How does something as important as the moon landing video footage get erased?

Exactly. While it doesn't prove anything, this tape loss event was really, really weird.

Not just the tapes, the blueprints and specs for the crafts, suits etc etc

I've always laughed at this conspiracy, but this is definitely weird.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

• http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html

The truth is stranger than fiction...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg

One disclaimer - if you download this free via "torrent" vs. the HD version, you won't see ALL of the details that the author depicts.. Nonetheless, still an outstanding documentary and unless you're a shill or you have your head permanently lodged in your arse, you'll get the idea..

They were recorded in a custom high-definition format supported by only a very tiny handful of very expensive tape machines.

And so they were converted to standard video, and THAT is what was kept - being the only usable standard.

Some of the original HD tapes then got reused for later missions. Remember, by the time Apollo 11 landed, NASA's budget had already been shrinking fast for several years.

A common standard for HD video didn't come until decades later - long after those HD machines used for Apollo had gone out of service. At least one of those machines has been restored, along with some of the "lost" videos.

I'm not saying I don't believe you but do you have a source? I never knew about this.

Here you go.

(This is more detailed than the news stories I was remembering from a couple years ago.)

The real footage didn't get erased. We have never seen it...

So the only evidence, that men were on the moon is a remastered TV recording of a recording of some kind of original feed somewhere, and lunar rocks.

There is enough evidence for me.

Spacecraft have photographed the landing sites, including objects left behind, and tracks from the rovers.

One imaging satellite recently mapped the topography of the landing site, and it exactly matches what was shown on the video.

The ability to mock up such a set that perfectly would be beyond their capabilities. They had no way to know what it would look like back then.

[deleted]

You are not interested in physical evidence?

http://www.space.com/13346-nasa-guidelines-protect-apollo-moon-landing-sites.html

[deleted]

No-one is claiming that it's too hard to revisit the moon.

When Americans could suddenly see a Soviet machine (Sputnik) flying overhead, it was a Very Big Deal. The same with the first man in space being Soviet. People demanded that Something Be Done. And so the American space program was funded.

Once the Gemini flights were underway and America was demonstrably ahead, that demand disappeared. And with no demand, NASA's funding was slashed and Saturn V production capped, even before Apollo 11.

Apollo coasted through the moon landings with what hardware was already in the pipeline. Just a few months after Apollo 11, Apollo 13 couldn't even get air time on TV. (Until they had a problem.) And that was it for funding.

There's been no real demand to return to the moon. Bush II announced a plan after the Columbia accident, but he didn't follow it up with political support or funding.

As for the rest, engineers can run the numbers, and confirm that there was no reason the launchers and spacecraft couldn't do what was claimed. We KNOW that the Saturn Vs and other Apollo hardware was built. Some of it is still around, and over 50,000 people were part of building it.

Thousands of people prepped the launch site, erected the Saturn Vs, and loaded the spacecraft on top. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the launches. Tracking stations in several other countries tracked the spacecraft to the moon.

Many of the modern-day people providing the modern satellite imagery of the landing sites weren't around back in the Apollo era.

The conspiracy you describe would require hundreds of thousands of people in on it - in NASA, countless private companies, and other organizations around the world - over two or three generations spanning 55 years. With none of them talking even now.

And just the video of the dust flying up around the astronaut's feet and rovers' wheels - NOT acting like it's in air - could not be credibly faked in 2004 let alone 1969.

Flying to the moon was a whole lot easier than faking it.

It's not that it's too hard, it's that they don't have the money, at this very moment NASA is disassembling the last few Saturn V rockets that were used to send people to the moon so that they can try and improve upon the design and use it in their next generation rockets, you've got to remember that Saturn V whilst being the only rocket capable of making it to the moon is also outdated, heck the ones that went there in the first place had 0% computerized or electronic parts only mechanical, it'll be seen in our lifetimes, but not by NASA's budget, which is MUCH smaller than it was in the 60's (once accounted for inflation)

I'm not really interested in the 'physical evidence', but rather the lack of it

Well there's your problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

If it was fake, wouldn't they have re-recorded Neil Armstrongs lines when he said them wrong? It's supposed to be 'one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind'.

They also would have planted the flag further away so that it wouldn't have been knocked over when they launched back to lunar orbit.

And they'd have a lot more footage of Armstrong on the moon. Only later they realized that since he had the camera, almost all the pictures were of Aldrin.

It was "live" doesn't mean it wasn't faked.

Why fake it live?

who says they did? maybe they just played the tapes "live"

You playing semantics and being an asshole i'm out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

low gravity != slomotion, precise halfspeed slomotion at that.

No, they wouldn't. I'm sorry, is NASA known to be a grammar expert?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg

Maybe they did pre-record them and maybe he did say them wrong and maybe they left them in there because it sounds real because that was sorta real. I mean it makes sense to a degree, to have a person who experiences the moon for the very first time to be amazed and excited to not be able to communicate with perfect accuracy.

Going with this sort of argument, I would say that if I was trying to fake something like that I would actually try to go out of my way to make sure things like that are in place because they add to the realism and allow you to sell the story better.

He didn't say them wrong.

You think he was supposed to say 'one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind?' In that case it makes no sense as man and mankind are the same thing. It's supposed to be A Man.

It has always been stated that he did say 'a man', but the 'a' was lost because of their imperfect audio link.

If you listen to the recording, you'll notice the beginning and end of many words are obscured or dropped. Now if he didn't stress the 'a', it could have been dropped because it was lost behind the last syllable of 'for'. If you've ever used a team-speak software of sorts (ts, ventrilo, mumble), you may have played around with the mic settings using Voice Activated Transmission. Here you must set a threshold where the mic's input is reaches a level higher than background noise, and begins transmission. There would also be a cut-off property where transmission is cut when the input falls below the cut-off for a certain duration.

Add degradation and fading of the radio signal to the mix, and the missing 'a' isn't too hard to explain. It has also been "found" in analysis of the original audio tapes.

Wrong. Both make perfect sense although both have SLIGHTLY different meanings. By saying "One small step for man.....", he would be referring to MANKIND, you shallow-minded shill. You're only saying this because you watched propaganda telling you that he didn't say what he was SUPPOSED to say.. That isn't proof of ANYTHING. Your mind isn't even controlled by you. Pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg

(That's just a trailer - I dare you to watch the whole documentary - it will cost you a few bucks - or you can just torrent it - either way, I'm sure you won't touch it - it would DESTROY everything you think you know about the subject)...

So you are claiming that he said 'one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind.'

Nope. It's supposed to be 'one small step for a man (him), one giant leap for mankind (as a whole)'

I'm not critiquing the writers at NASA. If I was the first man on the moon, I'd probably mess up my lines out of nerves/excitement too.

No, I DID NOT claim that. I never said that (to quote YOU "one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind."). You are the only person I have ever heard say that.

That's known as a/the strawman tactic (for those watching at home, the "strawman tactic" is when a dipshit has no evidence or facts to debate with so they change your words, lie, and put words in your mouth, then said dipshit argues against the bullshit they just put in your mouth - seriously a pathetic tactic and a dead giveaway for disinfo/shill artists)....

So, you're a disinfo agent. And you just proved it. I'd like you to quote where I EVER quoted Armstrong.... Can you? No. Because I didn't.

The discrepancy you're referring to is between a single letter - the letter "a" - but let's face it - that has NOTHING to do with my post. NOTHING.

I NEVER commented on WHAT Armstrong said.. I've never seen anyone so far off base.. Seriously..

You said that 'man' meant 'mankind'. Sounds like you're not so sharp yourself mate. You can call me a shill, a straw man, illuminati, whatever you like. It won't change the fact that you're stupid and unable to understand your own posts let alone anyone else's.

Lol.. Yes, the word "man" can = "mankind" - which you said yourself in your own post.. You are without a doubt an idiot. You're also an asshole - jumping to insults and judging a total stranger without evidence (well, your own idiotic misunderstanding does not = "evidence"). Seriously - you are so fucking stupid you don't even realize we agree on the (greater) subject - you're just a shallow, insecure moron, that's all. Please - PLEASE stop debating this. You're doing it wrong. Also, the pizza you're supposed to be delivering is getting cold..

A couple of things: 1) your history proves that you are an aggressive idiot: Insulting people, crying shill and using the caps lock as cruise control for cool. 2) I'm an English teacher. I doubt that you have a job yet. 3) Read your posts again properly. You picked an argument, started the name calling and then lost said argument. Deal with it. 4) Your comment history reads like a paranoid glp thread. If your symptoms get worse please visit a doctor.

Lol, ahh, here comes the ad-hominem.. I play on an equal playing field. Sorry if that bothers you.. Job, yet? I have two degrees and a very comfortable job at a Fortune 50 company 2500 miles away from where I'm from (I was recruited by a national headhunter and literally paid a bonus equal to more than you make in two years to come out here - not to mention the cost of the full house packing, purchase and moving). Finally, it looks like you realized that you fucked up.. You teach "English" and you don't know how to spell "retarded"!? You're an English teacher and you're here on Reddit misquoting Armstrong!? Then you attack me. Then you get your ass handed to you. Holy shit. You must suck as an "English Teacher". Yet, here you are insulting and insulting. Never actually addressing your mistakes or fuck ups.. Just here insulting and getting your ass handed to you.. Stop while you're ahead dipshit. I'll bet you teach English at the same school you went to as a dipshit idiot child. I'll bet you also teach wrestling... In the same city you failed at growing up in. Like they say - the turd doesn't roll far from the cow's ass. Seriously - I hope your mom isn't alive to see what a sack of shit you turned out to be... Oh, and my "history"? Ha, my "history" is nothing but comments attacking SHILLS like you, Mr. Shilly Wonka & the Bullshit Factory.

Lol! Now I know you're lying ;) you gave your game away.

Wait, wait, wait.. Did you REALLY just say "I know you are but what am I"? Oh dear.. You must have had a really tough life growing up.. I'll bet you were bullied in school (all of it). Ugly, fat, acne.. Dude, I'm not judging you but by being the English teacher at that school and punishing the "cool kids" is no way to get even. You will never get "even" - kids are assholes - let it go.. Seriously - what you're doing now is a "tell". You're "telling" everyone everything about yourself. Please stop.. You're literally painting the picture of being questionable (psychologically) and I don't think the parents of the poor kids you "teach" would like that..

For your reference. You said man = mankind. Read it and weep lollylops.

Ummm, yes - I stated that outright.. I didn't deny it so I'm not sure what your point is. I only said both make sense. Perhaps I should have added the word "colloquially". Nah, you still wouldn't get it.. Quick - go google "colloquially".

"The wise man speaks because he has something to say, the fool, because he has to say something".

'No. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT' your post above. I'm assuming that you're either young, stoned or just plain retarded. Your posts give off an obnoxious air, yet you are flat out contradicting yourself now. Read your replies carefully and you will see how you have twisted yourself up. You then have the cheek to patronise and attempt to school others. You, sir, just went full potato.

Your quote: 'one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind.' My reply: "NO I NEVER SAID THAT". Show me where I said that. Please! You want a screenshot, you fucking moron?

Don't try to fix your bullshit now. If anyone is "retarted" it's you. BTW, the proper spelling is "retarded". You fucking retard... Read your prior posts you idiot. READ THEM. Jesus fucking christ you're a genuinely certifiable IDIOT. Nice way to change the subject though.. Just face it - you're too fucking stupid to understand what others are saying so you just make up your own shit. Oh, and here we are - off the subject.. Why? Because you're a fucking sally still sucking your mom's teets and don't have a fucking clue other than what movies have taught you. It's unfortunate that you're too fucking stupid to understand me - it really is.. But that's not my problem. It's yours. Stop dragging your shit into my shit, you fucking vegetable.

Internet rule 7: when losing an argument, attack spelling and grammar. It will make you look clever. Why do you put random words in caps? Are you shouting them? Fact of the matter is this, you don't think that Neil made a mistake with his lines, but with your own logic we've proven that he must have.

That's a fair question. In all honesty (google the definition of honesty), I'm sure there are ways to bold or italic on reddit - I, quite frankly, just don't care... The caps are for emphasis - which I would really expect an English teacher to know.. But then, you could bust me for starting sentences with conjunctions.. I'm still amazed a teacher would use the taboo word "retarted" (retarded).. Also funny - it was your misquote that started all this.. Just got a screenshot of it.. Funny.. Your quote "One small step for MANKIND, one giant leap for MANKIND".. See, there I used caps to emphasize the word MANKIND.. Because, let's face it - that's a bullshit quote that I never said. Neil never said. The only one who said it is you. Oh, could you do the rest of us a favor and teach your class (the 10 year olds) that the word "cause" does not mean "because". Nor does "cos" or "cuz".

Facepalms. There is no cure for people like yourself is there. You have insulted me flat out and wished my mother dead. You side track the argument and cry that others are doing the same. If you had earned one degree, let alone 2 (lol), you would have some idea about argumentative fallacies. You clearly don't and would rather argue about a misspelled word (lol). It's 9am and I have better to do than argue with a retarded American potato.

Wait, you're stealing my argument AGAIN. Also, your second sentence should end with a "?". Yeah, I'm busting your grammar because you bragged about being an "English Teacher".. Are you a Chinese "English Teacher" in China? Next, it was YOU who sidetracked to this (after you found out about your own fuckup) - you still haven't replied to me calling out your BULLSHIT quote. Fourth, it was ME who raised your strawman and ad-hominem debate "fallacies".. You clearly lost this debate. Seriously - stop stealing my debate points. Man that is so fucking pathetic.. As for your mom - yeah, misquote me again dipshit shill. I said I hoped she wasn't alive to see what an idiotic fuck you turned out to be.. I'm sure she loves you but she should seriously be slapped in her fucking stupid face and your asshole loser daddy should be punched in the belly. Yep, you can quote me on that. Let me know if you need help with that.

Thought we were talking about the moon but hey, prove a shill wrong and they get pissy.. I'm happy to misdirect you for a while.. That's why I'm here and no, I don't give a flying camel (your mom) fuck about my "karma"..

Oh dear.. I just read some of YOUR bullshit.. Holy fuck - I was kidding but as it turns out - you are NOT an "English" teacher. You're an "ESL" teacher... Also, you ARE in China - as I predicted! Fuck you asshole - don't you EVER call yourself an "English" teacher again. You're a fucking moron, hiding from a past. Fucking "ESL" in Beijing - and you're insulting me!? This explains your multiple grammatical mistakes and misquotes. Stay there, you uneducated sack of shit. Let me guess - you're originally from California? Or Mississippi? Those are the two worst education states in the nation.. Must be..

Oh, really!? "Facepalms"!? REALLY!? You're going there!? Pop culture phrases to prove your point!? You not only suck at your profession but you're a bandwagoner - you don't have an original idea in that shallow, bullshit head of yours.. Yeah, I've got more lined up you pathetic, sick liar.

I am from England ( the country that invented your language ;) ) I am fully qualified and will not sit here and justify my job to you. I have travelled the world ( 30 countries and counting ). My last job in Britain was a film writer and assistant director so I know a little bit about dialogue and how to create hoaxes. You seem like one angry, assumptive individual. At least your searches have proved that I'm not a straw man, I'm not a shill, I'm not American, I know what I'm talking about and you've been wrong about nearly everything that you have typed in this thread. Keep them coming, I'll prove your stupidity at every opportunity.

The only thing you've proven is that you're a shallow, pained little man. You claim to be a master of the English language yet in practice, you display that knowledge quite poorly. Second, England did NOT "invent" the English language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language (I can't believe you just said that). Seriously - I'd prove your stupidity but you're doing a well enough job at that yourself.

Third, it was your inability to understand the "English language" that got you into this mess... Namely your inability to understand what I said (when I called out your misquote). Fourth, nice to hear you left Britain - it helped raise their national IQ average. Fifth - yes, you ARE a straw man - you have proven that by continuously putting words in my mouth and then arguing them (that's the very definition). Sixth - I don't really see that there is anything for me to be "wrong" about here - I mean you were obviously wrong from the get-go. The only thing I did was call you out on it. That, as a reminder, is what got you into this mess. You couldn't handle being wrong so you went on your little dirty-diaper tantrum of name calling and yes - I will gladly reciprocate. Finally, being a gay porn actor does NOT make you a "film writer" or "assistant director".

You call me "assumptive" then you sit back and judge me over and over and over. So typical. This is another "tell". You may not realize it but when you say things like that you're just admitting your own insecurities to the world. Seriously - you're like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar - you lie and deny in the face of your own guilt. Pathetic. Keep running and crying little man..

"I am fully qualified and will not sit here and justify my job to you. Now, excuse me while I sit here and justify my job to you.....". Dude, you are seriously a trip! Seriously, my sides are hurting from laughter. Thank you for that!

Welp, my time is up on this throw-away... It has been seriously fun - thank you for that!

they got the landing scene EXACTLY right.. that's some feat for never having been there.

That's No Moon

[deleted]

[deleted]

Also, NASA is founded by Nazis

From your own link:

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II

So that's scientists who happened to live in Nazi Germany, not "Nazis".

Also:

Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism".

(Although that rule was apparently bent fairly liberally.)

Regardless, they didn't "found NASA". That didn't happen until 1958. Operation Paperclip was in 1945, 13 years prior.

The downvote brigade is up in arms about this post. Wow.

From my own research it is my understanding that they did go to the moon, however everything the public ever saw was staged. The real moon missions were covered up.

Again, merely my understanding.

Possible. I believe this strongly is the case with the latest Mars missions...

Have you heard the one about the mars sky being blue but someone at NASA screwed up the filter so rather than being embarrassed they simply left it that way?

bingo

So the only evidence, that men were on the moon is a remastered TV recording of a recording of some kind of original feed somewhere, and lunar rocks.

Incorrect, there are mirrors and debris on the Lunar surface which will attest otherwise.

For the lazy.

How would you explain the retroreflectors that were placed on the moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Show me proof a human put them there and not a rover/robot or even shot into the surface by an orbiting craft?

Show me proof a robot placed them there.

i feel safe to assume a robot or orbital craft placed it there since a man did not.

Ass u me ...

sorry bro i don't go that way

It may be easier to see the argument in logical form.

A has quality B.

Quality B allows for deployment types X, Y, and Z.

His conclusion is that A could have been deployed in scenarios X, Y, or Z.

Your conclusion is that since we were told method Z was used, method X and Y are not feasible.

You are being illogical, he is not.

No I'm literally asking for proof a robot planted mirrors on the moon. Pretty easy.

We would have trouble proving that method Z was used using only words, since X and Y are equally feasible.

A rational thinker would not draw a conclusion from this, something you desperately attempt to do via an appeal to authority.

Again prove to me robots placed mirrors on moon in apparent unmanned missions.

I have no interest in proving something I did not assert.

You seem to have no interest in attempting discussion.

You are telling me with no proof backing you, that robots placed mirrors on the moon, based on the musings of a talk show host who makes tons of money off of retards who listen to him. Good day sir.

:c

i know i will lose karma points for this. the "we didn't go to the moon" conspiracy theory has got to be the most ridiculous topic discussed on this forum. we went there. way too many people involved to make that happen for it to have been faked. the dicotomy here is just amazing. yes i believe in ufo's and aliens from another planet, no we never landed on the moon. how do you hold both thoughts in your head?

to be fair, theres more evidence that they did land on the moon than not so YOU needs to disprove that, not the other way around.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

that makes no sense. So in your post you start off by saying that no one has been to the moon, now you say they are real, but NASA needs to prove it to us by either finding these recordings, or doing it again?

So did they or didn't they go to the moon? are you just upset they lost the footage or are you claiming the lost footage is the sign of a larger conspiracy about the moon landing never happening.

Ummm what about all the equipment that they left on the moon which can be seen with satellite?

If your whole premise is that they lost the original footage and that footage is the only proof, well its weak since there are other forms of proof that exist.

[deleted]

so then why wouldn't the russians who had their own telescopes or the chinese with theirs to prove it didn't happen. It would be pretty easy for another country to prove it was a hoax? or was the soviet union part of the plot?

I'm not sure why the rest of the world would allow a hoax when they could easily disprove it and would have reason to. (why the soviets wouldn't show the world it was a hoax?)

also the moon landing sites can be seen with a home based telescope

Why should we return to the moon? There's arguably no real profit in doing so. We can build a permanent colony there, but why would we? Who's going to pay for it?

so you're claiming there's zero evidence that backs up that they landed on the moon?

http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof

Also, here are some 3rd party sources to verify moon landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Since you're claiming we didn't go to the moon but faked it, what would be the motivation for the soviets to go along with our fake? They had the ability to monitor the missions from their command centers, and would have quickly found out if it was a fake. Why would they stand by and watch us take the glory rather than show the fake to the world?

I think that no American would have believed anything coming out of Russia back then. They would have seen it as propaganda since anti Russian and anti-communist rhetoric was very high. There was a "Red Scare."

Ironically, the US was far more socialist at that time then it is today but that's another issue.

Still, that would not stop the russians from trying. There is no way they could have faked the landings from the Soviets. They had too much money, technology and were not subject to American laws, and wanted nothing more than to embarrass the US. They would have the means, money, and motivation to expose a fraud on such a level. Yet they remained completely silent and agreed. I would think that your greatest rival concedes defeat in the space race, there is no way they would have done it for a fraud that they knew was a fraud.

So where are all the former soviet space program workers coming out and telling us it was fake? they would be everywhere. Although the american population might not believe it, the global population might, and having america have to prove it would have been devastating.

Well that's just it - they wouldn't have wasted their money trying because they knew that the only thing Americans knew about the USSR was what the newspapers, television and movies told them. They simply didn't bother trying.

The USSR may have even used the manned moon landings (whether true or not) to their advantage in that it accelerated their own industrial growth as a way of competition.

I'm not saying there were no moon landings but I am saying that there is an air of doubt.

Starting with Sputnik - the government could have hid that from the American people and any news of it could have been brushed off as preposterous. Instead it was embraced and it triggered a space race which had a by-product of industrial and technological innovation along with an economical boom.

Was there a moon program? Of course. Was there a MANNED moon program - maybe not.

I guess I'm saying there is more than enough evidence all around the prove human exploration of the moon.

If your only proof is lost tapes then I'm not impressed.

Also the idea that the USSR knew we faked it but didn't do anything about it, oh the world stage or anywhere, nor any independent scientist from all over the world, seems far fetched.

Explain why any other country wouldn't with their current missions with satellites not call us out, I'm sure there would be tons of countries that would love to humiliate us for this.

Current dominant theory (based on evidence and logic) is that we DID land there BUT the footage we watched was fake... That shouldn't be hard to believe - in the "Space Race", during the Cold War (against our number 1 enemy), do you really think we would broadcast and publish our video and photos of the event? Think about it. No, seriously, THINK ABOUT IT.

Here's your theory: "Hey USSR and rest of world, here's our TOP SECRET LIVE video footage of the thing you wanted to see and do and the thing you spent a few $billion on but couldn't do. We'll save you the time and money. Watch our footage and photos for FREE... We are going to broadcast it LIVE in Times Square for you to see. Also, we'll send it to you. Here, have a look".... Great example of logic fail.

Great documentary on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg (That's just a trailer - I dare you to watch the whole documentary - it will cost you a few bucks - or you can just torrent it - either way, I'm sure you won't touch it.)

Meh, if you're saying that there might have been additional top secret aspects to moon missions, I'm not doubting that could be true. Although the moon has little strategic value.

We know that NOW. Did we know that before we landed there? If you were in charge of "national security" or "defense" or "fill in government bullshit excuses here", would you risk it? If you were competing against an enemy of the state (the largest and last real one we had) and spending BILLIONS of dollars on it, would you just broadcast your findings immediately, in REAL TIME!?

Think about it... This explains BOTH sides.. That's the problem - people don't see in shades of gray any more.. It's always totally one side or totally the other..

Anyway, fair question. I gave you an ^ for it..

Wait, what question are you attributing to me?

I'm not "attributing" anything to you. Why are you implying that I am?

How about this - how about you watch the documentary? If you're sincerely interested in this, you will appreciate it. Seriously - even if you disagree with it, you should see examples of the proof of the other side (well, it's actually a third side - most people seem to fall on the "we did it" or the "it was faked" side - the "side" I'm referring to is neither of those). Also, I do NOT agree with everything JW says/implies in the documentary. If you watch it, you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you be succinct and direct?

Sorry arguing with multiple people on same thread getting confused.

You got a source for the Dutch vs. Moon Rock incident?

Surely you at least admit that a space shuttle did in fact get loaded up with precisely the right amount of fuel it would take to get to the moon and back, launch out of our Earth's atmosphere, and not return back to earth until splash down in the Pacific Ocean 8 days, 3 hours, and 11 minutes later correct? It would have been more difficult to hoax this than it would have been to just send the men to the moon. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/apollo11/

I don't believe that it was a hoax but your statement that it would've been harder to hoax is incorrect. It would have been way cheaper, very easy to shoot and broadcast and a lot safer to let the shuttle orbit earth until the fuel ran low.

And the fact that it was a lot harder than hoaxing makes the triumph even greater.

If you are going to send a crew into space for 8 days why wouldn't you just send them to the moon? It certainly would have been harder to hoax because you'd need to rely on every single person connected to it never saying a word to anybody. These things tend to have a way of being leaked. Bill Clinton couldn't even get a blowjob from an intern without the entire world finding out and that was an act between 2 people. Faking the moon landing would have involved scientists, astronauts, engineers, presumably the president, all of their families would have to be kept in the dark. A film crew used to film the "staged footage." It's just too much to expect this to not come out.

If you are going to send a crew into space for 8 days why wouldn't you just send them to the moon?

wow... do some research guy!

I have done research. Enough to know that in July of 1969 we did, in fact, send a crew to the moon. The point I was making was that if we are going to spend the money on fuel and launch a space craft into orbit for 8 days you are already risking the lives of the crew and dealing with the expense of an extended mission. Rather than risk the reputation of the entire country by hoaxing a moon landing at that point it would be smarter to attempt the actual moon landing. (Which they did successfully). My idea of research is reading history and listening to lectures from astrophysicists explaining how this happened. I have a feeling you watched "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and called it a day.

sending a crew to the moon != arrived and landed on the moon

the Apollo rockets were huge, they carried something into orbit, i have no doubts about that. i'm not going to bother listing my research methodology here, i guess we all do whatever we feel is needed, subject to the time and/or interest we have in it. i'm not hugely into the moon thing, to me its a side show to the real conspiracy.

the amount i did gave me huge doubts...

Too much Neil Degrasse Tyson! You're literally just parroting his arguments. There are many reasons why you would leave it in orbit. Such as the distance they would have to travel away from the earth, the fear of the van Allen belts, the thought of them crashing into the moon being very bad for pr. there are so many obstacles to overcome.

I certainly am using him as a reference for some of the information that I am giving. Neil didn't really make an argument. He stated the fact of the amount of fuel that was used. (To my knowledge that is the part of his "argument" that I am "parroting"). However, if I am going to take information from somebody who would know, he is a pretty solid source. The fear of the Van Allen Belt was real which is why the astronauts' craft was guarded from radiaton as best as we knew how. Radiation is dangerous because of quantity + exposure time. The craft's best defense was to be shielded and to pass through the belt as quickly as possible (which it did). Humans have a history of doing dangerous things in the name of discovery. Explorers used to sail around the world before they were even entirely sure that they wouldn't eventually sail off the edge of a potentially flat earth. Don't underestimate human ingenuity. All the information you would need to find is available if you are willing to read it/listen to it without immediately dismissing it as your mind is already made up.

Read my posts again. I do think that man made it to the moon. My argument is that it is a lot easier to hoax it than to do it for real. Which is what makes the triumph all that much better.

It is a lot easier to hoax the moon landing in the same way that it was a lot easier to film the movie Jurassic Park rather than actually withdraw dino DNA from mosquitos preserved in tree sap and genetically revive an entire species of extinct animal. Yes, you would avoid some of the dangers, but the true difficulty would come in keeping the public from finding out that it was all just smoke and mirrors.

Somehow I don't think you want to be proven wrong. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to show that we went to the moon. Pictures can be taken from here on earth that show the moon landing site. You can say those were faked, but what about the massive rockets that were launched? What about the thousands of people that watched these rockets take off? You can calculated the amount of fuel used to get from here to the moon, and the amount of time it would take, and that lines up perfectly with what we're told. On top of that, you have hundreds if not thousands of people who worked on this project, and not one of them has peeped about it being fake?

We have astronauts that are living in a space station floating above the earth. We have robots that have been to several of the planets. We have thousands of satellites floating above our planet and one that's leaving our solar system. We certainly have demonstrated that the technology exists to send a man to the moon, and there is a lot of very convicing evidence to show a location on the moon where people landed. You can believe what you want, but from a logical and legistical perspective, it's hard to deny that the moon landing took place.

I don't think anyone starts out thinking the landings were faked. Probably quite the opposite. Also, he sounds like he is looking at more sides of this than you are.

How so exactly? He seems to be fixated on two or three ideas that could most definately have reasonable explanations while there are many more aspects of the story that he seems to be ignoring.

Well I guess this is were he should step in. I probably shouldn't have spoke for him in the first place... I on the other hand think there are enough peculiarities about to warrant skepticism of the official story. In addition to what OP stated there is also the radiation belt, the fact that we still haven't been back despite it being nearly fifty years, the extremely high success rate of the missions, considering the technology of the time, and the government and nasa also had great pressure to be successful.

All that being said, I spent most of my childhood reading every book on space that I could find. To say that I was fascinated with being an astronaut would be an understatement indeed. The last thing I ever wanted was to question the moon landings but as evidence presents itself to the contrary,I would be doing myself a disservice to not at least consider it.

[deleted]

Sorry, but that is an incorrect assumption, one that I only hear when someone is defending the legitimacy of the moon landings. The moon is the first stepping stone out of this world and NASA wants a base there. There is a possibility to harvest helium 3, which can be used in power generators and nuclear fission, a possible means of craft propulsion. It may also be used to construct the actual crafts themselves. Also, The gravity is much weaker allowing for less fuel requirements, one of the biggest setbacks currently facing rocket designers. There are more reasons but think of it like early ship building and seafaring. Had to get to the island across the pond before you ever had a chance of making it to another continent.

Except we don't use Helium-3 now as a fuel as there are no fusion power plants that can use it as a fuel. It's suggested for second generation plants that are still in early development and that's it. And mining He-3 on the moon is terribly inefficient as you would need to grind through massive amounts of regolith to get usable amounts (estimated 150 million tonnes of regolith for 1 ton of He-3).

Should we have a base on the moon? Probably, but not yet. There's no need. We don't have the infrastructure to mine he-3 and to ship it back to earth and effectively use it to generate power.

Dude, original Beatles recordings were lost too, so what, Beatles has never existed? Moon conspiracy is just plain retarded, it was confirmed even by Soviet scientists that Americans were on the Moon surface. There are retroflectors on Moon surface which can be used even today.

What about all the people still alive that saw the original footage before it was lost in 2006?

[deleted]

I watched it broadcast live, hours and hours of it as a kid of 4, 5 and 6 years of age.

I remember being somewhat bored of it at the time even though I was totally captivated by the idea of outer space exploration. So, ok, those broadcasts were faked, hmm, well I am not sure why'd they go to that trouble especially considering this was still the relatively early days of television live event broadcasting and the logistics involved. Also, there's physical evidence of the moon landings: Moon-based lasers could uncover exotic physics

Meanwhile back on the ranch, truly huge frauds of politically fueled "science" devised to drive us to one world government continue to gain traction.

The moon landing? Who cares, even if (which I doubt) it was to have been a big lie; there's quite a freakin' huge pile of lies already spread at our feet and many of those lies are far more relevant to our current situation.

The biggest myth that NASA has perpetuated on us is that space exploration is prohibitively expensive and the rightful province of governments, not individuals. That is exactly the message we are supposed to have learned from the space program.

So, ok, those broadcasts were faked, hmm, well I am not sure why'd t...

The broadcasts weren't faked. What OP is describing and linking to (and probably misunderstanding) says that NASA's video link to earth was unable to interface with the TV Network's equipment, so they had to record the live footage off of monitors instead of just passing along the same exact feed.

Here's a professional diagram depicting a (possible) setup: http://imgur.com/sdZYf4V

No faking involved.

I remember at the time there was a required delay and this was explained by Walter Cronkite, so technically, it wasn't "live" but it was being broadcast as it was received.

LOL that diagram

Haha. Maybe greatest thing I've seen on reddit.

That's Congress doing that - backed by large campaign donations from military contractors who gain from it being expensive - not NASA.

NASA has been doing its best to support the commercial resupply and commercial crew launch programs.

I'll agree, but NASA is a government agency, conceivably it still has some true believers working within it.

I am sure the IRS has its share of people truly passionate about accurate accounting, the military its share of people who truly love their country and the police force has some who still believe in the supremacy of the Bill of Rights...but yet, the beat goes on.

I'll have to wait til I get home from work. Got 20 minutes left.

I recently watched Dark Mission (3 hours) by UFOTVstudios on youtube. Excellent documentary very scientific and I love the two main hosts. Especially the science "host". They present a very good case but I wasn't entirely convinced, only that it was plausible.

I then watched the NASA 6 part series When We Left Earth (6 hours). In bluray it looks amazing and covers the entire space program from its inception of unmanned rocket tests until the first space station, the shuttle and the repair of the Hubble telescope/satellite.

I recommend watching these in the same order.

After watching both I felt that NASA has purposely skipped over a couple of controversial points presented in the Dark Mission documentary. With that I don't mean ignored I just mean that in the footage they were showing or the time frame it was set up had a potential inconsistency. While it provided a ton of footage I did felt it also left a few holes that allow some of the Dark Mission points to plug in.

So I feel a bit more informed but not enough to be convinced of anything. I'd have to watch the NASA episodes regarding to the moon landings again but with a very critical eye in order to spot some things I felt were a bit wierd in my first viewing in order to determine if those can actually be valid or if I was simply entertaining the idea.

BBC erased all of their live footage too.

They erased and almost erased a lot. About ten down on the list is an entry confirming your claim but also listing the only reason I know anything about the BBC and tape erasure, Terry Gilliam's claim that he bought all the Monty Python master tapes from the BBC when they were planning to erase them.

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/

These pages have a lot of interesting information, and several links at the bottom. Try to judge them by their content, and not their formatting on your browser...

Also are talking about all moon missions or just Apollo 11?

I believe the moon is a huge space station designed to look like a moon. Thats just me though.

Valid points sir. Unfortunately im at work and can't read the articles but im going to do it when I get home

Erased a ton of evidence and footage?

Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith and the founding of Mormonism.

Does anyone remember Armstrong's interview in which he told them there was a secret for the American people if we could peel back truth's protective layers? I have wondered what he was talking about for a while now. Please tell us Neil...we will love you.

He's dead.... and has been for almost a year.

I know...but maybe he left a recording.

While we did visit the moon, the footage was all fake. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. Not saying we didn't land on the moon - just stating the fact that 99% of the film and photos you have seen were filmed by Stanley Kubrick here, on planet Earth. Think it's crazy? Why in the hell would we broadcast our footage - during the space race - fought against our "enemy" of that time? Yeah, we were both trying to get there and we both spent $*illions on it, to see what was there but HEY, USSR, here's all the footage of it! For Free! Seriously people - think about it! Why would we broadcast our intel to the world!? This was an early (but not the first) example of MSM broadcasting pre-staged bullshit to the American people (while the world watched) - and it WORKED.

For the non-shills, there are some great documentaries on this - notably "Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick; Part One: Kubrick and Apollo"...

In short, NASA realizes that today's inquiring mind isn't as simple and easily fooled as the American (and global) mind of the 60's, 70's and 80's... Also, modern technology has proven the footage and photos to be staged (watch the documentary for more info on that).

AGAIN, not saying we didn't go to the moon or land there - just saying that the footage was fake.. Quite frankly, I would have done the same.

[deleted]

Are you kidding? How did he "fake" it in the movie 2010?

See, the problem is you're 1, and idiot and 2, closed-minded. Kubrick filmed the moon landing - no doubt. That is - the LIVE footage. That is not to say that 100% of ALL footage EVER is fake.. Do you realize that there is an in-between!? Nope, you don't. For morons like you, it has to be ALL one way or ALL the other.. JBFC.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySnL38JpOg (it's only the trailer, but if you're HONESTLY curious, you can cough up the $$ for the whole film, or you can easily just download it free/illegally via torrent). Don't talk to me again until you have watched the entire docu.

Perhaps it's a situation similar to the CIA "losing/erasing" their torture videos. Not proof that the videotaped events didn't happen but just that those not of the inside circles of the power-elite will never have access to what they reveal. "Oops!- they've been degaussed. Our bad."

Is it just me or do we have higher quality photos of Mars than the Moon?

Yeah, but we've sent a nuclear powered rover with full HD cameras to Mars, something we haven't done for the Moon. We already know a lot about the Moon, and there's comparatively little to gain.

So it doesn't make sense to you that in on our path of sending rovers to the moon the logical progression would have been to first test these by sending them to the moon. And don't give me that "comparatively little gain" crap because nations are still sending unmanned probes to the moon (India, China and Japan for instance). In fact nations even want to send manned missions to the moon. China has announced their intention, of course first they have to catch up to that super-advanced 1969 technology.

So it doesn't make sense to you that in on our path of sending rovers to Mars^? the logical progression would have been to first test these by sending them to the moon.

No that doesn't make sense. Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? We can test most of it on earth, simulate the rest, fix the problems here, and launch it only once for a tiny fraction of the cost. It worked didn't it? The Moon and Mars aren't really that much more comparable than the Earth and Mars anyway. Completely different environments.

And don't give me that "comparatively little gain" crap because nations are still sending unmanned probes to the moon (India, China and Japan for instance). In fact nations even want to send manned missions to the moon. China has announced their intention,

Okay, maybe "comparatively little gain" was a poor choice of words, but the point is that we're not as interested in the Moon anymore and would rather focus on Mars. If other people want to go to the Moon, whether for scientific knowledge about it or to work their way up to bigger and better space programs, that's fine.

of course first they have to catch up to that super-advanced 1969 technology.

Is it the technology, or is it the expertise?

Okay, maybe "comparatively little gain" was a poor choice of words, but the point is that we're not as interested in the Moon anymore and would rather focus on Mars. If other people want to go to the Moon, whether for scientific knowledge about it or to work their way up to bigger and better space programs, that's fine.

You are missing the point that people still to this day are sending unmanned probes to the moon, and yet for some reason the footage of Mars is better than the moon. If you can see something possibly a little askew with this state of affairs...

They're new to faking moon landings. To us it's old hat.

No, there's no way we went to the moon.

The first mammals to orbit the moon were human. That right there should set off alarm bells for any competent engineer.

How did the spacesuits protect against any micro-meteorites that are constantly bombarding the moon? Moreover, any slight puncture of the space suit would almost immediately kill any astronaut - yet no one who was "walking on the moon" showed any real concern.

There is no evidence of hypergolic thrust in the Apollo 17 liftoff video. Futher, the Apollo 17 liftoff video shows the emittance of flame. How can flame exist in an oxygen free environment?

The LM was never tested under landing conditions - and under basic test conditions, no astronaut could ever land the LM.

Why didn't the CSM's computer get fried when it went through the highly magnetic Van Allen belts?

on and on and on...

Check out Apollo Reality for a good overall synopsis of how NASA faked the whole thing.

Too many anomalies for me to believe we went there, we really didn't need to, it was a propaganda war and the safest and cheapest way to "win" was to fake it. The rockets took off alight but I believe they carried military payloads destined for high earth orbit... the landings were a cover and excuse for the budget.

If it was a propaganda war why didn't the Russians say anything about the lie?

what makes you so sure the russian's would know it was a lie?

If these "tells" are so obvious then they would have questioned it. They didn't, the tells are idiotic, and we landed on the moon. Anyone who actually thinks the USA didn't after a thorough analysis is being intellectually dishonest.

I don't know who you are, but I will hunt you down, and I will kill you. I wonder if I can still edit this post. It appears I can. So. Ya'll do realize I was quoting a line from "Taken", right? Unless the whole thing saying I was banned is a hoax (pun intended), then the mods here are just a bunch of cowardly ass pussywillows. I mean, come the fuck on. Ah there we are. Man, I though I'd get more downvotes then this.

I tried the taken thing once... Didn't go over too well. I'd ix-nay on the aken-tay.

I don't believe that it was a hoax but your statement that it would've been harder to hoax is incorrect. It would have been way cheaper, very easy to shoot and broadcast and a lot safer to let the shuttle orbit earth until the fuel ran low.

And the fact that it was a lot harder than hoaxing makes the triumph even greater.

So you are claiming that he said 'one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind.'

Nope. It's supposed to be 'one small step for a man (him), one giant leap for mankind (as a whole)'

I'm not critiquing the writers at NASA. If I was the first man on the moon, I'd probably mess up my lines out of nerves/excitement too.

For your reference. You said man = mankind. Read it and weep lollylops.