Did we land on the moon?

Do you believe that we landed on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 51.6%
  • No

    Votes: 50 31.8%
  • Don't know / not sure

    Votes: 26 16.6%

  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .
What's that have to do with anything ?
I suppose I get a laugh out of your avatar, it's very fitting for the thread. I assume you watched King of the Hill and remember the Dale character? He'd probably have a lot to say on this topic. He wasn't always the most self aware, or coherent individual on the show if I remember. Maybe your response wasn't meant to have any reason to it!

TBH I know nothing about the guy...could you explain what your initial response meant?
 

pitbullowner

Pelican
I suppose I get a laugh out of your avatar, it's very fitting for the thread. I assume you watched King of the Hill and remember the Dale character? He'd probably have a lot to say on this topic. He wasn't always the most self aware, or coherent individual on the show if I remember. Maybe your response wasn't meant to have any reason to it!

TBH I know nothing about the guy...could you explain what your initial response meant?

It was just a jab at the small hat tribe, that's all. Not in context to what the film or OP was saying.
 
Well, no idea on his heritage. Collins sounds more Irish than me though. His production company doesn't reveal much. It's actually an interesting critique, he has some good one liners. His final point is stuff like the Patriot Act and the financial bailouts are the true conspiracies and the US would be perfectly happy to have our attention focus on something as unimportant as the moon landing in current context.

Regardless, 911 turned me on to a documentary with some new hoax theories and this guy had a compelling argument on the states of the Military Industrial Complex vs the film industry at the time. I needed time away from the Trump, riots, 'Rona nonsense....media overload.
 

pitbullowner

Pelican
I needed time away
Prayer does that for me. :blush: Honestly.

A huge burden gets lifted when I talk to God, and I don't have to "escape" from the craziness of it. God is right there with me when I tell him all the stressor of the world. And when I thank him for his blessings he's bestowed upon me. I legit pray for all the guys on this board every night. I pray for the men in blue, that when if the time comes, they'll defend the constitution, and i constantly pray for our society and the spiritual sickness it's dealing with. There's plenty to bring to the father. I don't "escape" when I just give it to God.
 
You have a good point. I need to bit of a refresh through prayer; I wasn't particularly focused at church yesterday and even found myself attempting to critique my pastor's message as if it had the right perspective politically...definitely should have focused more on God.

There's really not much debate about the moon anyway...she has belonged to America's Astromen since 1952 according to the US Dept. of Moon
 
I personally believe that we did, but that nobody--no earthling-- ever came back from it. The govt knew about the extraterrestrial organisms prior to the landing and arranged for the exchange.
 
I am just curious how were the astronauts able to phone from the moon to the white house?
It was direct from the surface of the moon to the surface of Earth (meaning, it wasn't relayed through the command module or an earth satellite) using a system called "unified S-band." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_S-band

It was picked up by stations on Earth in (depending on the time of day) California, Australia, or either Spain or South Africa (Spain being newer, I think). Since the Earth is nearly stationary in the Lunar sky, and the beam width is fairly wide, it wasn't necessary for astronauts to adjust their antenna once it was set up and pointed at Earth.

From the ground stations, it was then rebroadcast to a communications satellite in geostationary orbit, and then back down to Earth in the US. This is, believe it or not, routine stuff. Modern switching and multiplexing is hard - if you wanted the astronauts to actually be able to dial a phone, that'd be hard. But having them use their radios and just retransmitting it is easy.

If you ever have a doubt about something like this, and you lean toward a belief that it was hoaxed, try to answer this question: why would the hoaxers fake something which wasn't technically possible? If you're perpetrating a hoax, why not keep it simple and just ...not have that white house phone call? If the president's not in the hoax, just tell him "sorry sir, we're not set up for this" - especially if it wouldn't be possible if astronauts were actually on the moon?

I mean, are the people who perpetrated the hoax geniuses, or were they idiots?
 
Thanks for the response. I admit I am not well versed in the science. So they are able to bounce transmission from the moon surface directly to earth? That's definetly genius. Maybe I watched too many conspiracy videos but there is still some red flags. The previous missions failed at launch right? I just have trouble believing that after that they perfectly nailed the trip to the moon and back without a hitch. We had limited technology and any miscalculation of the moon gravity for example would have resulted in a failed landing there. Also, how exactly did they bypass the van Allen radiation belt. I saw a video of a Nasa official saying we didn't even know it existed. If we really did go I would expect many countries to have replicated that today with the technology. If anything but for the propaganda. Didn't India fail completely with its mission recently? What about China and Japan?

I think they had every incentive to fake it. The risk of another failed moon mission with dead astronauts would have been devastating probably shutting down the whole program for good. Why take all that risk when you can just fake it. As to why they added the phone call, maybe they were overzealous. I mean we barely had coloured tv back then. For me the footage is just unconvincing. Someone needs to go back there with a proper camera
 

homersheineken

Woodpecker
You sound young. I lived through the end of the Cold War, and the fear of nuclear annihilation was very, very real. Both sides feared that if they directly engaged with the other side, it would not be a quick, easy victory, and eventually one side would get desperate and fire nukes, causing the other side to fire counter-nukes.

The Soviets were the world heavy weight champs at on-the filed warfare ---it was largely the Russians, and not the West, who won WW2, since the Russians lost so many more men and killed so many more Nazis. But the U.S. had the money and the technological superiority for most of the time, including absolute naval superiority, which is key for trade. It was not a cakewalk fight for either side.

Plus there was no causus belli for either side of the Cold War. Proxy wars were considered safer bets, since there was no direct engagement and therefore no more chance of nuclear engagement.

Had we done what Patton had suggested---done a quick strike invasion right after WW2---we would've had a chance, considering how exhausted the Soviets were, what a suprise it would've been, and how they were so many non-Russians the Soviets in WW2 had conquered who still had enough men that, had we supplied them with arms and food, would've joined us in rebelling and assisted us. But once Patton was killed and the opportunity passed, a full-on fight with the Soviets was NOT going to cause anything but WW3, but with massive more carnage and death and nuclear fallout.

Note also that in the Korean War we didn't engage the Chinese Communists directly, even though they were supporting the Norks. Why? Same reason: a U.S.-China fight would've also led to mass carnage and likely nuclear annihilation. The Chinese aren't white, so claiming this was racism doesn't fly.
The Russians were not the champs at that. Their military strategy for centuries has been bodies and land. Slow down the advancement of invaders by throwing bodies at the enemy, and keep retreating forcing great losses. If Hitler hadn't diverted from Moscow, the war would have turned out completely different and that strategy would have failed.
 
So they are able to bounce transmission from the moon surface directly to earth?
Bounce? No, they transmitted directly from the moon to the Earth using S-band microwaves. Here's a picture of the transmitter:
They also had the capability of transmitting to the CSM using a different system: VHF radio. The CSM could then relay the transmission to Earth because it as fitted with four S-band microwave transmitters, as you can see in the bottom left of this pic:
So they had backups.

The previous missions failed at launch right?
Nope. The first catastrophic failure at launch of a manned NASA mission was Space Shuttle Challenger - 20 years later.

The first loss of an astronaut's life was a ground test of the Apollo capsule on January 27, 1967. They were testing the ability of the spacecraft to operate under its own electrical power. This wasn't like a fueled rocket ready to go, with a countdown and everything - it was a ground test. There was an electrical fire, which killed the astronauts. They were performing tests in anticipation of a launch about a month later, so that doesn't count as a "failure at launch."

There were two dozen successful launches of Apollo/Saturn hardware. Conspiracy theorist pretend that out of nowhere, NASA landed on the moon. That's a lie.

There were 6 unmanned launches of Saturn rockets to test them. This was done over two years starting in Feb 1966. Note also, there had been 12 launches with Project Gemini between 1961 and 1966, and before that there had been Mercury - this wasn't NASA's first rodeo.

After the unmanned Saturn launches, the first manned launch was Apollo 7 in October, 1968. Two months later Apollo 8 was the first time humans left Earth orbit. They circled the Moon and famously read from the bible on TV on Christmas Eve, 1968. Three months later in March, 1969 Apollo 9 was the first test of the lunar lander. They stayed in Earth orbit, deployed the lander, maneuvered it around and docked it with the CSM.

Two months later, May 1969 was Apollo 10. It's called a "dress rehearsal" because they did everything Apollo 11 would do - except they didn't actually land. They left Earth orbit (second time humans had done that). Went to the moon and entered a parking orbit. They had a lunar lander this time so they deployed it, actually went down very close to the surface (9 miles), then they tested the assent motor by firing it and returning to the CSM.

So all of that - the Mercury launches, the Gemini launches, 6 unmanned Apollo launches and 4 manned Apollo launches. All of that was before Apollo 11.

Then of course, Apollo 11 that you already know about. Apollo 12 was another successful landing. Apollo 13 had the explosion on the way to the moon, so they didn't get to land. Then there's Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 which did land. Six moon landings total.

Afterwards, they used a Saturn V rocket to launch a space station: Skylab. They used Apollo hardware to send three missions to it. And the last Apollo launch was a stupid publicity stunt to rendezvous with a Soviety capsule.

I just have trouble believing that after that they perfectly nailed the trip to the moon and back without a hitch.
They didn't. There were problems on every mission. Some of the problems are very cool to read about - the stories show how smart were the people involved, and how badass the astronauts were.

If by "hitch" you mean "catastrophic failure" then what you're saying is, "the only way I'll believe this is real is if some people died" well then my response is, I don't believe you. You know full well that as a conspiracy theorist, you will point to anyone who dies and say "ah yes, these men were about to reveal The Truth so NASA killed them!!" That's what conspiracy theorists say about Apollo 1, after all. They say it was murder to keep the secret.

So you see, you're not being rational. If/when people die you say that proves it's a hoax. When nobody dies you say that proves it's a hoax.

how exactly did they bypass the van Allen radiation belt.
That's one of the most common conspiracy theorist questions, which means it's one of the most common questions which is answered by people who reply and respond to conspiracy theorists. So let me just turn it around on you: of the several explanations you've read, what remaining questions do you have?

...you ...you have taken a moment to google this and find people who have addressed this question, right? You're not limiting yourself to conspiracy sites and videos and avoiding reading the other side, are you? If so, then again you're not being rational.

Here's a website which tries to address many conspiracy claims: http://www.clavius.org/
 

R.G.Camara

Woodpecker
The Russians were not the champs at that. Their military strategy for centuries has been bodies and land. Slow down the advancement of invaders by throwing bodies at the enemy, and keep retreating forcing great losses. If Hitler hadn't diverted from Moscow, the war would have turned out completely different and that strategy would have failed.
The arguments about the Nazis invading the Soviet Union are legion. Was Hitler insane? Or was it an attempt to jump the gun on the planned Soviet invasion of German territory? Or was it because Hitler needed access to oil ? Or was it Hitler merely following suit with his pure hatred of communism?

And whatever their strategy, the Soviets were champs at that. Although the initial Nazi invasion was criticized, when the Nazis got to Stalingrad, everyone thought it was over, and the Nazis would be occupying at least part of the USSR for a generation. But the Soviets utilized General Winter and the endless supply of conscripts and pushed them out by sheer numbers.

The Soviet callousness of the lives of their own troops and citizens, and ability to mobilize them using threats and still-new communist loyalty, was a huge factor in the U.S. never agreeing to a direct war besides the nukes.
 

asdf

Sparrow
Moon hoaxers always cling to the smallest controversies as a sort of gotcha moment, while always ignoring the incredibly large body of documentation about the moon program. They simply have no grander conclusion about it other than "its fake". How about you go through every photograph and document of the moon program from control room to the rocket launch to the orbit path to landing to re-entry and tell me exactly how every one of those moments was faked and how they faked it.
 
I appreciate the educational response prophet. I read some of the website you linked. I am not particularly a big conspiracy theorist but I am intrigued by the moon landing and playing a bit of a devil's advocate here. I can already see how a conspiracy theorist would 'debunk' that. I admit I have watched plenty of conspiracy videos and they intuitively made sense to me (doesn't mean they are right of course). There is a clip for example of astronauts giving completely different accounts of what space is like and many discrepancies in their stories as well. Of course there is an 'official' answer to everything given after the fact by nasa. After the footage has been all destroyed.

After all the conspiracy exist because space travel is not something the common man can experience yet. If someone said there are no airplanes for example then that conspiracy would not gain any traction because most people have flown or known someone who did.

I really would have expected other countries to have landed people in the moon by now. Actually I would have expected that billionaires and celebrities could go there take some pics and put it on instagram. I will most probably be proven wrong one day but for now I am still not certain.
 

Talus

Pigeon
It's 2020. How come there's no livefeed, HD camera on the moon?

Meanwhile, NASA can drive rovers around remotely on Mars.
 
It's 2020. How come there's no livefeed, HD camera on the moon?

Meanwhile, NASA can drive rovers around remotely on Mars.
In fairness, China has active plans for a manned moon visit, and has sent recent rovers or probes over per 911's post above somewhere. Mike Pence wants to establish a lab on the moon as well.

The scientific community is very Mars focused now. One recent IEEE article is all about new comm protocols that account for the 4-14 minute lag in communications and AI/machine learning concepts that are driving the satellite, spacecraft, and ground station systems. Not trying to be dismissive of your point but most engineers and scientists would not be interested in a mission to put a live feed camera on the moon when there are lots of other things in development: ISS, probes, radio telescopes, and the aforementioned development in LEO -> deep space communications.

China probably did take videos on their last visit to the moon, however, they did not land where we did (I think they did the dark side of the moon).
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I'm super busy this week and will address a lot of the points raised earlier, but here is a broad question to those that are defending the moon landings. Basically I think most of the debate here is in the realm of cognitive science rather than physics, engineering, organizational behavior etc.

Basically I think that this is a "too big to fail" type foundational myth, most people can't wrap their minds around the notion that what is presented to them can actually be a lie. As Goebbels posited, If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

So then for you guys, 3 simple Y/N questions, do you believe that:
1- JFK was shot by a lone disgruntled commie gunman
2- 9/11 was the work of 19 scrawny Arabs planned by Ben Laden from an Afghan cave (nearly half of whom are still alive)
3- Man-made CO2 is about to lead to catastrophic global warming.
 
1- JFK was shot by a lone disgruntled commie gunman
Never really looked at it. I think in general framing someone for a murder (or having a fall guy) is certainly possible. I know more about the Misfits song Bullet, than I do about the JFK assassination.
2- 9/11 was the work of 19 scrawny Arabs planned by Ben Laden from an Afghan cave (nearly half of whom are still alive)
Suppose not, there is a lot of suspicious activity surrounding 9/11 (and less debunk able science). I don't like what I read about the shady connections with 9/11. I also don't like reading metallurgical analysis by those that don't understand the topic. Y or N? Yeah its super shady.
3- Man-made CO2 is about to lead to catastrophic global warming.
Complete BS. Give me a output you want at t time and I can make that model. Meanwhile no one can make a predictive model for the weather a week out. Not to mention CO2 is not quantifiable in natural processes and the Big O (algorithm complexity) of the supposed climate science models is impossible. Total N!
 
Top