The Moon Landings: fact vs fiction.

[floo]

Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it.  Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.

I think there is much more evidence to substantiate the veracity of the moon landings than there is for the gospels.

[Maeght]

Not according to official pictures of the suits and boots on show and those of the treads on the moon.
Why haven't you looked.

You are quite right that the prints do not match the boots on display. However if you had read what I wrote properly then you will see that what I said was that match the over shoes not the boots. Pictures of these are available on the web - why haven't you looked?

When you research the answer given by Nasa they will tell you the boot print was not Neil Armstrong but belonged to Buzz Aldrin. But when you see the suit of Buzz displayed you see it does not match his either. Then when you see a pair of boots they have supposedly belonging to Neil Armstrong you see a perfect match for the footprint but they don't match the original suit being preserved. They certainly do not match the suit worn.

There are photographs of Buzz Aldrin descending the steps of the lander where the treads of the over shoes are visible. Have you seen these in your research?

They haven't been answered...

They have, many times.

The scientist know the clothes they wore and spaceship could not protect them.

Please state who these scientists are that you keep referring to. There were concerns amongst some scientists not familiar with the Van Allen belt and of course there was a level of uncertainty about it all since this was all new but we know what the Van Allen belt radiation is like and the levels of radiation that the astronauts were exposed to and there is no problem with this.

They also know there is no safe way to fly through the Van Allen Belt ...

That is just wrong. Van Allen himself has explained this and it is available online if you search for it.

...but you cannot see that scientist have reasons for their beliefs.

What beliefs? I thought you said the scientists say the moon landings couldn't have happened - so are you saying they have reasons to say this but are wrong?

Radiation could not be avoided.

There are different types of radiation. Different energies. Look it up.

There were many people and the mans who report went missing when he and his family were killed are something to be weary about.

What?

As I said you choose what you want to believe.

You believe the claims of those who think the moon landings were fake. I do not see the evidence convincing. I have said it is possible that we didn't go to the moon but on the balance and credibility of the evidence I think we probably did. Its all about the evidence and if you research properly you find the hoaxer evidence to be based on misunderstandings, lack of knowledge and some initial ingrained suspicion of big organisations and 'government'.

[jeremyp]

To be honest, this is why I’m interested in this now. Why the attempts to rubbish any claims against the landings?

Because the claims are rubbish.

You asked a question about why does it matter? In my opinion, one word...truth.

The truth is that the Moon landings were not faked.

From my perspective, I’m open to the possibility that some were genuine, but at least one may have been faked. The film Capricorn One (based on the objections, but uses a mission to Mars) illustrates brilliantly that not that many people need to be in on any attempted cover-up.

No it doesn't. In Capricorn One they tried to kill the astronauts to keep it covered up and they failed and the plot was exposed... Oh yes, and it was fiction.

Here is actual video of the real planning for the fake Moon landings.

[jeremyp]

The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering.

It would flutter like a pendulum if an astronaut jogged it whilst putting the flag pole into the ground. On Earth, the motion quickly dissipates because the flag is moving through the air.

Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun;

This is utterly false as should be evident to you every time you look at the full Moon. I mean, you can see it right?

this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage.

That only works if the ground is completely flat.

This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax.  Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.

They are all debunked.

[Anchorman]

Not only 'earthlight', though. When the first pics of the dark side of the Moon cAame back in the vwery early sixties (the Russian 'Luna' probes), the evidence that some - albeit weakened 'starlight' which was discernible even with the primative equipment the probes possessed.

[jeremyp]

Not only 'earthlight', though. When the first pics of the dark side of the Moon cAame back in the vwery early sixties (the Russian 'Luna' probes), the evidence that some - albeit weakened 'starlight' which was discernible even with the primative equipment the probes possessed.

I forgot about the Earth, I was thinking of the Moon itself.

But yes, the Earth is significantly brighter than the Moon, being larger and also more reflective (all that water). So we have three sources of light on the surface of the Moon. There are also the stars, but they are so faint in comparison to the Sun that they don't really make any difference.

[Maeght]

There were many people and the mans who report went missing when he and his family were killed are something to be weary about. As I said you choose what you want to believe.

Not sure what the 'There were many people ...' bit refers to but I assume the latter part refers to Thomas Baron. I also assume you mean wary rather than weary. If these assumptions are correct - we have no idea what was contained in the 500 page report. Baron's earlier shorter report was considered nothing significant but whereas that report was based on his own experiences (which were limited as he was not in a senior position) it seems the longer report was based on telephone calls he received from people who worked on the project. There may have been concerns expressed about the project but I don't think that surprising - reports of issues are often seen in big projects - take the Olympics for example where every time there are doom and gloom reports of stadium not being ready, infrastructure issues, health problems and so on, and yet the Olympics take place. Baron's death (along with his wife and step daughter) has been interpreted as suspicious by some but this is an interpretation not a fact.

[Maeght]

I forgot about the Earth, I was thinking of the Moon itself.

But yes, the Earth is significantly brighter than the Moon, being larger and also more reflective (all that water). So we have three sources of light on the surface of the Moon. There are also the stars, but they are so faint in comparison to the Sun that they don't really make any difference.

The astronauts suits were also highly reflective (shown in at least one video clip where an astronaut is seen to be glowing brightly) so could themselves be considered a light source in certain situations.

[floo]

The moon landings, for which there appears to be plenty of evidence, seem much more credible than much of the Bible, which Sass seems to have no difficulty in believing to be true, even though there is zero evidence to support it.

[torridon]

To be honest, this is why I’m interested in this now. Why the attempts to rubbish any claims against the landings?

You asked a question about why does it matter? In my opinion, one word...truth.

From my perspective, I’m open to the possibility that some were genuine, but at least one may have been faked. The film Capricorn One (based on the objections, but uses a mission to Mars) illustrates brilliantly that not that many people need to be in on any attempted cover-up.

It strikes me that a quick poll on this topic would reveal a fairly clear fault line with atheists denying hoax claims, whereas the few that are prepared to give such conspiracy theories airtime are religious believers of some or other stripe.

Why would that be ?  Is there some common underlying predispositions, maybe believers have a tendency to distrust science and scientists ?

[Sebastian Toe]

It strikes me that a quick poll on this topic would reveal a fairly clear fault line with atheists denying hoax claims, whereas the few that are prepared to give such conspiracy theories airtime are religious believers of some or other stripe.

Why would that be ?  Is there some common underlying predispositions, maybe believers have a tendency to distrust science and scientists ?

...or possibly,  if a nasty atheist believes something then it cannot possibly be correct so there needs to be an alternate explanation. No matter how bizarre!
 

[Nearly Sane]

It strikes me that a quick poll on this topic would reveal a fairly clear fault line with atheists denying hoax claims, whereas the few that are prepared to give such conspiracy theories airtime are religious believers of some or other stripe.

Why would that be ?  Is there some common underlying predispositions, maybe believers have a tendency to distrust science and scientists ?

A lot of the 9/11 truthers that I've encountered are atheists

[torridon]

Maybe there is not a simple correlation.

I had a quick google, and found this study exploring the idea of conspiracy theories as quasi-religious beliefs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712257/

[jeremyp]

A lot of the 9/11 truthers that I've encountered are atheists

Would it be fairer to claim that religionists and conspiracy theorists display the same kinds of behaviours?

[Maeght]

Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are.  That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.

Still interested to hear which arguements you are referring to as not being as easily explained. Any thoughts?

[Maeght]

Watched a program this morning all about the space race and the moon landings - fascinating stuff. Shame that people don't recognise the terrific achievement and sacrifices made.

[floo]

Watched a program this morning all about the space race and the moon landings - fascinating stuff. Shame that people don't recognise the terrific achievement and sacrifices made.

Most people don't think like Sass where the moon landings are concerned.

[SqueakyVoice]

I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?

Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?

I can't be the only one to have read that and thought,
"Does Sassy actually believe that heaven is in space? And the reason she thinks the moon landings didn't happen is because the spaceship would have ended up in heaven before it got there?"

[Sassy]

I can't be the only one to have read that and thought,
"Does Sassy actually believe that heaven is in space? And the reason she thinks the moon landings didn't happen is because the spaceship would have ended up in heaven before it got there?"

You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.
I said the heavens above and heaven are two separate places.
NO WHERE HAVE I proclaimed what you thought. So you are the only one who thought it and even wrote it.

[Sebastian Toe]

You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.

Where is that explicitly stated in SV's post?

[Nearly Sane]

Where is that explicitly stated in AO'S post?

AO? Surely SV?

[Maeght]

You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.
I said the heavens above and heaven are two separate places.
NO WHERE HAVE I proclaimed what you thought. So you are the only one who thought it and even wrote it.

SV wasn't sure what you meant, hence asking the question, and to be fair, he wasn't the only one unsure.

[floo]

You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.
I said the heavens above and heaven are two separate places.
NO WHERE HAVE I proclaimed what you thought. So you are the only one who thought it and even wrote it.

So where is your version of heaven?

[Sebastian Toe]

AO? Surely SV?

Thanks I've corrected it.
Got too many tabs open at one time!