In a survey, which reveals "deeply worrying" levels of ignorance about the Apollo space programme, which sent three men to the moon forty years ago this month, 11 out of 1009 people surveyed thought Buzz Lightyear was the first person to step onto the moon.

 

A further 8 people thought it was Louis Armstrong, with less than three-quarters correctly answering that it was Neil Armstrong.

 

The survey, undertaken on behalf of E&T magazine, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, also revealed that over a quarter of all people do not believe the astronauts actually landed on the moon.

 

This level of scepticism is far higher than a decade ago, when The Gallup polling organisation, found just 6 per cent of Americans did not think the landings were genuine.

 

Conspiracy theories about the Apollo 11 moon landings have increased in recent years, following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September, which themselves sparked wild accusations that they were a staged event.

 

Dickon Ross, the editor in chief of E&T, said: "The Apollo moon landing is mankind's most outstanding engineering event so it's deeply worrying that such a large number of people should think the first moon walk never happened and that the public's belief in the legitimacy of science and technology seems to be declining over time."

 

On July 16 1969, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin blasted off from the Kennedy Space Centre, embarking – in the words of the President Kennedy – "the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked". Four days later Aldrin and Armstrong landed on the moon.

 

Aldrin, in an interview with E&T, disagreed with the 44 per cent of the survey who believed that, at the equivalent of $1 trillion, the moon landings were not worth the money. He said: "All sorts of people from engineers to airline pilots who report back on what it was that got them into aerospace and science, developing engineering and math, say it was the Apollo programme that inspired them."

 

Source: Daily Telegraph

The ignorance of some people beggers belief.

i agree, too many people accept too much bollox rather then to correctly check the facts.

 

as you know, the moon landing hoax claims are one of my biggest ever bug-bares. hence the pinned thread dedicated to discounting the conspiracy theories.

 

the evidence that they were genuine is overwhelming.

 

 

as you know, the moon landing hoax claims are one of my biggest ever bug-bares. hence the pinned thread dedicated to discounting the conspiracy theories.

 

the evidence that they were genuine is overwhelming.

 

At one point I actually did believe the conspiracy theory regarding the moon landings.... The film, Capricorn One (about a faked landing on Mars..), actually made some people high up in NASA quite nervous I heard..... :lol: Which seemed to lend credence to the theory....

 

I dont believe it at all now though tbh.... The theory got pretty comprehensively debunked.... Capricorn One is just a pretty clever, well done, but still fairly plausible, piece of Sci Fi.... I mean, if you WERE going to fake a space mission, then that's how you'd likely do it.....

I'm still convinced man never landed on the moon and no-one will change my opinion. Van Allen Belt. No man could pass through it and live.

Edited July 8, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

I'm still convinced man never landed on the moon and no-one will change my opinion. Van Allen Belt. No man could pass through it and live.

 

then you are an idiot as man regularly pass through the van allen belts every time we go into space. it takes a matter of seconds to pass through them , what you are saying in effect is that man has never got into space! :lol:

 

just do a little research and you will see that you are WRONG.

this effectively answers all your questions.

 

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

 

all the questions posed by doubters are scientifically answered.

I remember a chain of fashion shops in the late 60's / early 70's called Van Allen! My sister and I never came to any harm buying our fashionables in there!

 

Norma

I remember a chain of fashion shops in the late 60's / early 70's called Van Allen! My sister and I never came to any harm buying our fashionables in there!

 

Norma

Was that because the material was so thick and long it protected you from gamma rays :D

This is interesting. From one of the Hoax sites. Who can explain a Coke can being seen then?

 

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

 

Australian Viewers See Something

That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake

 

In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.

 

The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.

 

Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the raw footage.'

Edited July 15, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

This about the Van Allen Belt. We didn't go to the Moon folks!

 

 

Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?

 

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

 

So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)

 

'At sea level, the Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases - primarily of nitrogen (78% by volume), oxygen (21%), water vapour (varying amounts depending on temperature and humidity), and traces of carbon dioxide and other gases. Oxygen is, by far, the most important component of what we breathe and, indeed, the Apollo astronauts breathed almost pure oxygen laced with controlled amounts of water vapour. With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, consequently, the cabin walls could be relatively thin and, therefore, light in weight.'

 

One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!

 

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

 

Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish - as usual. If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?

 

 

Edited July 15, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris

This about the Van Allen Belt. We didn't go to the Moon folks!

Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?

 

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

 

So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)

 

'At sea level, the Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases - primarily of nitrogen (78% by volume), oxygen (21%), water vapour (varying amounts depending on temperature and humidity), and traces of carbon dioxide and other gases. Oxygen is, by far, the most important component of what we breathe and, indeed, the Apollo astronauts breathed almost pure oxygen laced with controlled amounts of water vapour. With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, consequently, the cabin walls could be relatively thin and, therefore, light in weight.'

 

One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!

 

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

 

Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish - as usual. If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?

 

the rocket passed through the van allen belts so fast they were only exposed for a few seconds.

 

if the van allen belt was so deadly, no one has been in space as everyone who has orbits ABOVE the van allen belts.... so are you saying that no one has been into space chris? :lol:

This is interesting. From one of the Hoax sites. Who can explain a Coke can being seen then?

 

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

 

Australian Viewers See Something

That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake

 

In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.

 

The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.

 

Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the raw footage.'

 

i can explain it

 

it didnt happen.

simple.

 

how tf could an australian get a different transmission from everyone else? the only scource of film was from nasa... 1 scource.

 

chris...you are a fool.... we went to the moon 6 times, there are clearly 6 occassion when man walked on the moon, the conspiracy theorists concentrate on only the first

 

please explain the others..

 

and how russia, americas arch enemy in the hight of the cold war and who were scrutinising every move america made.... agrees that they went?

 

stop posting this nonsense and read through the link i posted which explains EVERYTHING to stop any doubts.

 

i find it interesting that the whole world who had the technology to follow the moon mission independantly all agree that they went....the conspiracy theorists dont have that technology... what does that tell you? :lol:

"Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts."

 

that simply is not true. even dr van allen himself said that the radiation belts did no harm to people passing through them.

 

 

this effectively answers all your questions.

 

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

 

all the questions posed by doubters are scientifically answered.

 

again, here is the link ... this answers all your questions.

So all you who think we went, then why aren't we going regularly NOW and setting up colonies there? Simple, cos we never went at all and every mission was faked. My opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you who believe we went are entitled to your opinions too.

So all you who think we went, then why aren't we going regularly NOW and setting up colonies there? Simple, cos we never went at all and every mission was faked. My opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you who believe we went are entitled to your opinions too.

 

Good to see you living up to your name.

 

The reason we are not doing it now it the exorbidant cost involved in setting up another manned landing programme on the Moon.

 

In short the whole cost of the Apollo & Skylab Space programme between 1966 to 1975 cost the equivalent (taking into account of inflation) to the US Government the same amount of money as the current US Government spends to continue fighting a war in the Middle East for 350 years!

 

And remember in the early mid 1970s their was a bit of a world recession that occurred, hence the programme was stopped, before NASA moved on to the significantly cheaper Space Shuttle project for the 1980s.

 

You can argue the toss about this or that, but the evidence that kills all "Man Never Landed on The Moon" nonsense stone cold dead is the fact about the three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15.

 

Today, anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites. This evidence indicates the deployment of equipment which was constructed on Earth and successfully transported to the surface of the Moon.

 

Anyone who wants to continue arguing that "Man Never Landed On The Moon" after that empirical evidence, is either deluded or an idiot as far as I am concerned.

So all you who think we went, then why aren't we going regularly NOW and setting up colonies there? Simple, cos we never went at all and every mission was faked. My opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you who believe we went are entitled to your opinions too.

 

oh grow up.... its my opinion blah blah blah... you sound like a petulant child not an adult. how can anyone ignore the overwhelming EVIDENCE that we went? oh i know, cos you cant be arsed to READ it and chose to believe the nonsense in stead.

 

we arnt going there now due to cost, plus there was no point in going now, the apollo missions achieved all they could.

 

however

 

there ARE plans to return to the moon in several years time.

Good to see you living up to your name.

 

The reason we are not doing it now it the exorbidant cost involved in setting up another manned landing programme on the Moon.

 

In short the whole cost of the Apollo & Skylab Space programme between 1966 to 1975 cost the equivalent (taking into account of inflation) to the US Government the same amount of money as the current US Government spends to continue fighting a war in the Middle East for 350 years!

 

And remember in the early mid 1970s their was a bit of a world recession that occurred, hence the programme was stopped, before NASA moved on to the significantly cheaper Space Shuttle project for the 1980s.

 

You can argue the toss about this or that, but the evidence that kills all "Man Never Landed on The Moon" nonsense stone cold dead is the fact about the three retroreflector arrays left on the Moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15.

 

Today, anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites. This evidence indicates the deployment of equipment which was constructed on Earth and successfully transported to the surface of the Moon.

 

Anyone who wants to continue arguing that "Man Never Landed On The Moon" after that empirical evidence, is either deluded or an idiot as far as I am concerned.

 

well said richard :)

 

those reflectors show that the moon is getting further away by a centimetre a year (i believe it is).

 

This is interesting. From one of the Hoax sites. Who can explain a Coke can being seen then?

 

i can

 

 

near the end of the clip :)

There are a number of questions which should be asked before believing any conspiracy theory.

 

1. How many people knew about it? In this case, we'd be talking about the three astronauts on each mission, the people who built the set, the people who filmed it and several senior NASA people at the very least. Then there would be the people who engineered the sound delay in the communication with the astrtonauts. Unless all that was pre-recorded which would mean all the people in the command centre would have known. That's too many people to have kept it all secret for so long.

 

2. Who benefits? Apart from the astronauts, not many. It meant the US was seen to beat the Russians but that would have meant even more people (Presidents for example) would also probably have known about it.

 

The answers to those two questions lead me to believe that it was not a hoax.