05-25-2024, 08:34 AM
This post was last modified 05-25-2024, 08:58 AM by FlyingClayDisk.
As an astronomer, physicist and former NASA contract employee, I can tell you most assuredly, we went to the Moon. Staging an event like this and keeping it secret simply isn't possible. Too many people would know, and the incentive to reveal this secret and/or hoax, over the decades since then, is simply too fantastically large.
So, a couple things here, and I've long said this in the Moon landing debates on ATS and elsewhere; going 'to' the Moon, and standing 'on' the Moon, are two completely different things. I personally "know" man stood 'on' the Moon. And, while going 'to' the Moon is virtually 'un-hoaxable', standing 'on' the Moon, on the other hand, would have been relatively easy to fake. This technicality eliminates the hundreds of thousands of personnel who would have needed to keep a secret, leaving a mere handful who would need to keep the secret. Let us not forget the fact that the Russians had every reason to prove the landings were faked, so if there was any possible way to prove this fact, their entire national pride as a nation would have compelled them to do exactly that. But, let's look a little more closely at the differences between 'to' the Moon, and 'on' the Moon.
At an elementary logic level, one way we know with absolute certainty that man actually walked "on" the Moon is simply by the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts returned to Earth. This is all the proof that logic requires. You may ask yourself, why? And I will explain this in a moment, but first we have to examine some other facts.
The technology of the day, even then, was such that it would have been easy to prove man didn't go 'to' the Moon, in a whole variety of ways. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply foolish. However, that same technology would have made it very difficult to discern whether man was actually 'on' the Moon, or just very near 'to' the Moon. This is a key distinction in this discussion. Radio communications (signals) from the surface of the Moon did not have the ability to travel back to Earth, they had to be relayed from the Command Module orbiting overhead. And, the Command Module had to be on the proper side of the Moon in order to relay these signals. So, all the audio and video from the surface of the Moon was actually signals which were received from the Command Module orbiting the Moon, not directly from the LEM on the surface of the Moon. Thus, confirming man was actually standing on the Moon based on transmitted radio signals would not have been possible as these signals were originating from the Command Module (from Earth's perspective). The Russians would have had the same problem. They could easily verify the Command Module was orbiting the Moon, but nothing beyond that. NASA knew this.
Again, I firmly believe, know in fact, that man did actually stand "on" the Moon, but faking that 'on vs. near' element would have been fairly easy. And, I find it difficult to imagine that NASA didn't have some sort of a contingency plan to do exactly that if something had gone wrong. IF...something had gone terribly, tragically, wrong.
So, then what sort of scenario might have triggered such a hoax? Well, for example, if the Apollo 11 LEM, Eagle, had crashed on the Moon. Then, Armstrong and Aldrin would have been stranded (minimally) on the Moon (with no way to rescue them), or dead. Dead would have been easy to explain, but stranded on the other hand would have been much more difficult to deal with. Imagine what hung in the balance as the entire planet watched, for hours (or days), the stranded crew slowly die on the surface of the Moon. Technical failure aside, the human side of a tragedy such as this would have been absolutely 'stellar', unprecedented, and unimaginable in proportions. The phrase "Failure is not an option" was arguably never one of NASA's actual mantras, despite numerous movies suggesting otherwise. But if there ever were a place and time where such a phrase would have been used, it would have been the stranded scenario. In that case, it seems probable that NASA would have pulled out the staged Moon excursion scenarios. Interestingly, Collins up in the Command Module could then never return (either), else how would this be explained, his returning alone? But I digress.
Had this scenario played out in real life, the fact that man was 'at' the Moon, but not 'on' the Moon would have been very difficult to prove. Impossible, using 1960's technology, and very difficult today (but not impossible)...and NASA knew this too. So, for this reason alone, staging the landings would have been truly a very last resort after the unimaginable and unthinkable had gone wrong.
As reality would have it, Eagle did not crash on the Moon, and Armstrong and then Aldrin did in fact walk on the Moon, as we all saw. But IF something had gone terribly wrong the US simply could not broadcast to the World such a spectacular failure. That was not an option.
Either way, the history books would have had Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon on July 20th 1969.
So, some other questions about the Moon landings also frequently come up, and I'll attempt to address those here as well. 'Why haven't we been back (after Apollo 17 in 1972)?'. In order to answer this question we have to look at one more proof that man really did walk on the Moon, and this is the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions. Had Apollo 11 resulted in tragedy, then these missions would have never taken place. Staging one Moon landing would have been a tall enough order, but staging (6) Moon landings would have been unimaginably more difficult, bordering on insane to impossible. So, man did walk on the Moon, several times on several different missions. Okay, then why haven't we been back?
It's important to realize that (my oft quoted phrase) 'space is hard'. It seems like such a silly statement, but it's so tragically true; space travel is insanely dangerous and Biblically difficult . And, landing human beings on another satellite or planet in space is exponentially more difficult than just simple space travel. So, every mission is a gamble, with some pretty high odds for failure. Like Las Vegas, the more you gamble, the higher your odds of losing are. People don't often die in Las Vegas, but in space the paradigm is the exact opposite; people don't often survive. Each time you make another attempt, your odds of a spectacular failure go up exponentially. With public interest waning in the early 1970's, the benefits compared to the odds of failure were not sufficient to justify further missions. And this is why man hasn't returned.
The larger and more pertinent question is, what has happened, or more specifically, what "hasn't" happened since then, and why? Part of this question can be answered by the difficulty factor noted above, but there are no credible answers beyond this. Complacency is one component. People just "assumed" that because we did it once we could easily do it again. But again, people overlooked the most important point with this assumption...space is hard. Space is a lot harder than all those people realized (now), and returning to the Moon is not the 'slam-dunk' people thought it was.
I think the most amazing thing about the Apollo program, and the Moon landings, is the technology of the 'computers' of the Apollo era was less than the technology contained in a common grade-schooler's calculator or smart watch today.
"That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"
So, a couple things here, and I've long said this in the Moon landing debates on ATS and elsewhere; going 'to' the Moon, and standing 'on' the Moon, are two completely different things. I personally "know" man stood 'on' the Moon. And, while going 'to' the Moon is virtually 'un-hoaxable', standing 'on' the Moon, on the other hand, would have been relatively easy to fake. This technicality eliminates the hundreds of thousands of personnel who would have needed to keep a secret, leaving a mere handful who would need to keep the secret. Let us not forget the fact that the Russians had every reason to prove the landings were faked, so if there was any possible way to prove this fact, their entire national pride as a nation would have compelled them to do exactly that. But, let's look a little more closely at the differences between 'to' the Moon, and 'on' the Moon.
At an elementary logic level, one way we know with absolute certainty that man actually walked "on" the Moon is simply by the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts returned to Earth. This is all the proof that logic requires. You may ask yourself, why? And I will explain this in a moment, but first we have to examine some other facts.
The technology of the day, even then, was such that it would have been easy to prove man didn't go 'to' the Moon, in a whole variety of ways. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply foolish. However, that same technology would have made it very difficult to discern whether man was actually 'on' the Moon, or just very near 'to' the Moon. This is a key distinction in this discussion. Radio communications (signals) from the surface of the Moon did not have the ability to travel back to Earth, they had to be relayed from the Command Module orbiting overhead. And, the Command Module had to be on the proper side of the Moon in order to relay these signals. So, all the audio and video from the surface of the Moon was actually signals which were received from the Command Module orbiting the Moon, not directly from the LEM on the surface of the Moon. Thus, confirming man was actually standing on the Moon based on transmitted radio signals would not have been possible as these signals were originating from the Command Module (from Earth's perspective). The Russians would have had the same problem. They could easily verify the Command Module was orbiting the Moon, but nothing beyond that. NASA knew this.
Again, I firmly believe, know in fact, that man did actually stand "on" the Moon, but faking that 'on vs. near' element would have been fairly easy. And, I find it difficult to imagine that NASA didn't have some sort of a contingency plan to do exactly that if something had gone wrong. IF...something had gone terribly, tragically, wrong.
So, then what sort of scenario might have triggered such a hoax? Well, for example, if the Apollo 11 LEM, Eagle, had crashed on the Moon. Then, Armstrong and Aldrin would have been stranded (minimally) on the Moon (with no way to rescue them), or dead. Dead would have been easy to explain, but stranded on the other hand would have been much more difficult to deal with. Imagine what hung in the balance as the entire planet watched, for hours (or days), the stranded crew slowly die on the surface of the Moon. Technical failure aside, the human side of a tragedy such as this would have been absolutely 'stellar', unprecedented, and unimaginable in proportions. The phrase "Failure is not an option" was arguably never one of NASA's actual mantras, despite numerous movies suggesting otherwise. But if there ever were a place and time where such a phrase would have been used, it would have been the stranded scenario. In that case, it seems probable that NASA would have pulled out the staged Moon excursion scenarios. Interestingly, Collins up in the Command Module could then never return (either), else how would this be explained, his returning alone? But I digress.
Had this scenario played out in real life, the fact that man was 'at' the Moon, but not 'on' the Moon would have been very difficult to prove. Impossible, using 1960's technology, and very difficult today (but not impossible)...and NASA knew this too. So, for this reason alone, staging the landings would have been truly a very last resort after the unimaginable and unthinkable had gone wrong.
As reality would have it, Eagle did not crash on the Moon, and Armstrong and then Aldrin did in fact walk on the Moon, as we all saw. But IF something had gone terribly wrong the US simply could not broadcast to the World such a spectacular failure. That was not an option.
Either way, the history books would have had Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon on July 20th 1969.
So, some other questions about the Moon landings also frequently come up, and I'll attempt to address those here as well. 'Why haven't we been back (after Apollo 17 in 1972)?'. In order to answer this question we have to look at one more proof that man really did walk on the Moon, and this is the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions. Had Apollo 11 resulted in tragedy, then these missions would have never taken place. Staging one Moon landing would have been a tall enough order, but staging (6) Moon landings would have been unimaginably more difficult, bordering on insane to impossible. So, man did walk on the Moon, several times on several different missions. Okay, then why haven't we been back?
It's important to realize that (my oft quoted phrase) 'space is hard'. It seems like such a silly statement, but it's so tragically true; space travel is insanely dangerous and Biblically difficult . And, landing human beings on another satellite or planet in space is exponentially more difficult than just simple space travel. So, every mission is a gamble, with some pretty high odds for failure. Like Las Vegas, the more you gamble, the higher your odds of losing are. People don't often die in Las Vegas, but in space the paradigm is the exact opposite; people don't often survive. Each time you make another attempt, your odds of a spectacular failure go up exponentially. With public interest waning in the early 1970's, the benefits compared to the odds of failure were not sufficient to justify further missions. And this is why man hasn't returned.
The larger and more pertinent question is, what has happened, or more specifically, what "hasn't" happened since then, and why? Part of this question can be answered by the difficulty factor noted above, but there are no credible answers beyond this. Complacency is one component. People just "assumed" that because we did it once we could easily do it again. But again, people overlooked the most important point with this assumption...space is hard. Space is a lot harder than all those people realized (now), and returning to the Moon is not the 'slam-dunk' people thought it was.
I think the most amazing thing about the Apollo program, and the Moon landings, is the technology of the 'computers' of the Apollo era was less than the technology contained in a common grade-schooler's calculator or smart watch today.
"That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"
