Did NASA really fake the moon landing?

[russ_watters]

Lies are always easier to believe than the truth, especially very big ones.

Why? That sounds like a meaningless cliche to me.

Would it not have been possible to have pre-recorded the whole affair in for arguments sake in area 51 then play the tape at the allotted time?

With technology available in 1969? Absolutely not. You did see Star Wars, right...? That was made in 1974 and pioneered some of the technologies that would have been required to fake the moon landings. And even then, you can tell it is fake.

They could have sent up real rockets that would fly out of sight then break up and then fall back down to Earth over the ocean?

Sure, but so what? Just because it is possible doesn't mean they did it. What is easier to believe now? It looks like to you it is easier to believe people lied than that they (and "they" is several hundred thousand people, btw) than that they didn't.

All the reported Apollo radio transmissions were allegedly broadcast from Washington DC.

That is not possible. It is easy for someone who cares to tell the difference. Ie, the Soviets.

I am an idiot but thing I know for sure is.

1. It is very easy to fake things on TV however convincing they may seem.

Today maybe, but in 1969 the technology was simply not available.

2. The people in power have a tendency to tell us what ever suit them at the time.

That isn't an argument.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there.

True. So what?

4. I know for sure 100% in 1969 NASA/US Gov did have the technology to fake the moon landings. I can not say with absolute certainty they did go there.

You are wrong. The technology did not exist to fake the moon landings.

5. The Russian that according to even NASA sources were ahead of the Americans in rocketry during the 1960s could not do it.

That's true, but there is a pretty good reason why we beat them: the single vs multiple stage lander approach. Their approach required a rocket several times the size of ours and they were unable to do it.

6. People will believe just about any old rubbish as long as it suits them to do so.

Clearly you are demonstrating that right now.

One thing I would like to see is the telemetric data. With particular interest to the moon take off and the rendezvous with Luna orbiter.

There are millions of pages of data if you care to wade through them...

 

[russ_watters]

Man, I would like some examples of that! 100% sure?! What about a vacuum chamber double or quadruple the size of a warehouse?

Not good enough: the lunar rovers had cameras on them and drove several km.

 

[russ_watters]

goavs4,
The theory is that they duped the people working at NASA too. Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon.

Huh? The people at NASA thought they were going to the moon, but they weren't? I met Jim Lovell. He doesn't seem like a guy who you could dupe into thinking he was on the moon when he wasn't.

The only point I was interested in hearing an argument for was the Luna module take off and rendezvous with the orbiter, this is the part I find very hard to believe.
This point was just brushed off, was this because you can not provide a satisfactory answer?

Dear lord - just saying it is hard to believe is not a question. What is it that you want to know about it? Rendesvous in space was first done with Gemini 8 and isn't all that hard.

Do you think it was possible that they sent up an unmanned Luna orbiter and the rest was faked?

No.

 

[goavs4]

goavs4,
The theory is that they duped the people working at NASA too. Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon. They may even have the technology now. Let's wait and see.

Mech_Engineer,
Big lies such as the resurrection of Christ or any other so called miracles that many people defended as vehemently as you do the moon landings.
The only point I was interested in hearing an argument for was the Luna module take off and rendezvous with the orbiter, this is the part I find very hard to believe.
This point was just brushed off, was this because you can not provide a satisfactory answer?
Do you think it was possible that they sent up an unmanned Luna orbiter and the rest was faked?
That would satisfy most of the sceptics and believers alike.
Put that in your rocket motor and smoke it.

Well I've met dozens of NASA people who would be interested to hear that they have been living a lie for over 30 years, including one of my former college professors who worked at JSC through Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle and ISS. I am sure he would be fascinated to hear how all of those mission plans, GN&C algorithms and control laws he wrote were all part of a grand scheme and his whole career was a lie. I mean, he got his experience planning fake Apollo missions yet miraculously when he applied these same principles, algorithms, and systems to later vehicles it all magically worked in the real world. That is unless of course you are implying all NASA missions from day one have been faked.

How about the technological innovation resulting from Apollo? That sort of thing is driven by real world problems, tests, analysis and solutions not imaginary problems and fake missions. All of this new technology was developed to support fake missions and none of the capability actually existed? Do you know how asinine that sounds? Have you ever worked on a real engineering problem and tried to do it completely on paper with no reference or ability to test a theory in practice? Frankly, it's impossible, pretty pictures and back of the envelope calculations are fun but the nitty gritty is in the details by actually building and testing real functional systems and integrating them together. That's where you discover all the things you didn't think of and where the innovation comes into overcome obstacles and find solutions, many times in the form of a new technology or practice. The amount of new technology and discovery across all fields of engineering as a result of Apollo was so vast only a person with no actual experience would claim people spent dozens of years working on imaginary problems and developing solutions to imaginary missions and faked scenarios. I'm not knocking you man, I just think you need to actually have had some experience before you dismiss so much out of hand. The scale and evidence is so overwhelming. This was a gigantic multi-billion dollar program spanning the globe with impacts felt deeply 30 years after the fact, the implication that this was all the result of people being duped on a grand scale yet somehow they still invented and developed innovative technologies that later worked in practice is just goofy.

As far as what the plans are for future missions did you miss the whole Exploration speech Dubya had broadcast around the world a couple of years ago? Someone at NASA may be talking about going to the moon? Are you kidding me? Either read the copious amounts of information in the link I provided about the huge undertaking already well underway, or if you are too lazy, ask away. I'd me more than happy to fill you in.

No one brushed your question off, you are ignoring the huge amount of rebuttal provided at length in the links posted. Check out Rach3's post who took the time to outline where you can find you answers since you won't look in the links provided for yourself. There is more than enough detail there concerning lunar ascent and rendezvous. Read through it and work it out yourself, no one is going to hold your hand and lead you through it here, those people created that site for a reason. If you don't understand something then ask, we will help you through it.

I don't get your point about the lunar ascent anyway, that part is a cake walk compared to a multiple stage rocket ascending through Earth's atmosphere and gravity, orbit insertion, separation and docking and performing a burn to get into a lunar transfer orbit. Launching in 1/6th the gravity with no atmosphere or staging is basic rocketry compared to that. The only hard part is insuring that the thrust vector for the ascent burn passes through your cm so you don't have any off-axis effects. Even then, you won't be perfect and the lunar ascent module had gimble system AND an RCS system to allow for minor corrections in attitude to compensate which was all controlled and compensated for in realtime by the flight computer onboard.

If you want to present valid arguments and questions fine but don't just postulate "That's hard to believe" and expect someone to outline a solution for you. Look at the evidence yourself, try to understand it and if you have any difficulty ask a specific question or questions and people will provide answers as best they can. I would really suggest you start at that site Rach3 references above, it's got a lot of good information not to mention references of where the information came from so you can track it all down yourself if you so desire.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Lies are always easier to believe than the truth, especially very big ones.

Would it not have been possible to have pre-recorded the whole affair in for arguments sake in area 51 then play the tape at the allotted time?

They could have sent up real rockets that would fly out of sight then break up and then fall back down to Earth over the ocean?

All the reported Apollo radio transmissions were allegedly broadcast from Washington DC.

I am an idiot but thing I know for sure is.

1. It is very easy to fake things on TV however convincing they may seem.

2. The people in power have a tendency to tell us what ever suit them at the time.

3. NASA has stopped going to the moon and has no plans to go back there.

4. I know for sure 100% in 1969 NASA/US Gov did have the technology to fake the moon landings. I can not say with absolute certainty they did go there.

5. The Russian that according to even NASA sources were ahead of the Americans in rocketry during the 1960s could not do it.

6. People will believe just about any old rubbish as long as it suits them to do so.

One thing I would like to see is the telemetric data. With particular interest to the moon take off and the rendezvous with Luna orbiter.

None of this supports the claim of a conspiracy.

Since we are now arguing for a conspiracy because and only because it might be possible to imagine in the most extreme sense [and I don't even believe that], we're done.