# Neil Armstrong not first on the moon?



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 11, 2004)

This might be old news, but since I was in Croatia for 3 weeks, I have no clue.
I saw a report on tv that the whole story and all records from Neil Armstrong stepping as the first human on the moon was all fake. All records were faked. 
This is really something, if it is right. Can anyone corfirm this?? It really shocked me when I heard this


----------



## bobw (Jan 11, 2004)

Definitely, all fake, the moon shots coming now also. Steve is filming all this at Pixar and the gov is telling us a Lunar landing occurred.


----------



## dixonbm (Jan 11, 2004)

If you choose to believe the conspiracy theorists. The theory is that it was all filmed and faked just so we could 'Beat' the russians in the space race.


----------



## Krevinek (Jan 11, 2004)

Well, the fact that space travel by both Russia and the US pretty much stopped pushing to new boundaries when the US landed on the moon, it isn't surprising that the conspiracy theorists claim it was faked... as it would be an excellent way to kill another country's space program to beat them to what you think their current goal was.

On the other hand, the US was overzealous in trying to beat the Russians who's plan was to use a space station as a launching point for a moon mission. The US on the other hand, pushed towards very big launch vehicles to start a moon mission. You will notice that Russia was the only one to get a space station up in space for more than a month before ISS. 

There are just some people who claim to use logic to 'debunk' the moon landings because they feel that it doesn't look right... but at the same time, I can walk into a Target and feel like I am in a Target 10 miles away and be surprised when things aren't in the same place! While the laws of physics work the same on the moon, other things work differently, and so we cannot apply cold logic on the situation like the conspiracy theorists have done. There are pages that debunk the 'debunking'.

For example, the claim that the flag should not have been waving on the moon has been debunked a couple of times... and one reason I see for it waving is the fact that someone was holding onto the pole and moving the pole around... that creates a waving-like motion without wind needed.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 11, 2004)

The moon landings were not faked.  
This page lists the common "arguments" the hoax theorists use, and the reasons why.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

Why  is it people love to doubt the moon landings, but don't question, oh say, the discovery of DNA?  Or X-rays?  Why not allege every X-Ray ever taken is a fake?  Or why not suggest we've never visited the ocean floor, or the north pole?

If we faked the landings, why haven't the Russians done what they could to discredit us? They were our #1 competitors in that effort.

This is one of my few irrational super-hot-button issues. Breathe deep, 1, 2 3...


----------



## Trip (Jan 11, 2004)

I honestly don't believe it.

http://www.moontruth.com/clips/moontruth.mpg


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 11, 2004)

Trip, you have the right to believe what you like.

I will need to absent myself from this discussion; I can't help but take it personally.   Any further comments I'd be likely to make would probably get me ejected from the board.  

Should we ever meet in person, let's steer away from this topic.


----------



## Trip (Jan 11, 2004)

How could you take this personally? I believe the government is lying, you don't.

Does it really matter?


----------



## Satcomer (Jan 11, 2004)

Why do everybody think this is fake? I could list the peoples name that have died in the name of space travel (from all nations). There are way better conspiracy theories to try to prove. This REALLY HAPPENED!!!! Buy a telescope and look for yourself!!!


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 11, 2004)

TRIP: Ok, you asked for it.

First, most of the people who try to dispute the landings attempt to do so using 3rd-grade science and less than a day's research.  One day they saw something about the moon landing, spent half an hour thinking about it, and decided to spout off about how they didn't believe it.   Just for kicks, just because its fashionable today to disbelieve in things, they decide to insult the legions of true scientific pioneers who took us to the Moon.  These scientific dilettantes make me sick.  And furious.

I have scoured the internet for the source of this quote and come up empty, but I think it was some famous philosopher who said "The moment you realize you know nothing, Is the moment you truly begin to learn."  It is an act of utter hubris to imagine that an hour, a day, or a week of sniffing through websites qualifies you to pass judgment on the greatest scientific accomplishment of all time.

Not everyone approaches their 'disbelief' that 'dash-of-bad-science' way, but enough do.  Every single one of their 'scientific' attacks - with absolutely no exceptions however small - can be punctured by proper research.  There is zero scientific foundation for assailing the truth of the Apollo program.   

I'd also like to point out that it is only fairly recently, in this age where extreme cynicism has become chic and cool, that there has been any real widespread debate over the ironclad truth of the program.   There have been disbelievers before, but nobody took them seriously.

This brings me to the second reason.  For you, Apollo is history.  Hell, you were born the year I graduated high school.  It's easy for YOU to disbelieve, it's just writing on a history book page.   It was different for those of us who lived through it.  At the tender age of 1 year, I watched the Apollo 11 landing on TV.  I don't remember that specific night too clearly, but of course, the Apollo program continued for several years after 1969, and I do recall the later missions clearly.  What I recall most vividly is the excitement, the wonder, the thrill.   Forget Santa Claus, forget Christmas presents, the easter bunny, my birthday - THIS was the greatest thing I had ever heard about or seen -- and furthermore, it was REAL.  There was never a later, reluctant admission from my parents that it was all a pretty fiction made up to thrill people - it ACTUALLY happened.  For visceral, emotional thrill, nothing, absolutely nothing has ever come close.  

That's why I take it very, very personally. 

And I'm not the only one.  Most of the Apollo astronauts,  Armstrong included, are still alive - but they are old men with NO motive to keep up a sham.  They no longer work for the government.  They have nothing to lose.   Yet not only do they NOT refute the Apollo program, most of them freely donate their time to promoting the US space program - MANNED space program.  Also, they often gladly help writers, filmmakers, etc. create works about Apollo.  

Why would they do that?   Can you imagine the money any one of them could make if instead, they fed the media a story about how the whole thing was crap?  Imagine!   And don't feed me some BS about  them keeping up the fiction out of fear:  what's the government going to do, have them 'hit' ?  That'd look a bit fishy, eh?  "Armstrong says moon mission faked, dies mysteriously next day."

And the astronauts themselves are only the tip of the iceberg.   There are thousands of Apollo veterans, from engineers, to Mission Control personnel, geologists, and literal "rocket scientists" who are still very much alive and are living proof of the program.  Not one of them has come forward to 'debunk' the program.

The science is all there; the math all works out.    If Apollo is scientifically unsound, then you'd better not get on another plane, or cross another suspension bridge.  The same physics that keeps our world running did - **DID** take us to the moon.

Before you take on giants (meaning the actual scientists, not me) make sure you have more than a ball of fluff in your sling.


----------



## Trillian (Jan 11, 2004)

The Apollo mission most likly DID occur. Neil and his compain were the first people to tuch the lunar surface and *come back. All the proof I need to come to that asumption is the boosters they used to get them there. They were one-time-use only, big, exitingly chunky looking (  ), and could be **interplanetary. They have sence been ditched for something that is reusable, safer, but also slightly less ***powerfull. Why would they build something like the boosters they used back then (plus all thath money spent on it) if they were just for launching to make it look like they had made it to the moon.

*There was a Soviet capsule the crashed, and killed it's one passanger on the darkside of the moon. I'm not sure of the date, but if it's before Neil got there, then the Soviet person might count as being the first person on the moon.
**The booster for the Apollo mission was capabal of completly brakeing away from our planet's orbit, and if they managed to line it up right with the trigectorys, could be used to reach different planet.Getting back would be another problem though.
***The current set of boosters that NASA uses is much safer then the Apollo ones, but are only capabal of reaching a (low?) orbit. They can't even reach the moon curently. The folks at nasa will have to design some new ones of bush's plan to reach mars is ever going to become a reality.


----------



## phatcactus (Jan 11, 2004)

Uhm, Trip, didja by any chance read Moontruth.com?

http://www.moontruth.com/full.htm


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 11, 2004)

Trillian:  Interesting. And your statements about the current state of our launch capability are, sadly, true.

But then, if the Russians crashed Cosmonauts on the Moon, why would they have kept it secret?  Surely, even getting that far is worth bragging about, nationally anyway.

I receive 2 space magazines regularly.    Based on the accounts that I read there by Russian scientists, they never worked the bugs out of their rocket -- their equivalent of the Saturn V.


----------



## Trip (Jan 11, 2004)

What I don't get is: if we did indeed land on the moon, then why have we not done anything about it yet? If we have the technology to get up there and look around and stuff why are we not trying to see what can be done up there? Maybe we could build a lab up there and test animals or whatnot. Why not do anything about the fact WE CAN go to the moon? Or was the whole purpose just to say we can.

Oh and: if this doesn't make any sense you'll have to excuse me...I just woke up from a nap.


----------



## eric halfabee (Jan 11, 2004)

I'm fake, I never happened either.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 11, 2004)

Trip: Apparently President Bush feels the same way...   Much as I dislike him, his new initiative is amazing.

It is many MANY times more expenive to send humans into space than robots.  And, many argue - not _entirely_ without some validity - the money may be better spent elsewhere.

But frankly, I and many others feel as you do: why did we stop?  Why aren't we up there now?

There are at least two space advocacy organizations you can join, both full of people who are wondering the same thing:

The Planetary Society (www.planetary.org)
The National Space Society (www.nss.org)

The former's web site is aimed more at kids, but it's still good.  Each publishes an excellent magazine about space exploration.


----------



## Krevinek (Jan 11, 2004)

The only problem I see is this, if Bush wants us to push back out into space... then why has he been cutting NASA's budget in his proposals since 2001?


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 11, 2004)

> if Bush wants us to push back out into space... then why has he been cutting NASA's budget in his proposals since 2001?



I'm guessing he thinks that switching gears on that issue will win him votes.


----------



## Trip (Jan 11, 2004)

Well, there you have it. If people start complaining it's because we haven't done anything after we did land on the moon. So it doesn't seem like we really went, or if we did it wasn't a big success or anything.

But you guys proved me wrong. Hopefully other people will see it how it is too.


----------



## Randman (Jan 11, 2004)

It is amazing that many Americans, and a majority of people on this board it seems, weren't even born until well after the final lunar mission. So to them, a man on the moon is as sci-fi as Star Wars.
  But, imho, it also shows a laziness and lack of desire on their part to learn the facts rather than spreading rumors long debunked. Heck, just go to about any news website these days and you'll find plenty of stories on space exploration and new plans to re-explore manned spaceflight.
  Trip asked why not go to the moon? Why? Just about everything's been done there unless it's in preparation for a Mars landing. Science can be done cheaper and better in zero g (the moon does have some gravity) like in the space station. A base would have no purpose because the moon doesn't have enough valuable material (not even cheese) on it.
   It's funny that we're getting color photos from a robotic device on Mars (and more headed to Europa and other Jovian moons) and people are still trying to claim that Apollo was rigged.
   But gee, the Flat Earth Society still exists.


----------



## Trillian (Jan 11, 2004)

<O.T.>
The Europa mission sounds pretty intersting. It will be neat at what all we find there. It would also be pretty interesting as to what all is in jupitor- there is _alot_ of solid mater that it abosrbs in just the course of the from metorites and such. All of it has to go somewhere, why not a solid core. Plus, gases tend to go to a soild form when enough pressur is put on them, and there is _alot_ of pressure twoards the center.
</O.T.>


----------



## symphonix (Jan 11, 2004)

At least it explains who was actually _filming_ those memorable images of Neil Armstrong stepping out onto the moon's surface. ;-)


----------



## Randman (Jan 12, 2004)

At least the good consipracy theorists have the audacity to say that the Apollo landing was filmed by Stanley Kubrick.


----------



## Arden (Jan 12, 2004)

This thread could easily be merged with the controversial science thread.

I don't know why people have such a problem with the fact (yes, it's quite a fact) that we landed men on the moonseveral times.  Do they really have nothing better to do than to say nay?

I don't think we've done anything to follow up because public interest isn't there.  What are they going to do, found a college on the moon?  Nobody could afford tuition, much less transportation.  A museum?  An entertainment hall?  Nobody would go.  Start a colony?  We're not at that stage right now.  People don't really care about stuff (in general) unless they can take a hand (and even then, they often don't care: look at all the nonvoters).


			
				Krevinek said:
			
		

> The only problem I see is this, if Bush wants us to push back out into space... then why has he been cutting NASA's budget in his proposals since 2001?


And if he promised no children left behind, why has he cut funding for education?  And if he wants to revive the economy, why has he left a million people jobless?  And if he... etc.  Why?  Because he's a bad president.  But that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## pds (Jan 12, 2004)

Simply amazing... no one made it to the moon... 
It is simply amazing that anyone could think that. 

The reason we stopped going there is a complicated mix of perceptions and a shift in priorities. People thought too much money was being spent without tangible returns. The astronauts going to the moon were flyboys, not scientists and not poets. They weren't getting the best science and they didn't win the hearts and minds of the mob.

Also the country was going through a transition from reason to emotionalism and mob mentality. The same summer as Apollo 11, Woodstock took place. Both events drew around a half million people, but look at the difference between them. 

Cape Canaveral, they came with ice chests and tents
Woodstock, they came with clothes and drugs
Cape Canaveral, after they left, you wouldn't know they were there
Woodstock, they left the place a shambles
At CC, they marvelled at the ability of man to achieve
At Woodstock, they mocked the marvel of man's acheivement

Does anyone think Woodstock was a fiction?
Are we more like the Woodstock crowd today or more like the Cape Canaveral crowd?


----------



## Satcomer (Jan 12, 2004)

The big problem with space travel by NASA is IT HAS NO GOAL!!! What was the space station originally slated for? Can you say launch and refuel pad for a man mission to Mars. What research are the doing their now? The long term effects of weightlessness? I though the Russians already have the data. So do the Americans. Anyone remember Sky Lab before it's fiery death toward earth (quick run ... the sky is falling )

Technological things DID happen before a lot of you guys were born! Think about it, you are using a product of American nuclear paranoia of the Russians. Does the word ARPANET mean anything? You using the evolution of it right now!


----------



## cfleck (Jan 12, 2004)

>>>What I don't get is: if we did indeed land on the moon, then why have we not done anything about it yet? If we have the technology to get up there and look around and stuff why are we not trying to see what can be done up there? Maybe we could build a lab up there and test animals or whatnot. Why not do anything about the fact WE CAN go to the moon? Or was the whole purpose just to say we can.

maybe you need to ask yourself what we can do up there?  from my knowledge (which is minimal) the moon is essentially a big rock and it is extremely expensive to get there.  i get the feeling you were just throwing out ideas, but what good may come of testing animals on the moon?  the nasa peeps go to great lengths to come up with valid and useful experiments and perhaps it is entirely possible that the value of "doing stuff on the moon" is minimal, but the research that goes into figuring that out has yeilded many new products and technologies.

and for the record, i have to agree with the bulk of the group here.  to thing the moon landing was a farce based on a web site is rather ignorant.  come up with hard facts, not picture analysis.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 12, 2004)

cfleck said:
			
		

> and for the record, i have to agree with the bulk of the group here.  to thing the moon landing was a farce based on a web site is rather ignorant.  come up with hard facts, not picture analysis.



There are not just pic analysis. I didn't really pay much attention to it but as much as I got, there were many details on the space ship that proved experts it would be impossible to land on the surface (don't ask me for details). There was no big whole around the space craft after landing and launching. The way the space craft launched from the surface was not realistic at all (as those experts said). In those days the knowledge about such things was not high so noone got the "fake". 
There are also rumors about NASA employees who tried to publish this whole stuff but died on mystical way...
We got enough material for a movie, huh? 
Anyway, to me it looks like it was all fake. But who am I? I have no clue about all this. Am just an info-junky from my dealer: the tv


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 12, 2004)

It should be remembered that many of the most valuable scientific discoveries were made unexpectedly.  It's easy for anyone to appreciate the value of, for instance, AIDS research - there is a clear goal in mind: how can we kill the virus in an infected person, without also killing the patient?   Or scouting the desert for oil - a clear and obvious monetary benefits.  Many VERY important and valuable scientific and technological breakthroughs were made while pursuing something totally unrelated.   In the same way space science has yielded unforeseen breakthroughs, and may reasonably be expected to continue to do so.

One of the most compelling reasons to study other planets is to teach us more about our own.  If you were an alien given just one human being to study, there would be many things about the human race you could never learn, especially if you were given a very unusual human, like a one armed, diabetic, albino dwarf.   (So far, it appears the earth is at least unusual for a planet as this dwarf would be among humans).


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 12, 2004)

Zammy: those issues and many others are addressed at the URL I provided in my first msg (#5 in this thread.)

Edit: 
Here's the link again:  http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

And if you follow some of the links along the side, you can get still more good solid information, especially these:

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Which offer a point-for-point rebuttal of Fox TV's very irresponsible television program "Conspiracy Theory: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?"   -- the #1 science-dilletante's source for hoax theories.


----------



## bookem (Jan 12, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> But then, if the Russians crashed Cosmonauts on the Moon, why would they have kept it secret?  Surely, even getting that far is worth bragging about, nationally anyway.
> 
> .



After the USSR collapsed it was revealed from KGB files that the Russians launched another manned spacecraft before Uri Gagarin, but the Cosmonaut died on re-entry, or something like that.

USSR and secret seem to go together.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 12, 2004)

bookem said:
			
		

> After the USSR collapsed it was revealed from KGB files that the Russians launched another manned spacecraft before Uri Gagarin, but the Cosmonaut died on re-entry, or something like that.
> 
> USSR and secret seem to go together.



The Soviets were secretive, it's true enough - they never went public with their launches until the missions were over.  But arguably, Gagarin's successful flight eliminated any motive to reveal the failed flight, even afterward.  And after NASA had landed successfully and the Soviets abandoned their lunar program, they might yet have decided to try to 'steal our thunder' by showing that they had landed, but failed to return.  

Declassified documents (published in the magazines I mentioned earlier) reveal that the Soviet mission was to include 2 cosmonauts, 1 of whom would land while the other remained in orbit, similar to Apollo.   If they tried this, and the lander crashed, the other cosmonaut could still have returned safely.  They could at least have bragged they'd sent the first man into lunar orbit - which they never have claimed.


----------



## hdmac (Jan 14, 2004)

Well just get on your nice new mac G5 and rewind the MATRIX and see if it did ot did not occure!


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 14, 2004)

Wouldn't that be nice.

While I'm at it, I'll also check on OJ, see who killed JFK, see where Amelia Earhart ended up...

Oh, and Roswell.  Got to visit Roswell, NM - was it 1949?


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jan 14, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that be nice.
> 
> While I'm at it, I'll also check on OJ, see who killed JFK, see where Amelia Earhart ended up...
> 
> Oh, and Roswell.  Got to visit Roswell, NM - was it 1949?




You forgot one important thing to check:

Where JIMMY HOFFA was burried.


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 14, 2004)

How about JonBenet Ramsey, or Robert Blake?
I could find out who Jack the Ripper was.   Or DB Cooper.

I could see how the pyramids were built...  lotsa fun.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jan 14, 2004)

Trip said:
			
		

> What I don't get is: if we did indeed land on the moon, then why have we not done anything about it yet? If we have the technology to get up there and look around and stuff why are we not trying to see what can be done up there? Maybe we could build a lab up there and test animals or whatnot. Why not do anything about the fact WE CAN go to the moon? Or was the whole purpose just to say we can.
> 
> Oh and: if this doesn't make any sense you'll have to excuse me...I just woke up from a nap.




You have to consider some things about designing and building a permanent moon base with 1960s technology.  It simply wouldn't be feasible.  Once you get up there, where are you going to get energy to start building and putting things together?  How are people (construction workers) going to work in big clunky space suits?  How are the people going to get back?  It takes enormous energy to cool and KEEP cool liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.  Where is the water on the moon that is needed to make the liquid rocket propellents?  Have you ever looked at the moon through a decent telescope?  It looks pretty scarred.  Look up into the sky at night and watch how fast a meteor goes streaking through the upper atmosphere.  Now imagine that same little stone slamming into any portion of the moon base.  The moon has very little atmosphere (yes, it actually has an atmosphere, probably somewhere in the parts per billion range of concentration) to stop these projectiles.  A meteor shield would need to be erected over the base, or the base built well underground - even more expensive.  And you aren't going to get catepillar bulldozers up there and actually use them - NO AIR, diesel fuel doesn't burn without air, and even if they compressed the air, the fuel would have to heated to prevent it from gelling up or freezing.  There are so many things to consider when making a habitable environment inside a very life-hostile environment.  We never went back to the moon because the engineering still doesn't exist yet for us to have a permanent base on the moon.  Watch the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", then try to catch some old re-runs of "Space 1999".  Until we can travel in the vicinity of the moon like driving a car, much of space travel is going to be dangerous and expensive.  The current space shuttle fleet is only designed for low Earth orbit - 300 miles MAX above the surface of the Earth.  The Internation Space Station is about 250 miles above the surface of the Earth.  The Earth's atmosphere extends 600 MILES above the surface, this is why the ISS must get a boost into orbit every so often (it loses about 250 feet or 600 feet PER DAY - sorry for the lack of detail, I just read it, and I READ A LOT of material everyday).  A real space station would be located at a distance that would put it in geosyncronous orbit, or at one of the Lagrange points between the Earth and Moon.  250 miles above the surface of the Earth is not true orbit in my opinion, the ISS will eventually sink and burn up; we're still in pre-school as far as human space exploration is concerned.  And of a lot of the problem with human space travel is coming up with the energy to get things done.  The only purpose right now for NASA and its contractors is to develop the engineering that's going to get us to the next level.  The results of NASA's successes and failures are not always immediately beneficial to the public.  There's another thing to consider: research is VERY expensive.  You don't always get a lot of bang for the buck.


----------

