Russian Cosmonauts Questioning the American Moon Landing;

a reply to: scrounger

Excellent points, very well made ...

My TL;DR; They both got dirt on each other over how crazy opposing cold war nation states can be sometimes and so nobody's saying nothing ...

"Okay, Vinny! Okay Mikhiel!"
Vinny: "Capiche"
Mikheil: "Da"

Together: "Nobody says nothing!"

I should probably drink less or not check for posts at this hour but I really enjoyed your post and it puts forward perfectly reasonable and rational reasoning.



P.S. I have no idea why Vinny is an Italian New Yorker, maybe it was projection.

a reply to: gortex

Oh, I've found a great site and paper of an authoritative Moon Rock specialist that can help with that one using his own examinations of certified lunar samples against other rocks sent in for examination ... It's a doozy but I will save it for tomorrow because I'll have to re-find the paper ... Browser tracking is off so I'll need brain power that is sorely lacking or impaired at this point tonight.

www.youtube.com...

Take a look at this footage Expecially at 40:15 / 40:30,
can someone seriously believe that was the way they came back to earth ?
Maybe in the sixties when everyone was hallucinating at Woodstock.

a reply to: scrounger

....however even the leadership wasnt so blinded to national pride not to see (but not admit) their MANNED moon mission was no where near ready..
so when the USA appeared or did go to the moon they could "save face" by saying "USA did it first".

because reality if the mission was fake then they have to continue to try to go the moon knowing failure (and loss of national face) would happen.

Sorry, I can't follow that reasoning.

It would have been far more of a propaganda win if they'd been able to say " Yeah, we can't land people on the moon, but neither can the USA. At least we admit it. The USA has tried to cheat and deceive the whole world into believing they have but the reality is that they are just as far away from doing it as we are".

That would have signed the death knell to NASA and the American space programme.
What a victory that would have been for the Soviets.
And the vast majority of people who were around during The Cold War will tell you that the USSR would not have let an opportunity like that slip.

a reply to: KSDakar01

We are not the only ones that have imaged the landing site(s) from above.
And then of course, the 850lbs of moon rocks....

How stupid are those that think we didn't go there. However, sour grapes from Russian Cosmonauts are understandable, but still stupid.

but the problem with that idea is the russians were no where near ready for a MANNED moon mission.
they made alot of noise and their "experts" make alot of promises.

a reply to: scrounger

Ever hear of the ZOND program ? Starting in 1967 attempted to send manned mission around the moon (Circumlunar)
using stripped down Soyuz on a Proton booster . Was to gain a propaganda coup by beating the Americans to the moon

One of the reasons Apollo 8 was sent on its lunar orbital fight was to head off the Soviets - Zond 5 in September 1968
completed a lunar mission carrying biologic specimens (Turtles, wine flies , fungi) Follow up Zond 6 in November experienced parachute failure caused by depressurization do hatch failure . Soviet cosmonauts wanted to try manned
mission in December despite the failures

Apollo 8 was reconfigured as a lunar orbital mission based on the Zond Program

en.wikipedia.org...

Soviets figured that based on NASA usual cautious incremental pace US would not be ready attempt lunar missions until mid 1970

NASA flipped the script with Apollo 8 , then Apollo 10 which came with within 50,000 ft in May 1969

After Apollo 11 landing and subsequent missions Soviets cancelled their program and then lied their way out

www.astronautix.com...

www.astronautix.com...

www.astronautix.com...

a reply to: gortex

JFK was our first made for TV President and he announced the man on the moon dream in 1961.
Huge entertainment value to help benefit space program funding.
By 1971 even the movie industry was exposing the issue of the heat sink math that would be expensive to overcome.
There were two French reflector arrays (L1 and L2) loaded on Soviet rovers Lunokhod 1 and 2 so it wasn't just the Russians.
Not sure if the reflector was what most people would recognize as a mirror since they were timing "single photon events".

Take a look at this footage Expecially at 40:15 / 40:30,
can someone seriously believe that was the way they came back to earth ?
Maybe in the sixties when everyone was hallucinating at Woodstock.

a reply to: SketchingBlues

So what is problem ?

Starting with Apollo 15 , included a small moon buggy or rover Rover had a camera which could be remotely controlled from NASA control

Controllers worked out timing to pan the camera, taking in account time delay of radio signal from earth to moon

First tried on Apollo 15, were little too slow After some practice were about to capture liftoff of lunar module from moon on Apollo 16 and 17

Apollo 17 liftoff

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: drongosrevenge

You are right - it is tinfoil, skin is only thicker than heavy duty aluminum foil That is to save weight since Lunar module were designed to operate in a Vaccuum and weightless or low gravity environments Did not require heavy structure so build it with just enough structural strength to operate in these environments


The one on display at Air Space Museum was a test unit , designed as backup for one flown in earth orbit as Apollo 5

LM-2 — the second lunar module that Grumman built — is on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. The module has been on display in full since around 1970 after its ascent stage took a quick trip to a world's fair in Japan.

It wasn't designed to carry people to the moon. Instead, it was a backup for Apollo 5: the first test flight of a lunar module. Apollo 5 wound up being so successful in taking LM-1 through the paces of spaceflight, though, that NASA decided to keep LM-2 on the ground and use it for tests instead of launching it.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see any Russian cosmonauts doubting the landings, certainly none for the ones alive during the original space race did.

What I see is a paper pushing puppet of a warmongering fascist trying to gain some political currency to keep his old boss (who stated in 2011 that Apollo was impossible to fake) happy.

Not one of the claims about Apollo being faked stands up to scrutiny. All of the video, photo and live TV footage has been public domain for 50+ years and the best doubters can come up with is personal incredulity, a lack of basic photography, engineering and science knowledge, no research into the actual missions and the wealth of data they generated, and some vague handwaving nonsense about 'them' and stuff.

All of Apollo's data can be verified. The imagery returned and broadcast contain details that could not have been known about in advance, and probes from several countries confirm human activity at the landing sites.

onebigmonkey.com...

If you can't see why a Putin appointee is coming out with this nonsense at this time in history then you're blind.

I question the first landing. I also think that we had much better space suits than did the Russians and hence our astronauts came back in much better shape. I still would love to see a photo of our rovers up there. That's all it would take for NASA to settle this.

The fact of the matter is no one has been back there in 51 years. It'll soon enough be 60 years... 70.... 80..... and then beyond living memory.

Imagine if no one has been back to the poles, the extreme depths of the oceans, or climbing Mount Everest in the last 50 years because "we don't have the technology anymore", "modern tech/equipment can't handle it", or "there's no point".

a reply to: baggy7981

We don't have a supersonic passenger airliner any more.

Does that make Concorde fake?

a reply to: bluemooone2

The Ford "Transit van" is tagged as a "Rover".
Could be due to a loose Russian translation.
The different lunar projects were confusing back in the 60's everything was classified.
It takes 1.2 to 1.35 seconds to reach a lunar spacecraft from earth with a laser.
And you would get different times as the reflector transited through the area of highest lunar gravity.
We used to joke about APOLLO being an acronym ending in Obituary till some idiot bought an Italian automatic rifle.

originally posted by: Bordon81
a reply to: bluemooone2

The Ford "Transit van" is tagged as a "Rover".
Could be due to a loose Russian translation.
The different lunar projects were confusing back in the 60's everything was classified.
It takes 1.2 to 1.35 seconds to reach a lunar spacecraft from earth with a laser.
And you would get different times as the reflector transited through the area of highest lunar gravity.
We used to joke about APOLLO being an acronym ending in Obituary till some idiot bought an Italian automatic rifle.

We have nothing in orbit of the moon. the reflector we have these days is ON THE SURFACE.

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

I also took this chart as a current study concerning astronauts that are in space technically longer than those of the Apollo missions. Also the video you referenced I did not see that as abnormal we have no idea what these guys were "injected" with before that shot of them by the window to get them lets say pepped up?

As a side note the men of that generation well lets say were built different which is not surprising since there has been numerous studies showing how T level have been on the decline since the 80s. Not saying its the case but if going to make claims we have to really look at the entire picture.


Did you get a chance to check out Apollo in Realtime site? It may give you answers that you are looking for. As I said early for or against the moon landing being real or fake. You can hear all of the radio chatter.

I am just not sure the reason why the fake. Cold war or not. I doubt it would be to hide testing for ICBMs the Atlas project was already during 1951 and replaced in Titan I and Titan II then the Minuteman in 1962. We were already in development stages.


Anyway we will know soon enough I think. The dearMoon Project is due to launch in 2023. Yusaku Maezawa Japanese entrepreneur is taking 8 civilians to the moon. Landing or not being that close will definitely give opportunity snap closer shoots of the landing sites.

DearMoon Project

originally posted by: yuppa
We have nothing in orbit of the moon. the reflector we have these days is ON THE SURFACE.

You are correct that the reflectors from Apollo 11, 14, and 15 are on the surface of the moon.

There are no retroreflectors orbiting the moon that I know of, but we do have the LRO in orbit which is relevant because one of the questions is, why don't we have photos of the landing sites? It's already been explained why Earth telescopes don't have adequate resultion for the distance, but the LRO is much closer and has photographed the landing sites, where we can even see tracks from the lunar rover.

You can explore the landing sites from this link by clicking "Apollo Landing sites".

originally posted by: Kratos77
a reply to: AllAnIllusion
Anyway we will know soon enough I think. The dearMoon Project is due to launch in 2023. Yusaku Maezawa Japanese entrepreneur is taking 8 civilians to the moon. Landing or not being that close will definitely give opportunity snap closer shoots of the landing sites.

DearMoon Project

Closer than what? The LRO which orbits at 31 miles above the lunar surface? In a quick search I wasn't able to find the altitude for the dearMoon orbit above the moon.

The Indian moon orbiter "Chandrayaan-2" captured the Apollo landing sights. You can see the footprints and paths of the Apollo 11 landing site and the landmarks and topography certainly coincide and match the Apollo 11 moon landing footage taken from the LEM in 69.