using state of the art simulators that provided everything from pictures of the lunar surface to astronaut heartbeats, that way, when it came to the real thing, there would be no errors. In July 1969 it would have been impossible for someone in Mission Control to know if they were looking at real data on their screen or a simulation.

3. During preparations for the Apollo flights weight was such a critical issue that the number of plasters in the First Aid kit was reduced from five to two. Despite this later missions were able to carry a moon buggy attached to the side of the LEM. Where did the ability to carry extra weight come from?

4. As mentioned in other posts, the moon buggy had a dish antenna. Each time the vehicle moved that antenna would need to be re-aligned to point at either Earth or the LEM. Using the dish to communicate with the Command Module was not an option as there was no hardware to track an orbiting spacecraft.

5. The still cameras used were standard 500EL Hasselblad units painted silver in an effort to keep the temperature constant. On the lunar surface it gets to 127C in sunlight and -173C in shadow, a 300C temperature range, yet the film inside the camera never degraded. In addition to this the Hasselblad cameras used had a viewfinder at the top, and it is impossible to use this viewfinder when using a spacesuit with the camera clamped to the chest, yet all the pictures we see are perfectly framed.

6. As seen in the movie Apollo 13, by the third lunar mission interest in the USA had crashed and none of the TV networks were interested in the moonshots. Would NASA stage an accident in space just to get the American public interested in space again? Nah, that would be too crazy.

Then again, that experiment using the hammer and the feather would have been damn difficult to fake in a 1G environment, and that lunar reflector didn't get there on its own.

Discuss

[glarsson]

The Hasselblad 500EL used on the moon surface did not have a viewfinder, did not have lubrication, was not painted silver (anodized) and used special film.

They also had more standard black Hasselblad for use on the inside.

Just because you don't understand X you can not make the conclusion that X was faked.

[rdl]

NASA documents describe a number of modifications made to the stock cameras.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm

The Hasselblad is basically a single-lens reflex camera. The
reflex mirror arrangements were removed, however, since they
could not be conveniently used in the spacecraft. They were
replaced by a straight eye-level finder with a suitable base length,
so that an astronaut could use it while wearing his spacesuit
helmet.

I'm not certain, but the extra weight capacity on later missions may be due to changes in the initial trajectory which no longer allowed for free return. There also could have been improvements in the vehicles since each was basically custom made.

[Tomorokoshi]

Probably.

The evidence that I have seen means that it's almost certain that the guys walked on the moon, just as other evidence points towards evolution being the best explanation of how we all arrived here. However, please consider the following:

1. In December 1968 there was an urgent meeting called at the White House and all heads of the TV networks were ordered to attend. No minutes were ever taken and none of those present have ever revealed what took place in the meeting. Was this when the TV networks were told that NASA were unable to meet JFK's deadline?

2. The staff sitting in Mission Control had been trained using state of the art simulators that provided everything from pictures of the lunar surface to astronaut heartbeats, that way, when it came to the real thing, there would be no errors. In July 1969 it would have been impossible for someone in Mission Control to know if they were looking at real data on their screen or a simulation.

3. During preparations for the Apollo flights weight was such a critical issue that the number of plasters in the First Aid kit was reduced from five to two. Despite this later missions were able to carry a moon buggy attached to the side of the LEM. Where did the ability to carry extra weight come from?

4. As mentioned in other posts, the moon buggy had a dish antenna. Each time the vehicle moved that antenna would need to be re-aligned to point at either Earth or the LEM. Using the dish to communicate with the Command Module was not an option as there was no hardware to track an orbiting spacecraft.

5. The still cameras used were standard 500EL Hasselblad units painted silver in an effort to keep the temperature constant. On the lunar surface it gets to 127C in sunlight and -173C in shadow, a 300C temperature range, yet the film inside the camera never degraded. In addition to this the Hasselblad cameras used had a viewfinder at the top, and it is impossible to use this viewfinder when using a spacesuit with the camera clamped to the chest, yet all the pictures we see are perfectly framed.

6. As seen in the movie Apollo 13, by the third lunar mission interest in the USA had crashed and none of the TV networks were interested in the moonshots. Would NASA stage an accident in space just to get the American public interested in space again? Nah, that would be too crazy.

Then again, that experiment using the hammer and the feather would have been damn difficult to fake in a 1G environment, and that lunar reflector didn't get there on its own.

Discuss

Many of your answers are here:
https://www.sti.nasa.gov/

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

And it's your job to find them. Otherwise, you are approaching Gish Gallop territory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Which is particularly well suited for free-form formats such as internet-based discussion forums.

It's impossible to fully explore those archives. However, it is very interesting to start with a topic and see just how deep one can go.

[bsfeechannel]

False evidence isn't really evidence. That's what the word "false" implies.

And how do you determine it to be false?

Do you think that the evidence on the moon landing is false?

I don't know. What do you think?

It's fine to scrutinize, and the moon landing has been scrutinized to death many times over. At some point it has to be accepted as absolutely zero of the "evidence" against it stands up to scrutiny.

It doesn't seem to be the case. I mean, as time progresses more and more objections against the evidence appear. You see, I never gave any attention to claims of it being a hoax until I saw First Man. To me, the landing on the moon has always been a consummated fact. However, given the controversy started by the film, I decided to investigate.

In the past, whoever denied the landing was considered ignorant. Of course, information was not available as it is today. Now those who put the evidence in doubt are much more resourceful and can attack it from multiple sides.

Why would the headline accuse the forum of killing members? The forum does not own or command any of its members, if a group of people chooses to go on a suicide mission that is their personal choice, not the responsibility of the forum.

I distinctly remember my friend's dad saying he'd love to go into space, and that even if there was a 100% chance that he would die before returning he would still go in a heartbeat. Plenty of people do not mind the risk at all.

During the War, there were so many voluntaries for suicide missions in Japan that they were referred to as a swarm of bees. Big deal if there are people willing to die for fame and glory. The question is that if the astronauts died, with everybody knowing that their chance of survival was minimal, do you think that the government would be able to say "if a group of people chooses to go on a suicide mission, that is their personal choice, not the responsibility of the" government, and get away with it?

[bsfeechannel]

As for First Man I was a bit deceived about the lack of emphasis of Neil Armstrong's skills,

Because the movie is not about him. The title is a "click bait".

But the Moon sequences were presented absolutely perfectly. I don't know of any other movie that can keep a packed theater absolutely quiet through 2 minutes of total silence... twice.

Every movie is a dream. I think Akira Kurosawa said something along that line somewhere, but I may be wrong.

[fsr]

False evidence isn't really evidence. That's what the word "false" implies.

And how do you determine it to be false?

If you consider that evidence is the information that is already been checked, false evidence simply does not exist. If you consider that evidence is something that still hasn't been properly checked, then yes, you need evaluate the "evidence". However, you don't disregard solid evidence and accept any stupid hypothesis that violates well-stablished principles, just because that matches whatever ridiculous, impossible to hold conspiracy that you already decided that must be the truth. At the same time, that explains how is that moon-landing-deniers and flat-earthers came to be and the importance of following the scientific method for research.

Do you think that the evidence on the moon landing is false?

I don't know. What do you think?

I have no doubt that the moon landing happened. The evidence supporting it is very strong, it seems impossible to fool everyone, including the russians, and the "hypotesis" of the deniers are plagued with misconceptions. The deniers chosen to believe in a global conspiracy, and they're constantly seeking to demostrate that, but the only thing that they demostrated over and over again, is that a moon landing is way over their heads.

[Mr. Scram]

Our understanding of physics has changed dramatically since the moon landings. One would think that if the moon landings were to be faked, some of the science supposedly used to do that would be proven to be false later causing issues with the story told. As far as I'm aware, this isn't the case and our understanding of the physics has been refined but not been proven fundamentally incorrect.

[Nusa]

I'm seeing a trend here, aside from some people talking without even doing the most basic of research on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism

I'm pretty sure a couple of you are more interested in trolling than the truth.

[Bassman59]

It doesn't seem to be the case. I mean, as time progresses more and more objections against the evidence appear. You see, I never gave any attention to claims of it being a hoax until I saw First Man. To me, the landing on the moon has always been a consummated fact. However, given the controversy started by the film, I decided to investigate.

So you did what many people do ... you typed "Fake Moon Landing" into Google, and you went down a rabbit's hole of horseshit.

The problem with such Internet "research" is that literally anyone can put something up on the WWW, no matter how outlandish, how unsupportable, how just plain idiotic, and the search engines will crawl it and index it and present it as a search result next to articles that are fully reported and vetted. So you relied on your gut instinct to inform you.

The problem is that your gut isn't telling you that the moon landing was faked. It's telling you that perhaps you shouldn't have had that hot sausage and peppers sandwich for lunch. I suggest Pepto-Bismol.

[bsfeechannel]

The problem with such Internet "research" is that literally anyone can put something up on the WWW, no matter how outlandish, how unsupportable, how just plain idiotic, and the search engines will crawl it and index it and present it as a search result next to articles that are fully reported and vetted. So you relied on your gut instinct to inform you.

What my research informed me is that there are lots of people questioning the claims that no one set foot on the moon. I'm just trying to understand why. What called my attention is that many of those who now question are not ignorant people like in the past.

Also, no independent observers were present at the event to confirm the claim of the landing, no one was capable of repeating the feat, not even the US, after 50 years, with all the immense advancements in technology that we had since then. All the details related to the construction of the spacecrafts that landed on the moon and the flight plans are classified, preventing any peer review.

This can't be denied by NASA.

The problem is that your gut isn't telling you that the moon landing was faked.

My gut is telling me that if the moon landing was faked, it will make no difference today. Who cares?

My gut is also telling me that there are a bunch of people who really get upset at the minimum suggestion of it not being true, and think that any public discussion where the hypothesis of it not having happened is posed is trolling or worse.

I believe that the landing happened, but I am prepared to accept if it is proved it didn't.

So, if you please, do not try to muzzle those who would like to discuss it.

It's telling you that perhaps you shouldn't have had that hot sausage and peppers sandwich for lunch. I suggest Pepto-Bismol.

Sorry for your indigestion.

[bsfeechannel]

it seems impossible to fool everyone,

Precisely.