All the "Moon Landing" theories. What is your opinion and why?

There seems to be many different opinions and school's of thought on the subject of the "Moon Landing". Below are some of the common theories I have read. If there is another stance I can try to add it for you. Here goes.

1. Believes the Official Story of the Moon Landing 100% no questions asked.

2. Believes that man did not actually go the Moon at all because of either budget, lack of technology or safety (radiation/crossing the belt) reasons and what we are seeing are fake pictures of the Lunar surface to save face against the Russians.

3. Believes that man did go to the moon, we are seeing the real pictures but they have been manipulated to hide anomalies and presence of Alien life.

4. Believes that man did go to the Moon but what we are seeing are fake pictures because the truth about Alien life on the Lunar surface is "Too much for us mere mortals to handle"

5. Believes that man did go to the Moon but what we are seeing are fake pictures because the real ones were "lost" or "Not recorded" due to equipment failure. E.G Camera's not working properly on the Moon or lost radio transmission as in the movie "The Dish".

6. Believes we could and have been to the Moon (and other planets) well before the first "Official" Moon Landing.

7. Don't know because all sides have presented some evidence to back their claims but neither of them yet has produced solid proof to settle the issue beyond all doubt.

What is your opinion? Which option do you fall into? What piece of evidence did you see to convince or not convince you?

This thread is not stating or claiming facts about anything. Just a gauge of members opinion. Maybe some new evidence posted may change your opinion. I personally am camped at option 7.

I believe the pictures and footage of the early moon landing are fake but I believe we have been there and to Mars and other planets with technology not known by the public. I believe they have been there so many times there is a US base on the Moon as well as Mars.

I personally think that the Moon landings indeed took place. However, I believe that NASA "touched up" a lot of photos around the Moon landings to feed a hungry news media and to rub it in the face of the Soviets that they got their first.

So for me it's number 5 on your list.

I am somewhere between 1 and 3.

I do believe that we have been to the moon, as it was stated with Armstrong taking the first steps and uttering that time honored phrase.

I do believe however that some of the pictures have been altered, but as to what end, no one can be sure, wecan only speculate.

I actually just started a thread similar to this but about 9/11. I hope yours stays a bit more civil as you asked.

For me I would have to say I am between 3 and 5. I believe we went to the moon when we said we did. However, I believe NASA forged some, not all, of the pictures. I have a hard time believing that all equipment worked in the condition NASA claims it did. Also, it was all about racing the Soviets and looking better than them. I feel that they needed impressive documentation for the media. I also believe the pictures have been altered to hide things. I specifically say things because I do not know if I believe that they found aliens. I think that they simply did not want us to have just as much knowledge about their mission as they did.

The Moon landings occurred. The evidence that they occurred is overwhelming and the "evidence" that they did not is all a display of ignorance.

No aliens or evidence of aliens was discovered on the Moon.

There are images which have been "gussied up" (mostly by parties other than NASA). I do it myself (fix up the contrast, get rid of that tree branch). But, as with my own images, the original are available for inspection and the editing which has been done becomes readily apparent. No aliens, just pictures that someone though would look better with a little help.

I believe we went to the moon as history has recorded, and the facts fully support. I fear the ignorance of most folks that think the USA didn't go to the moon is a symptom of a greater problem.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I fall under the number 6.
The US definitely went to the moon, the evidence is undeniable. I do believe though that they hid certain things from public view, but nothing related to aliens or the like... truth is stranger than fiction.
I liked Richard Dolans term "the breakaway society". This elusive society is probably celebrating their 80th anniversary of space superiority this year.

We must have sent a ship there because they left those laser reflectors up there. Although the Russians also sent rovers and the rovers also have the laser reflectors. The ones left by Apollo are much larger and better reflectors.

The photos and the video seem suspicious. Some or all of it may have been faked. Although I did see a site put up by one of the big name astronauts that debunked many of the photo issues. Buzz Aldren maybe?

The strangest thing about the videos are the seemingly multiple of added light sources that illuminate places that should be dark. And the way the blast off from the moon happens with no dust being disturbed, as if lifted on a cable.

2 Buzz Aldrin is seen in the shadow of the lander, but at the same time, he is clearly visible. Many shadows look strange in the Apollo pictures. Some shadows don't appear to be parallel with each other, and some objects in shadow appear well lit, hinting that light was coming from multiple sources… just like studio cameras.

There were multiple light sources: the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface.

There are some transcripts of astronaut conversations out there that were recorded by radio amateurs that are very strange. Like they saw something really outrageous and were talking in code about it.

Source

According to Otto Binder, who was a member of the NASA space team, when the two moon-walkers, Aldrin and Armstrong were making their rounds some distance from the LEM, Armstrong clutched Aldrin's arm excitedly and exclaimed:

Armstrong: What was it? What the hell was it? That's all I want to know!"
Mission Control: What's there?... malfunction (garble) ... Mission Control calling Apollo 11 ...

Apollo 11: These babies were huge, sir!... Enormous!... Oh, God! You wouldn't believe it! ... I'm telling you there are other space-craft out there ... lined up on the far side of the crater edge! ... They're on the Moon watching us! ...

Wilson writes (p. 48): "Binder ends his report with this observation: 'There has, understandably, been no confirmation of this incredible report by NASA or any authorities. WE cannot vouch for its authenticity, but if true, one can surmise that mission control went into a dither and then into a huddle, after which they sternly [ordered] the moonwalkers to 'forget' what they saw and carry on casually and calmly as if nothing had happened. After all, an estimated 600 million people around the world were hanging on every word spoken by the first two men to leave footprints on the Moon."

Why havent we gone back?
Why arent universities sending unmanned vehicles to the surface to be explored?
Why isnt there a High Definition Webcam there?
Why since the Apollo's mission soft landings and the great leap in technology throughout the last decades are we now "Crashing" our probes into planets and moons?
Aside from not having humans aboard they do have very delicate instruments that are on a one way mission with no room for errors or ability to repair so I wonder why crash it.

With todays tech I dont see a reason as to why we dont have 'webcams' up there pointing at the earth. Amateur remote atv's exploring. etc.

Something is not right. Many things are untold.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Why havent we gone back?

Because it's very expensive and was no political will to do so.

Why arent universities sending unmanned vehicles to the surface to be explored?

Because it's very expensive and universites don't have the resources.

Why since the Apollo's mission soft landings and the great leap in technology throughout the last decades are we now "Crashing" our probes into planets and moons?

Mars is currently the object of choice. Next year a marvelous machine will be landing (hopefully not crashing) there.

Why isnt there a High Definition Webcam there?

Because you might as well look at something like this.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
It wouldn't make much sense to have a live scene of nothing happening.

We get much better views of Earth from closer locations.

Also, the photos are almost too good to be true.

Film is sensitive to x-rays and I would expect some defects due to stray radiation. Also the temperature extremes would have had a bad effect on ordinary film. And, the cameras were kind of stuck on the abdomen of the astronauts so it would have been difficult for them to compose a good photo.

Lots of questions. Great photos though...

the eyes have have it they say just look at the first interview those boys gave .are they smiling or scared as # you decide . why did buzz aldrin leg it when i asked him about the number 3 on a rock when i was a kid .have a read of moongate by william l brian he does science better than i . look for infared photos of the moon they exist somewhere. we got there but not with that teck . why dont any of those guys seem to remember much about it in there books ....my 2 cents

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Why havent we gone back?

Because it's very expensive and was no political will to do so.

A very misinformed and weak answer. Why are they then planning a moon landing in the future? Are are planning to come into some disposable funds?

Why arent universities sending unmanned vehicles to the surface to be explored?
Because it's very expensive and universites don't have the resources.

What is so expensive about sending a remote control car in a tiny rocket.

Why since the Apollo's mission soft landings and the great leap in technology throughout the last decades are we now "Crashing" our probes into planets and moons?
Mars is currently the object of choice. Next year a marvelous machine will be landing (hopefully not crashing) there.

Hopefully they will get the technology in the future to 'land' on something. But wait...


"Why since the Apollo's mission soft landings and the great leap in technology throughout the last decades are we now "Crashing" our probes into planets and moons?
Aside from not having humans aboard they do have very delicate instruments that are on a one way mission with no room for errors or ability to repair so I wonder why crash it.
"

Originally posted by geobro
the eyes have have it they say just look at the first interview those boys gave .are they smiling or scared as # you decide . why did buzz aldrin leg it when i asked him about the number 3 on a rock when i was a kid .have a read of moongate by william l brian he does science better than i . look for infared photos of the moon they exist somewhere. we got there but not with that teck . why dont any of those guys seem to remember much about it in there books ....my 2 cents

Is this the video?

reply to post by phatpackage


Problem is this:

7. Don't know because all sides have presented some evidence to back their claims but neither of them yet has produced solid proof to settle the issue beyond all doubt.

...is not correct.

"All sides" have not presented evidence to back up "claims". Only the historical record has. The other five on your list are wildly speculative, and have no evidence whatsoever to support them. On contrary, the actual existing evidence refutes them handily. So, they are moot.


Furthermore, at this point in time, the LROC photos are proof positive not only of the presence of Apollo, and the exactitude of the missions' EVA activity, as recorded in history, and the equipment and signs of activity left behind....these same images show conclusively no extraterrestrial presence or activity.

What has developed over the many decades (even back before Apollo) is a lot of wishful thinking. Then, post-Apollo, a lot of poorly interpreted, and misunderstood claims that made it into a collective consciousness in some people's minds. People who are willingly gullible enough to simply accept, without question, the most outrageous claims, and not doing their own proper research to verify those assertions.


It is dead easy, nowadays, to do this....many sources exist online.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Why are they then planning a moon landing in the future?

Who is? When?
What is the goal of such a mission? Just to get there and back? What's the point? It's been done.

What is so expensive about sending a remote control car in a tiny rocket.

A "remote control car" would accomplish what? In a tiny rocket? How tiny? Then of course you have to land that remote control car softly on the Moon somehow. A parachute?

This is what is on it's way to Mars as we speak. There is every intention of a soft landing.
www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Shadow Herder


you got it thanks notice how happy they seem

reply to post by geobro

You mean like right after they landed?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Seems more indicative of their feelings than a press conference several weeks after the fact would be.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


That is the video that is oft played....but, it is just a clip. One small portion from a much longer version, of the entire Press briefing.

IF people would take the time to research the activities, post-splash down, of those three men, one would learn of their schedule, what was demanded of them, and understand their fatigue and just plain "sick and tired of it" attitude, by then.

It was their "job"...to do the PR....but, they obviously were disgusted by it all, and resented it. In their shoes, wouldn't you just want to go HOME, and be with family, and take some time to let the enormity of it all sink in?? To de-compress, and relax a bit?

Another aspect of those sorts of dog and pony shows was having to deal with the loads of inane questions being asked by people who were woefully ignorant of Apollo in particular, and space in general. To be fair, they didn't have the Internet, and space was still very much unknown, compared to today. So, those press members had little to relate, except their own earth-bound experiences.


There were few dedicated reporters back then who were very, very well-informed because they took the time to educate themselves about the technical details, as much as they could. The press asking questions at that briefing were NOT those people.