Neil Armstrong conspiracy

[IAmTheWarchief]

Hi, recently my friends and I were talking about whether Neil Armstrong landed on the moon or not, since there is quite an intricate conspiracy theory that has been developed to disprove his landing. I just wanted to know your opinions on the matter and the scientific evidence you use to support it.

[Heinz Guderian]

Hi, recently my friends and I were talking about whether Neil Armstrong landed on the moon or not, since there is quite an intricate conspiracy theory that has been developed to disprove his landing. I just wanted to know your opinions on the matter and the scientific evidence you use to support it.

nah. he talks about landing on them moon all the time in his many public appearances since landing in New Mexicao...i mean the moon.

[Roman Rapper]

I would hesitate to say that the original moon landing was faked, but I do think it is strange that the U.S all of sudden, out of nowhere, achieved that astonishing success, along with a safe return, after suffering such a series of unmitigated disasters.
Meanwhile, at the time, the Russians had looked for all the world like they were ahead of the U.S in terms of space exploration expertise. And then BAM! the U.S had a man on the moon.

[Cluny the Scourge]

I would hesitate to say that the original moon landing was faked, but I do think it is strange that the U.S all of sudden, out of nowhere, achieved that astonishing success, along with a safe return, after suffering such a series of unmitigated disasters.
Meanwhile, at the time, the Russians had looked for all the world like they were ahead of the U.S in terms of space exploration expertise. And then BAM! the U.S had a man on the moon.

Sudden and out of nowhere? And here I was thinking that it was the evolution of 8 years of a 14-year NASA program dedicated solely to that one purpose, from 1961 since it's famous establishment at the instigation of President Kennedy with his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech, and that the landing expedition itself was the 11th craft launched.

You would "hesitate" to say it? The absurdity of these weak, childish conspiracy theorists would be funny if it didn't recommend despair for the future of the human race. Magic will always rule the minds of the masses.

It's as I've always said - if the mind is weak, there's nothing you can do for them.

[Roman Rapper]

Sudden and out of nowhere? And here I was thinking that it was the evolution of 8 years of a 14-year NASA program dedicated solely to that one purpose, from 1961 since it's famous establishment at the instigation of President Kennedy with his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech, and that the landing expedition itself was the 11th craft launched.
.

Yes, but during the course of those eight years NASA was barley able to get a manned shuttle off the ground without it failing or exploding into a ball of flames.
Then BAM! They had a man on the moon.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Yes, but during the course of those eight years NASA was barley able to get a manned shuttle off the ground without it failing or exploding into a ball of flames.

Incorrect.

[IAmTheWarchief]

I personally do think he landed on the moon, because not only would a hoax be expensive, it would be outright stupid. But some of the arguments I saw that are made against his landing are:

1. There are no traces of his footprints on the moon, and (apparently) footprints on the moon can be read a long, long time after they were made.

2. The radio station talking to Neil from earth was supposed to have a delay of 1 second between when they said it and when it was heard by the public, but apparently there was no such delay.

Once again, I don't know if either of the aforementioned arguments are scientifically sound, that's just what i've heard/read/watched.

[Sphere]

The president cant get a blow job in the oval office without the world finding out, but the Feds can fake a multi-billion dollar program, that had tens of thousands of employees, and was closely watched by the Soviets?


When Nixon took over the presidency and found out that his rival JFK & LBJ had faked the landings and where wasting billions, why would he continue with the other Apollo missions?

Wouldn't someone inside NASA write a tell all book and make millions?


It would be easier just to land on the moon than to actually maintain this giant conspiracy.

[Copperknickers II]

I personally do think he landed on the moon, because not only would a hoax be expensive, it would be outright stupid. But some of the arguments I saw that are made against his landing are:

1. There are no traces of his footprints on the moon, and (apparently) footprints on the moon can be read a long, long time after they were made.

Noone has been to the moon recently, and we certainly have enough photos from back then of footprints. That seems pretty far fetched, where did you hear it?

[Simetrical]

If it were a hoax, the Soviets would have called it. Do you think they didn't have the technology to tell whether American radio signals were coming from the Moon or not? It's just triangulation. You can always tell where light of any spectrum is coming from, if you have receivers placed appropriately. That's how GPS works, for instance. The difference between signals coming from the Moon and, say, orbit would be stark. Nearby signals attenuate much more rapidly.

The Apollo mission also made multiple concrete accomplishments. It brought back samples of lunar dust, which scientists were permitted to inspect. It set up a retroreflector that to this day is used to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

Most of the evidence in favor of the landing being a hoax is either based on a complete lack of understanding of the relevant physics, or else it's flat-out wrong (like there being no delay in the radio transmissions: there was).

Edit: I found a website systematically debunking the hoax claims.

[The Friend]

If it were a hoax, the Soviets would have called it. Do you think they didn't have the technology to tell whether American radio signals were coming from the Moon or not? It's just triangulation. You can always tell where light of any spectrum is coming from, if you have receivers placed appropriately. That's how GPS works, for instance. The difference between signals coming from the Moon and, say, orbit would be stark. Nearby signals attenuate much more rapidly.

The Apollo mission also made multiple concrete accomplishments. It brought back samples of lunar dust, which scientists were permitted to inspect. It set up a retroreflector that to this day is used to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

Most of the evidence in favor of the landing being a hoax is either based on a complete lack of understanding of the relevant physics, or else it's flat-out wrong (like there being no delay in the radio transmissions: there was).

Edit: I found a website systematically debunking the hoax claims.

Excellent post.I was about to write one, on almost similar lines.

[Ataegina]

Well about this one word can resume this "propaganda", even ex-nasa cientist's claim the same, this was ALL a huge a multi-billionar fake landing to shut up the russians......

Recently amateurs have recreate a moon landing in new mexico and everything match, wich proves this could be easy faked..... but the question is landing, but landing how? with crew or just machine, well i believe they got samples from the moon but not from the crew wich claims be there, well even today its hard to landing, much less in primitive 60's technology....

So why people still blind with this cheap cold war lies and propaganda???

[Copperknickers II]

'Well about this one word can resume this "propaganda", even ex-nasa cientist's claim the same, this was ALL a huge a multi-billionar fake landing to shut up the russians......

Recently amateurs have recreate a moon landing in new mexico and everything match, wich proves this could be easy faked..... but the question is landing, but landing how? with crew or just machine, well i believe they got samples from the moon but not from the crew wich claims be there, well even today its hard to landing, much less in primitive 60's technology....

So why people still blind with this cheap cold war lies and propaganda???'

I will personally eat my own nose if you can back up a single word of that. it could not have been faked, as you would have seen if you had read the thread.

[Keravnos]

Easy. Truth is simple, can be proven and is understood.

So far as the "fake" on the allegations. I think that most people are just thinking that everything is a conspiracy, so that they are ok in their current situation.

US went there for all humanity. A lot of people just can't seem to get it so they have to throw dirt at anything remotely like that. It is the same kind of people who consider everyone and everything that is different or stands out as a menace to their own mediocrity and have to call it a fake to bring it down to their own standards. Besides, it is more interesting. Has more attraction to it.

+Rep to Simmetrical for posting evidence that prove again that the future of mankind, the Stars, are there. We have been there, and we can't help but going back there.

[Dayman]

Well about this one word can resume this "propaganda", even ex-nasa cientist's claim the same, this was ALL a huge a multi-billionar fake landing to shut up the russians......

Recently amateurs have recreate a moon landing in new mexico and everything match, wich proves this could be easy faked..... but the question is landing, but landing how? with crew or just machine, well i believe they got samples from the moon but not from the crew wich claims be there, well even today its hard to landing, much less in primitive 60's technology....

So why people still blind with this cheap cold war lies and propaganda???

I'm glad you provided proof...

[Simetrical]

Well about this one word can resume this "propaganda", even ex-nasa cientist's claim the same

Which ones?

this was ALL a huge a multi-billionar fake landing to shut up the russians......

And the Russians didn't figure it out why?

Recently amateurs have recreate a moon landing in new mexico and everything match

Do you have a source for this? "Everything" matched? Can I see videos that show the dust falling in a low-gravity vacuum? Did they bring back rocks that every reputable geologist agreed were from the Moon?

well i believe they got samples from the moon but not from the crew wich claims be there

Samples were returned from the first Apollo flight.

well even today its hard to landing, much less in primitive 60's technology....

It's not hard today. It's just that it's too expensive for us to bother, with no Cold War to push us on.

So why people still blind with this cheap cold war lies and propaganda???

Because there's absolutely no way that it could conceivably be a hoax given all the evidence in favor of the fact that it was true.

US went there for all humanity.

Well, all of capitalist humanity, perhaps.

[Ramashan]

You know what I find really funny about the whole debate of NASA's level of technology regarding landing on the moon, is that those who use it to justify their views of the conspiracy tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they admit that we could put people in space for long periods of time and that probes landed on the moon and retrieved the moon rocks.

It really isn't too much of a stretch to put a man into orbit for several days and to send them to the moon for several days. If we can send a heavy probe capable of landing, retrieving rocks and returning we can send a manned capsule there as well.

If we can have a man in a space suit leave the confines of the capsule in orbit, then they can leave a capsule on the moon. The only real question is the heavy lift capabilities to get the man there and the money to design and maintain it. But the Saturn rocket worked. I mean, how many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, saw the thing launch with their own eyes?

As for the the other BS regarding the flag waving in the wind, most of those people seem to forget that there was a thin metal rod design to keep the flag out straight that was moving back and forth because of the pole being twisted into the ground. What did they expect? It to be flat like a piece of card board? If there's no air or minmal gravity, its going to take a shape and keep it.

The only reason why the Russians never made it, is because they had many early successes but late failures, where as the US was the other way around.

[Oglethorpe1983]

Of course he landed on the moon...Just not our moon. Thats what the aliens want you to think...but the truth is out there man!

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Couldn't someone just get a picture from a sat. that shows the flag or something else they left behind? I wish they would; it would shut up these silly conspiracy theorists once and for all.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Couldn't someone just get a picture from a sat. that shows the flag or something else they left behind? I wish they would; it would shut up these silly conspiracy theorists once and for all.

You underestimate the scope of their weak-minded folly. Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory to one of these zealots is like punching a mattress. They would simply say that the image of the flag had been doctored too. If you took them to the Moon themselves and showed them the flag with their own eyes they would say that you were mind-controlling them with a mixture of drugs and hypnotic suggestion.