Did NASA really land on the moon?

The first manned landing on the moon was achieved by the U.S on July 20, 1969. There were five other manned landings up until 1972. To this date, the U.S is the only country known to have successfully landed on the moon. This leads to a question that has yet to be answered: How did they manage to do it despite the fact that the Soviets had a far more superior space program? Prior to the moon landings, the Soviets beat them to everything related to space exploration. Yet, for some reason, NASA managed to beat the USSR to the moon in just a few years time. After the last manned mission in 1972, there were no more planned trips to the moon. Many skeptics would say this is because the whole fabricated notion of going to the moon already served its true purpose. However, one would say the main reason is because it is impossible for astronauts to get past the magnetic fields due to high radiation. If this wasn't the case, then not only would NASA be going to the moon in present time (perhaps even building space stations), but the Soviet Union would most likely have beaten the US to the moon.

The ones who defend NASA claim there is empirical evidence available to the public. Anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system can bounce laser beams off three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11 14 and 15, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo Moon landing sites (Wiki). The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter also brought back photos of the alledged landing sites.

---------------------------------

The distance it takes to get to the moon is a quarter million miles, going round trip means that the crew are traveling half a million miles. That seems farfetched considering the technology available back then. The empirical evidence provided by the defenders of NASA isn't enough to convince me that they actually went to the moon. How did they get past the radiation without being severely injured or dead? How did their technology allow them to explore the harsh environment of the moon? In the sunlight, the temperatures rise significantly high while under the shade, significantly low. The astronaught being interviewed in a documentary said their suits were battery powered (along with just about everything else). I just can't imagine battery technology being that advanced in late 60's to survive 3 days on the moon. We're just now getting decent electric cars.

Anyways, what do you think? Are the moon landings a hoax?

Haven't you watched Mythbusters? They already debunked the "moon landing hoax" theories several years ago.

Of course they landed on the moon, I can see the flag from my window ya goof :p

The Soviets didn't have a better space program though. Building rockets and a shitty satellite whose entire function is to rotate around the earth and blip is one thing but getting a creature of any kind into space (alive) and having it land somewhere (alive) and come back (alive) is an entirely different feat. The Americans had more money, better scientists, and higher ambitions. Sputnik freaked them the fuck out but at the same time it was a relief that it was such a piece of shit and not a real milestone.

Anyway, the evidence of the moon landing being real is incontrovertible. Everyone I've ever encountered that thinks its fake convinces themselves of it through picking a favourite line of evidence and ignoring everything else. They decide because of something like "there should be stars in the background of this photo" and tunnel vision past stuff like the fact there's photos of the landing sites, there were independent observers of many of the missions, and that the missions brought back moon rocks with them. Not to mention direct explanations of why certain things seen as holes are the way they are or why certain criticisms are wholly imagined or false.

A lot of the conspiracy theories I've seen seem incredibly stupid as well. I mean, among other theories, they went to all the effort to fake the moon landings and covered so many areas and then forgot something like stars? Are they supposed to be malevolent genius cloak and dagger overlords or lazy 9th graders doing their homework at the last minute?

I'll finish with the ultimate rebuttal to all allegations of the moon landing being faked:

Apollo 18 found the secret russian landing spot.

if the Nazis can do it, im sure the states could have done it.

All we really have to do is wait for the Chinese to probe the area, where the flag is supposed to be. Sure they might lie as well, but would be interesting to see Nasa's reaction if China finds nothing.

What is this "everything else" you speak of in terms of empirical evidence? Cause I'm sure there is more reason to doubt the moon landings than a few possibly edited photos. Case and point:






Since we're on the subject of ignoring evidence, you have yet to explain how the crew of 69 managed to get past the Van Allen Belts. This is by far the most damaging evidence against the moon landings. Yet here you are talking about stupid photos and rocks that probably weren't even from the moon.

I'm not particularly interested in doing your homework for you but in regards to getting past the radiation: here you go. All I had to do was google "moon landing van allen belts". I may have left myself open in my first post but debating conspiracy theories is one of the furthest ideas away from fun that I can think of and I likely won't comment any further.

Bush did 9/11. JFK had connections to the Mob. Tin Foil Hats.

Okay,the apologetic response you posted loses credibility when this is posted:




I already posted a video that had a NASA astronaut specifically state that the Van allen belts was an obstacle for traveling outside the Earth's orbit. Which means, they are just NOW finding a solution to the problem. It wasn't my homework to do from the start, I provided the evidence that supported my claim. It was your job to find evidence to refute it since you disagreed with the evidence. That's how a debate works. This apologetic dribble just doesn't cut it. What credentials does the person who wrote that even have in comparison to an actual Astronaut?

I think the part where I said "this topic is too stupid to be worth my time and I don't want to bother educating you" indicated I wasn't actually having a debate with you.

Don't obvious troll threads like this belong in IB?

What makes you think its a troll thread? Just because you don't agree with it or find it offensive? I'm taking this seriously.

I guess I just considered you smarter than this.

I am quite amused by the use of that Orion video as evidence supporting you, though, since that engineer never actually says what you or the video title claim him to say. All he says is that they were testing the Orion's shielding to make sure it would be sufficient, nothing at all in there says that this is something entirely new or that it could not have been done in earlier spacecraft. In fact, he specifically points out the heat on re-entry as the most dangerous part of the mission, not the radiation.

"We must do testing before we send crew through this region of space (Van allen belts)."

I'm not very bright, but wouldn't this suggest that they never went past the Van allen belts in 69? If not, then why don't they use the technology from back then? I'm all open for being corrected on my mistakes, but I'm just putting 2 and 2 together here.

He only says this in regard to the Orion, they would not send crew out in a new spacecraft without testing it first. Maybe they're using new and improved technology, maybe not, but even using the same technology from '69, a newly designed spacecraft would need to be tested to make sure there are no problems with the new implementation. Your interpretation of his words is similar to saying that a new airplane would not need test flights before commercial use because the old ones already functioned well enough.

My fault, he said "We must solve these challenges before we send crew out into this region of space." What is there to "solve" if they already did it in 1969? All they'd really have to do is improve the technology.

The meaning remains pretty much the same, as does your misinterpretation.

I'm also very much amazed anyone would use such a simplified description given just so the public would have a general idea of the challenges the engineers face as a definite scientific source. He uses these very simple lines to make sure you know what they have to do to make a spacecraft and its crew able to survive the trip, not give an exact overview of every detail and new technology that may or may not be present here.

As for you saying that "All they'd really have to do is improve the technology.", this in itself is a challenge to solve. As I already said before, new and improved technology and materials need to be tested to be sure they are up to the challenge, you can not just assume that the improvements work as intended.

Yeh.

I'd believe you if the engineer didn't "give an exact overview of new technology", which he pretty much did in the video. I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be testing the new technology, all I'm saying is that the belts shouldn't even be considered a problem considering they already went past it in 69 with inferior technology to the ones they have today. Given what they had to do up to this point in order to even get past the belts this time, I don't see how they managed to do it back then.