This would imply one ruling class with some sense of unity and common objectives that are able to work together. I don't know if the US government really works that way. It seems to be a lot of different groups pulling in different directions, but we have institutions that are strong and somehow keep the whole system going.Winston wrote:There are probably multiple reasons for something as big as this. Besides the one you mention, they may have wanted to get people's minds off the Vietnam War and other tragedies. And give them a reason to be proud Americans again. Unless you are one of the ruling class, you can't understand their mentality. One of their jobs is to give the masses a show of "bread and circuses".MrMan wrote:I'm not generally into conspiracy theories, but this one makes sense. Sending men to the moon would cost a fortune. Pretending to send men to the moon would save money and would communicate to the Russians that we had such precise missile technology, that we could fire a missile with men on it and put those men on the moon and return it. Just the credible threat might have been enough to reinforce our point. We win the space race, which helps our own country feel more confident. The Russians may think we did it.
What is the motivation to actually do it? The Cold War provided plenty of motivation to lie about it.
As far the videos, aren't they supposed to be re-enactments? Is the official story that these photos are actual photos from the moon or recreations, with the originals licked away for security reasons? Why can't we see stars all around the earth if they are real? If the moon does not have an atmosphere, wouldn't the view of space away from the sun be very clear?
If the president was behind, or in on, a moon landing conspiracy, then it cut across party lines, from Johnson (Kennedy too?) to Nixon's administration. Kennedy wanted to put a man on the moon. Would Nixon have continued the conspiracy, if he found out after elected, to distract from the war and to bolster moral, and scare the Russians? Were presidents even in on the conspiracy, if there were one, or was it a military and NASA thing that duped them as well? If there were a conspiracy, it would be interesting to know who is in on it.
I spoke to a man who said he was an engineer in the space project. He couldnt' say what he did, just that he was there. And up to a few years ago at least when I talked to him, government agents would still check up on him to make sure he kept his mouth shut. Surely the technology part of it isn't that sensitive now.
Good point.It's not only expensive to go to the Moon. But too dangerous as well. If astronauts had died on the first Moon Mission or failed to come back, it would have been a public relations disaster and the end of NASA. Yet in all 6 moon missions, not one astronaut died. What are the odds? Yet about 14 people have died on the space shuttle.
I disagree. If the story is true and they just flew up there and found rocks and dust, and that's it, why build a base on that? What is to be gained? If we really did it, it was a collosal waste of money as far as actually getting something from going to the moon is concerned. The benefits were social, political, and military. Since those benefits could be acheived by successfully faking the moon landing, why would they actually do it?The biggest reason it was a hoax is that if it were real, then there would be moon bases by now and daily flights there.
I hadn't read that, but I don't read NASA statements about such things.Technology never moves backward like that to near zero. As of today, NASA says it forgot how to get to the moon.
If he did go up there, maybe the light reflecting off the moon made the stars difficult or impossible to see. The moon looks like it is glowing from earth. Up there, with the sun shining on the rock without at atmosphere, it may have made it difficult to see the stars... if he went there.However the problem is that Neil Armstrong claimed that he saw no stars on the Moon. He said this in the Apollo 11 Press Conference, and in an interview later on (which I will post later). Yet in spite of that, the field of astronomy clais that on the Moon you can see stars very clearly. They should be brighter and more vivid than on Earth. So Armstrong screwed up majorly and NASA cannot explain it.
Moreover, Michael Collins, the third Apollo astronaut besides Armstrong and Aldrin, wrote in his book "Carrying the Fire" that he could see many stars vividly and brightly while he was in the command module orbiting the Moon, thus contradicting Neil Armstrong and himself too, because he also said during the Apollo 11 Press Conference that he could not see the stars either, in order to not contradict what Armstrong said.
