As the subject states, do you, in your humble opinion, think that the human race has actually landed on the moon?

I find this to be fairly interesting, and not just because we have a debate on it in science :shake:

I, personally, could go either way, so I would like to be convinced one or the other, if you so please. From the sites and the movie that we watched in class, I am leaning more towards that we did not, but that may just have been a bad site or a superbly done movie.

So, any thoughts? :hmm:

Yes, we have.

What was the title of the movie and the name of the site? There are some recent conspiracy theories that have been soundly repudiated, and I bet that these were them.

Do your sources also state that the Soviet lunar rover missions were a fraud also?

If you do not believe that we landed on the moon in 1969, do you think that we could go there now? Are the Mars missions, Voyager missions, Gallileo missions all frauds also? Has the loss of two space shuttles, due to human negligence, been a fraud?

I guess the best way to put it, if you accept the fact that the US lunar landings were a fraud, then you have to find some way to reconcile the quantum leap in space travel that ocurred with JFK's pronouncement in 1960 and the Apollo / Soyuz missions of the late 70's and the Skylab missions of the same era. It is non-contiguous from a historicity sense.

Damn, I hate the liberal education dished out in our public schools. (that is not meant as any slight against you, a sobriquet) You know, they already made a very bad movie about this called "Capricorn One" sometime in the late 70's, and the "NASA conspiracy" group have been sent back to their holes once. Looks like we will have to do it again.

Yes, we did go to the moon. I lived half my life in Cocoa Beach, Fl...10 miles from Cape Canaveral and about a half mile from NASA headquarters. Aside from all the evidence that abounds on this subject, I knew many NASA engineers and techs that worked there at the time and talked of nothing else---the chaos, the contracting fiascos involving Rockwell, the sub-standard equipment, etc. There never was a question, for any of us who knew them or lived in that area, that we didn't go to the moon. We went -- and many heads rolled because of it.

The movie, though now that I think about it, was a T.V. show on Fox IIRC, aptly named "The Conspiracy Theory".

The website was this site. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) It seemed to contradict itself on numerous occasions.

The lost lives of the spaceships were not frauds, since you can view irrefragable evidence of it, though in the movie it said, for some reason, that "it was not an accident, NASA would go to that extreme to keep their secret." I do not really believe that, though, because we are not that heartless. Oh, and BTW, I go to a private school, though they are not exceedingly conservative.

My sources did not indicate that the Soviet lunar missions were frauds as well.

"I guess the best way to put it, if you accept the fact that the US lunar landings were a fraud, then you have to find some way to reconcile the quantum leap in space travel that ocurred with JFK's pronouncement in 1960 and the Apollo / Soyuz missions of the late 70's and the Skylab missions of the same era." -Hacken Slash One can have technology advancements without something previously working, it is just that, usually, the new technology does not work properly as well. And I seemed to have forgotten where I was going to with this... :bang:

Would you have, by any chance, any links or anything that I could look at? Thank you, and thank you for your swift replies as well.

I'll see what I can do. First I will take a look at the site you referenced and also try to find out some information on the movie you gave. It already has one strike against it for veracity when you gave the word "Fox" :D .

Till then, I just got done wrangling with InquisitorX in another thread to please not believe everything he is taught...and he is in college at Cal! For you to emerge from your years of formal education with any thought that is still uniquely your own is an enormous challenge. Hang in there, and I will see what I can do. In the meantime, perhaps others will post here who are more qualified than I to deal with you doubts...maybe InquisitorX himself!

Till then, I just got done wrangling with InquisitorX in another thread to please not believe everything he is taught...and he is in college at Cal! Where did you get the idea I believe everything I was taught or advocate such a stance... :confused:

Must... resist... urge... to... debate... further...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

OK, IquisitorX, I was just talking about you because I thought you wern't around to defend yourself! :angel: :hippy:

Can you, as a solid man of science, address the doubts of a soubriquet?

Thank you, BTA for the first sound contribution to this thread...guess that's why your an admin, huh?

I dont really care one way or the other, nor believe in one thing. However I saw a documentary about the lunar landing of -69 being a fraud and it was very convincing. Lots of stuff about camera angles and wrong falling shadows, NASA had according to that documentary refused to comment. Now I know that one documentary isnt much to go on but it just isnt that Washington was desperate enough for a space success at that time to get even and ahead in the space race.
As I said, I dont believe one or the other, but I dont think the conspiracy theories can be swatted off just with a shrug.

The entire point of these conspiracies is that they are entirely one sided and sound very convincing when you read/hear them. Personally I think this is a load of trash just like some neo-nazi theories claiming that the holocaust never really happened.

Perhaps you should read the link I posted. In it is a link to another site that goes through every single supposedly fraudulent find and explains it.

The most convincing evidence is the moon rocks they brought back with them. The properties of them are such that you could not find such on Earth, and to fake them convincingly enough to fool international scientists would have been more difficult than going to the moon to get them. :)

The second most convincing evidence (to me at least) is that they left retroreflectors on the moon that scientists use from Earth. They shoot lasers at them for laser ranging to the moon etc.

Fox should stick to making cartoons Hmmm... I think FOX should just stop altogether. :D

Of course we landed on the moon. Like BTA said, how did they get Big Muley if they didn't go there?

Thank you for the great link BTA. :)

"Pictures of astronauts transmitted from the Moon don't include stars in the dark lunar sky...Most photographers already know the answer: It's difficult to capture something very bright and something else very dim on the same piece of film -- typical emulsions don't have enough "dynamic range."" - But then again, according to Bad Astronomy, moon rocks only reflect light back at the light source, so someone on the side or behind, would not really be able to see the surface either, so how come we can see the surface? Especially since no flash photography was used. Or was Bad Astronomy just dead wrong?

BTA - The second most convincing evidence (to me at least) is that they left retroreflectors on the moon that scientists use from Earth. They shoot lasers at them for laser ranging to the moon etc. I did not know about the retroreflectors left on the moon's surface. Thank you for that tid bit of information as well.

Again I am not arguing against the lunar landing, but those retroflectors could have been left there on a later visit. I dont think the conspiracy theorists claim that humanity never went to the moon, just that the first one was a fraud.

But then again, according to Bad Astronomy, moon rocks only reflect light back at the light source, so someone on the side or behind, would not really be able to see the surface either, so how come we can see the surface? Especially since no flash photography was used. Or was Bad Astronomy just dead wrong?What? Maybe if you're talking about a single object in isolation (like the entirety of the moon itself) that would be true, but the surface of the moon is covered with rocks and craters reflecting light in all directions. The side of a rock facing away from the Sun may not be as brightly lit as the other side, but it wouldn't be completely dark either due to secondary reflections from the surrounding terrain.

No, but Americans have. :p

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that. But seriously, I think we have. If not, then come time we find out, the American government is in for a giant butt kicking!

Again I am not arguing against the lunar landing, but those retroflectors could have been left there on a later visit. I dont think the conspiracy theorists claim that humanity never went to the moon, just that the first one was a fraud.A later visit that was never observed? I'd say that's more unbelievable.

A better objection might be that the retroreflectors were left by unmanned probes (since that is in fact what Russia did).

The difference between the American retroreflectors placed by Human hands and the Russian-placed ones sent by unmanned probes is that the American ones give a stronger return signal due to their better placement even though they are much smaller.

@Joacqin - The one on FOX said that they all were frauds, because they "pointed out" that they used the same backgrounds in both. I was like "Duh, there are some places on the earth that looks similar to another place.. :rolleyes: " Stupid FOX people.

@BTA - "The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side." That is a direct quote from here. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#shadow) That is where I got what I said from.

That's an interesting thing I hadn't heard about lunar dust, and I don't know if it's true or not. Frankly I find it a bit hard to understand why that might be. But the thing to realize is that even if it's true, it says light is "preferentially" reflected back not "totally". You still get scattering of sunlight in all directions, from many different surfaces.

[ December 16, 2003, 23:19: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Yeah, true enough. Thank you for proving me wrong.