Did US Astronaut land on the moon for real?

[vk6zgo]

Start here:
"Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" by Allan J. McDonald.

https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Lies-Rings-Challenger-Disaster/dp/0813041937

Thank you. That answers a lot of questions, but one still remains unanswered. If the astronauts where expected to die on the moon, why bother bringing them back?

Obviously, they were not expected to die on the Moon, so your question is nonsense.

You have pushed this narrative throughout the thread, then in pure "Von Daniken" fashion, asked a question which presupposes that your original contention is correct.

[hamster_nz]

Oh what a bunch of silly "people/nations wouldn't risk it" b.s.

Some people should read some mountaineering books, or early polar exploration. The risks were much the same - they might achieve something largely symbolic for Queen and Country, but they were just as likely to die trying.

Manned spaceflight was only a few years after Everest was first successfully climbed...

Maybe an Everest Conspiracy exists too - does Mallory still count since they found the body 75 years after he disappeared?

[SiliconWizard]

Soldiers going to war are every bit as likely to die (if probably more likely), and there have probably been hundreds of millions of them in history. You may reply that they were usually forced to. But many people risk their lives during work, hobby or doing extreme sports. Obviously this point makes no sense.

What can make this question at least worth asking is not about what could have made the fact impossible, which are just hypotheses and opinions, or on the opposite side, what could have made it possible, but the fact that all experimental proofs (images, videos, rock samples, testimonies, etc.) pretty much all came from only one source (the NASA) and that the experiment, even though reproduced by the NASA several times during the Apollo missions, was never reproduced by any other institution that we know of. On a scientific level, that makes it naturally questionable, as you need to resort to trust to accept it as a fact.

Of course most of the theories out there that state this never happened don't hold any more scientific value. Some have a few seemingly interesting arguments, but they are just hypotheses. Not facts. They are basically based on the opposite side of the same coin, mistrust. Mistrust is a state of mind, an opinion, not a fact.

Just a thought.

[Mr. Scram]

Soldiers going to war are every bit as likely to die (if probably more likely), and there have probably been hundreds of millions of them in history. You may reply that they were usually forced to. But many people risk their lives during work, hobby or doing extreme sports. Obviously this point makes no sense.

What can make this question at least worth asking is not about what could have made the fact impossible, which are just hypotheses and opinions, or on the opposite side, what could have made it possible, but the fact that all experimental proofs (images, videos, rock samples, testimonies, etc.) pretty much all came from only one source (the NASA) and that the experiment, even though reproduced by the NASA several times during the Apollo missions, was never reproduced by any other institution that we know of. On a scientific level, that makes it naturally questionable, as you need to resort to trust to accept it as a fact.

Of course most of the theories out there that state this never happened don't hold any more scientific value. Some have a few seemingly interesting arguments, but they are just hypotheses. Not facts. They are basically based on the opposite side of the same coin, mistrust. Mistrust is a state of mind, an opinion, not a fact.

Just a thought.

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

[forrestc]

Ah! So, their lives matter, don't they? (I was afraid of concluding, by the posts on this thread, that the US was a nation of "kamikazes" and "suicide bombers", and no regard for their safe return was considered.) This is in total accordance with the memories I had about the Apollo missions way back then. Particularly striking to me at the time was this photo, showing commander Philip Eldredge Jerauld (at microphone), ship's chaplain for U.S.S. Iwo Jima, offering a prayer of thanks for the safe return of the Apollo 13 crew members (the three guys in the center of the picture) soon after they arrived aboard the recovery ship.

There's a big difference between deciding that the level of risk is worth it, knowing that there's a possibility of no return, and a suicide mission.

Police officers go out every day knowing that there is a non-zero chance that they won't be coming back.   Military troops do the same, with an even greater chance of not coming back.  And so does every astronaut, test pilot, firefighter, construction worker, and the like.   Does that mean that these people are "kamikazes" or "suicide bombers"?  I don't think so.   I think they're brave people who take the risk for the greater good. 

As I mentioned earlier, one has to remember that this happened during the cold *war*.   The risks taken during wartime, in furtherance of the war effort, are often much higher than those acceptable during peacetime.   Yes, they went to the moon on questionable hardware, and there was every chance that they weren't coming back.   But that isn't at all the same as sending someone on a suicide mission.   Go watch more stuff about Apollo, including several scenes in "First Man" and you'll discover that the statements were pretty consistent:  They had every intention to come back, but they knew that there was no way to be 100% certain.   And the people who were working on Apollo hardware wanted to be as certain as they could be that they were coming back.   But, nothing is 100%, especially with unproven and arguably experimental hardware.

[CatalinaWOW]

Soldiers going to war are every bit as likely to die (if probably more likely), and there have probably been hundreds of millions of them in history. You may reply that they were usually forced to. But many people risk their lives during work, hobby or doing extreme sports. Obviously this point makes no sense.

What can make this question at least worth asking is not about what could have made the fact impossible, which are just hypotheses and opinions, or on the opposite side, what could have made it possible, but the fact that all experimental proofs (images, videos, rock samples, testimonies, etc.) pretty much all came from only one source (the NASA) and that the experiment, even though reproduced by the NASA several times during the Apollo missions, was never reproduced by any other institution that we know of. On a scientific level, that makes it naturally questionable, as you need to resort to trust to accept it as a fact.

Of course most of the theories out there that state this never happened don't hold any more scientific value. Some have a few seemingly interesting arguments, but they are just hypotheses. Not facts. They are basically based on the opposite side of the same coin, mistrust. Mistrust is a state of mind, an opinion, not a fact.

Just a thought.

Reproducibility is a good concept in academic science.  But it is being stretched all out of reason here.  No organization other than a government has ever destroyed a city with a nuclear weapon.  Nobody with a brain argues that it didn't happen since it hasn't been duplicated by another agency.

[SiliconWizard]

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

Thanks for pointing this out. A lot of these seem pretty "indirect" though, as far as I've seen. But again my point was not to debunk the proofs that were gathered. They may all be completely relevant. I'm just considering why it could be seen as lacking on a scientific level overall. Again, I'm not trying to get a definite opinion on this. I don't really care actually. I know what we have achieved as far as space exploration is concerned at this point, and that's all that really matters. There have been enough international space programs to reasonably remove any doubt about where we are now.

My point is just that questioning is never futile, especially when the matter is complex.
Questioning with the intent of getting certainties is dubious and of course not what I was talking about.

[bsfeechannel]

As I mentioned earlier, one has to remember that this happened during the cold *war*.   The risks taken during wartime, in furtherance of the war effort, are often much higher than those acceptable during peacetime.   Yes, they went to the moon on questionable hardware, and there was every chance that they weren't coming back.   But that isn't at all the same as sending someone on a suicide mission.   Go watch more stuff about Apollo, including several scenes in "First Man" and you'll discover that the statements were pretty consistent:  They had every intention to come back, but they knew that there was no way to be 100% certain.   And the people who were working on Apollo hardware wanted to be as certain as they could be that they were coming back.   But, nothing is 100%, especially with unproven and arguably experimental hardware.

Perfect. That's what I thought. The mission was not to land on the moon with a slight possibility of coming back. The mission was to land there and come back alive. Their deaths in space or on the moon would have caused a great deal of undesired commotion and would certainly overshadow the whole endeavor.

Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.

[vk6zgo]

As I mentioned earlier, one has to remember that this happened during the cold *war*.   The risks taken during wartime, in furtherance of the war effort, are often much higher than those acceptable during peacetime.   Yes, they went to the moon on questionable hardware, and there was every chance that they weren't coming back.   But that isn't at all the same as sending someone on a suicide mission.   Go watch more stuff about Apollo, including several scenes in "First Man" and you'll discover that the statements were pretty consistent:  They had every intention to come back, but they knew that there was no way to be 100% certain.   And the people who were working on Apollo hardware wanted to be as certain as they could be that they were coming back.   But, nothing is 100%, especially with unproven and arguably experimental hardware.

Perfect. That's what I thought. The mission was not to land on the moon with a slight possibility of coming back. The mission was to land there and come back alive. Their deaths in space or on the moon would have caused a great deal of undesired commotion and would certainly overshadow the whole endeavor.

Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.

You can never be 100% sure of anything......drive to work, & you can have a fatal accident.
Many people drove all their lives in cars which did not have the safety equipment modern vehicles have.
Car accidents were still rare compared to safe trips carried out.

The same principle applies to travelling to the Moon.
You do everything you can to make the primary safety of the equipment the best you can, rather than spend time on special "safety" measures for the "one in a million" possibility.

After all, when you fly on an airline, they don't supply parachutes!

[bsfeechannel]

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.

[German_EE]

"When I visited the Kennedy Space Center, I had an eerie sensation that the moon in particular, and space in general had been privatized."

Not yet, but when the first manned landing on Mars takes place and the spaceship is covered in the logos of the sponsoring companies you will know that we're at that point.

"Today the astronauts will be taking the Pepsi Mars Buggy to the Schiaparelli crater. This trip today is sponsored by Skittles, taste the rainbow! Now a word from our sponsors"     

[tggzzz]

Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.

How about you doing some homework, by reading reputable sources. Reputable != denialist websites, written by ignoramuses (ignorami?) with an IQ that is too low to find and understand decent sources.

That will avoid us having to do your homework for you, might be the start of interesting discussions, and won't drag the average content of this forum downward.

[taydin]

The technology to send a man to the moon existed at that time, so let's all first agree that it was "plausible" to put a man on the moon in those years... Once we establish that, the only remaining discussion is, "did the USA had the MOTIVATION and MONEY to put a man on the moon?" And the answer to that is a resounding YES!

Nothing has advanced the level of science and technology like the space program. Many new technologies have been developed and many new inventions made. And that was the motivation.

The USA, the country with the largest GDP on earth, also no doubt had the money to do it.

[taydin]

But having said that, it isn't possible for an invidual or even an organization to conclusively prove that a man landed on the moon.

But a technologically well off government can prove it. The only thing that needs to be done is, send a powerful laser beam to the surface of the moon at the right moment and watch for the reflection of it coming from a mirror that was placed there by the Apollo crew. There is no other plausible explanation for this reflection other than a mirror on the moon surface.

So maybe some governments checked this, and after getting the reflection, know that the moon landing was real and don't challenge the USA about it being fake. And maybe others haven't even bothered, because they know that all necessary technology existed at that time, so moon landing was plausible.

[forrestc]

Perfect. That's what I thought. The mission was not to land on the moon with a slight possibility of coming back. The mission was to land there and come back alive. Their deaths in space or on the moon would have caused a great deal of undesired commotion and would certainly overshadow the whole endeavor.

Now that we agreed about that, we can start to discuss the safety measures that would have made it plausible.

So, I think I'm almost done interacting with you at this point.  It seems you've got this part down:

1) The mission was to land on the moon and bring them back alive.
2) The chances of #1 not succeeding was quite high, with one possible result being astronauts not coming home alive.

But it seems you're having a hard time understanding that this doesn't mean that it's not plausible that we would go.   The *culture* of the US, especially at that time in our history, was such that the risk was not only deemed acceptable but also strengthened our support for the program.  We knew that we might lose one or more astronauts.   In fact, we lost three in the Apollo 1 accident, yet somehow it didn't create enough undesired commotion to derail the entire program.   The reason is this underlying culture of risk taking and our belief that even after one or more setbacks, we'll continue to pursue our goals until we eventually succeed.   Although we tend to be a bit more risk-adverse in some areas, this culture is still alive and well today.   I don't think this is specific to the US, but it is definitely a big part of our culture.

I'd continue to try to explain, but it seems that you're also choosing (purposefully or not) to try to twist everyone's facts to make them fit your supposition.  In particular, the last portion of your statement above seems to use a well known method of attempting to win an argument not supported by the facts, that is, take a set of facts, state them in the way most favorable to your position, and then use them to make a statement which isn't accurate and isn't supported by the facts.   I apologize if I misinterpreted this but that's the way I see it.

I'm open to changing my views if you can show actual facts which support your viewpoint.  But I'm not particularly interested in continuing a discussion where it seems that the other party isn't really interested in learning or discussing the actual facts and what they mean.    Or presenting any facts to support  their viewpoint. 

So, thanks for the discussion but I think I'm done.

[bsfeechannel]

Some people should read some mountaineering books, or early polar exploration.

Good call. Roald Amundsen, with four companions, were the first men to reach the geographic south pole. Amundsen wrote:

I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order—luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.

Like landing on the moon, Amundsen faced accusations of fraud. He also had a photograph to show:



That could have been taken anywhere. But the similarities with the evidence of people landing on the moon end there. The rival team of Robert F. Scott arrived at the south pole five weeks later and found the tent left by Amundsen with a letter and some supplies, and took this picture:



No doubt. Amundsen was there. Unfortunately, Scott and his team died on the way back, which as you could imagine was the cause of commotion and overshadowed Amundsen's feat at the time.

[forrestc]

But a technologically well off government can prove it. The only thing that needs to be done is, send a powerful laser beam to the surface of the moon at the right moment and watch for the reflection of it coming from a mirror that was placed there by the Apollo crew. There is no other plausible explanation for this reflection other than a mirror on the moon surface.

US University:


France OCA:
https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf

China:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920571.htm

[taydin]

US University:


France OCA:
https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/pdf/1998/11/ds1427.pdf

China:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920571.htm

Thanks for the links! The objective of placing those mirrors was for scientific measurements, but ironically today they have to be brought up in order to prove that man landed on the moon 

[bsfeechannel]

But it seems you're having a hard time understanding that this doesn't mean that it's not plausible that we would go.

OK. So forget the people. Let's suppose that instead of the astronauts, we want to send three robots to the moon, and land two of them. Suppose that they have the same ability to pilot the spacecrafts that the astronauts had. And since we want to ascertain the plausibility of the claim, our robots are programmed to "die" if they get submitted to a condition unsuitable to sustain human life.

Can we discuss the safety measures taken by the space program so as to bring our robots back intact?

So, thanks for the discussion but I think I'm done.

Well, I find it a victory that we've managed to maintain a discussion of such an apparently sensitive theme on this thread as civilized people. Other forums out there are not so lucky.

[Simon]

Well, I find it a victory that we've managed to maintain a discussion of such an apparently sensitive theme on this thread as civilized people. Other forums out there are not so lucky.

Me too, the topic was earmarked for potential deletion if it got out of hand but thus far has been pretty good.

[VK3DRB]

Humans are basically highly prone to irrational beliefs...
...The only interesting thing about Moon landing denial is that it shows how stupid humans are, when we can't agree on something that is undeniably true. If even recent events are denied, we probably can't trust any reports of current or historic events.

Agreed.

You can pretty much disprove the conspiracy theories from the lunatic Illuminati believers and UFO fringe dwellers. Funny how we don't hear much about Chariots of the Gods these days except on B-grade Netlfix docos that incidentally bore me to tears. What happened to ESP? Buster Scruggs is more believable than anything an astrologer would make you believe. I actually met a bloke who ran a telephone astrology business. He admitted to me it there was no truth in it but he was making good money out of it. He justified his business by saying he was providing a good service to vulnerable people. He was selling to make money because he didn't have the brains to earn an honest living. A lower life form is those who speak to the dead at their much publicised shows, making money out of emotionally vulnerable people through charlatanism and trickery. There are no doubt some miraculous faith healing outcomes, but why doesn't the likes of Benny Hinn invite amputees to the stage to have them healed.

[james_s]

As much as those sort of people irritate me, I've come to realize that some people are just determined to believe, and will find a way to piss away their money on BS one way or another. If you manage to blow the cover on one BS artist, another will pop up to fill the demand. The responsibility lies on the individual to not be so gullible.

[apis]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-russian-influence-campaign-remains-so-hard-to-understand

[German_EE]

I can think of one way to prove that Armstrong & Aldrin landed in 1969, but the USA won't like it.

When*** the Chinese land on the moon they should have Tranquility Base as their aim point. Then, after landing, they walk up to the site and remove the Stars and Stripes, replacing it with the Chinese flag. The 'old' flag can then be returned to Earth.

This will have a number of effects...........

1 It should be simple to prove that the flag that was brought back had spent fifty years or so in a hard vacuum that also had a high UV content. So, proof that the landing in 1969 took place.

2 Because of what the Chinese did a new space race begins, and it doesn't end until mankind reaches the stars.

Well, we can all dream.


***When, not if.

[Mr. Scram]

We have independent photos of the Apollo hardware sitting on the surface of the Moon. I assume people are going to claim these may have been unmanned, but the room left for doubt is shrinking consistently. None of the third party observations seem to have shown anything which contradicts the official claims. If it's all an elaborate hoax, you have to wonder how far they went to fabricate the evidence. Land various craft capable of carrying men empty just in case anyone visited the sites later, however unlikely it seemed at the time? Sooner or later independent photos of tire tracks or foot prints are going to be made. Is there some theory about how those would be faked too?

Of course, much of the mission was based on our understanding of physics at the time. If the missions were made up, you'd expect some discrepancies to pop up as our understanding of physics in space improved. As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been the case. This only leaves room for the most far fetched "theories" of the Moon being a hologram and space launches being impossible and a hoax as rockets can't leave the atmosphere.