Did man REALLY go to the moon? If man did, WHY?

Each one of the claims made in that show have been debunked. There is absolutely no questions that the United States sent people to the moon. And we didn't land just once. We did it six times (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17)! And 2 additional flights orbited the moon without landing (Apollos 8 and 13). Your claims in order: 1. This is simply not true. The Van Allen Belts can be dangerous if not properly shielded and you spend a long time in it.The Apollo flights' trajectory was done specially to spend as little time in the Van Allens as possible. It just wasn't that big of a deal. 2. No. The Russians would have noticed that. They could monitor the radio transmissions. They would know whether they were actually coming from the direction of the moon, or a craft in orbit around the Earth. 3. What about the other thousands of people who would have had to have been in the hoax? 4. No. A lot of the lunar astronauts resigned shortly after their flights. They had already done the greatest thing an astronaut could ever hope to do and knew they weren't going to get a second chance (especially the Apollo 11 crew. Those guys became national heroes. There was no way NASA would ever, ever, risk them again on another dangerous space flight. Their careers as astronauts were over.). What else would there be left to do? 5. Armstrong is just an extremely private person. Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin who flew with Armstrong are more than happy to talk about. Aldrin especially has done many, many public appearances. B. Yup, pretty much. That's what the Cold War was all about.

Each one of the claims made in that show have been debunked. There is absolutely no questions that the United States sent people to the moon. And we didn't land just once. We did it six times (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17)! And 2 additional flights orbited the moon without landing (Apollos 8 and 13). Your claims in order: 1. This is simply not true. The Van Allen Belts can be dangerous if not properly shielded and you spend a long time in it.The Apollo flights' trajectory was done specially to spend as little time in the Van Allens as possible. It just wasn't that big of a deal. 2. No. The Russians would have noticed that. They could monitor the radio transmissions. They would know whether they were actually coming from the direction of the moon, or a craft in orbit around the Earth. 3. What about the other thousands of people who would have had to have been in the hoax? 4. No. A lot of the lunar astronauts resigned shortly after their flights. They had already done the greatest thing an astronaut could ever hope to do and knew they weren't going to get a second chance (especially the Apollo 11 crew. Those guys became national heroes. There was no way NASA would ever, ever, risk them again on another dangerous space flight. Their careers as astronauts were over.). What else would there be left to do? 5. Armstrong is just an extremely private person. Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin who flew with Armstrong are more than happy to talk about. Aldrin especially has done many, many public appearances. B. Yup, pretty much. That's what the Cold War was all about.

What you saw is NOT a documentary. It is from Sibrel. He is the idiot who deservedly got punched in the mouth. As far as I know, this is his only "claim to fame". Others think that his participation on a TV series on conspiracy theories should count for something... but the series was shown on Fox TV. 1) False. The Van Allen belts were already known and had been tested by the Soviets who flew animals around the Moon. The belt is not totally harmless as most astronauts did end up with a much higher ratio of cataracts (a form of eye problem) than the general population. Professor Van Allen himself discounted Sibrels description of the radiation as hogwash. 2) False. In any case, the manner in which Sibrel claims this was done, shows that he does not have a clue how the space vehicle was arranged. Plus, all the radio transmission from the capsule were monitored by amateur radio operators all over the world; they could tell that the capsule was no longer in orbit around Earth. 3) False 4) False. They "resigned" because they had finished the mission for which they had been hired. 5) False. He has been interviewed a few times. Not as often as the others. --- B) it is partly true. That is the reason why the US government made so much money available to NASA for the Moon mission. The other part of the reason was Kennedy trying to focus American attention on one issue that was getting a lot of attention at the time and where we had a chance to win. As it turns out, the Soviet Union mission director died just before the first planned manned mission around the Moon (which would have been their equivalent to our Apollo 8); However, his death had been kept secret (even in the Soviet Union) so as not to discourage the teams. He was their best heavy rocket designer. After his death, no one was able to correct (in time) the problems that they still had with their experimental heavy launcher (their equivalent to our Saturn V rocket -- V is the Roman numeral 5, so that it is pronounced "Saturn five"). After the Apollo 11 landing by the USA, they gave up on their manned lunar program. Up to then, the Soviet Union had been ahead of the USA on just about all aspects of space exploration (first satellite, first man in space, first woman in space, first "space walk", first probe to hit the Moon, first probe to photograph the other side of the Moon, first probe to land on the Moon...). I suspect that if Korolyov had not died and if the USA had not pumped that much money into NASA, the USSR would also have had the first men on the Moon. Unlike us, their space program was not consolidated into one agency (like our NASA). Even after the death of their manned Lunar program, the other programs continued to go well (first probe to land on Venus, first probe on Mars...). --- In 1967, Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) was demonstrated using radio-telescopes. This took place outside the USA, therefore the method was not kept secret. It was used in the USA within weeks, and we know that the Soviet Union used it before the end of 1967. When the first lunar landing took place in 1969, and when Neil took "a small step for [a] man", the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean. In fact, many of the broadcast we saw in North America had to come in through a radio-telescope in Australia. The TV signal was also "visible" to many of the major Soviet radio-telescopes. Using VLBI, they could pinpoint the source on the Moon, probably within a hundred miles or so. Therefore, if the signal had come from somewhere else than the Moon (a satellite around Earth or from Hollywood), they would have known right away. They would have told the world right away. Given the Soviets's record in space, the rest of the world would have believe them right away. Instead, they congratulated the Americans and life went on.

Bull****. The Apollo Missions went to the moon and back. It was a time of great technological and engineering advances. It was for testing the human body and to completely conquer the skies. It was a time of great national pride. Yes, the Soviets did launch Sputnik first and remember, this was during the Cold War. Both countries were competing back and forth. The US just got to the moon first. I don't get how anyone could think this was a hoax. Hell, I've even gotten to talk with Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins about this. They were proud to talk about it. So to wrap it up, Yes they did go to the moon and back. Oh, and btw, I'm 16 too ;)

Bull****. The Apollo Missions went to the moon and back. It was a time of great technological and engineering advances. It was for testing the human body and to completely conquer the skies. It was a time of great national pride. Yes, the Soviets did launch Sputnik first and remember, this was during the Cold War. Both countries were competing back and forth. The US just got to the moon first. I don't get how anyone could think this was a hoax. Hell, I've even gotten to talk with Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins about this. They were proud to talk about it. So to wrap it up, Yes they did go to the moon and back. Oh, and btw, I'm 16 too ;)

No, the U.S did actually go to the moon. We have the flag up there still from the Apollo landing

A1) Incorrect. The radiation crossing the Van Allen's belt is equal to a single X-ray. Repeated exposure would be fatal, but not a single crossing. A2) You would have to have today's academy award, or academy nominated, visual effects to achieve that. And they didn't have that back in 1969. Not even Stanley Kubrick's Academy Award winning visual effects were as convincing. A3) Actually some say George Mueller wanted to return to private industry, while others say he had a fall out with NASA administrator Thomas Paine. A4) Actually it can be easily argued that they achieved something that no one else has done before. And that the stress of just going to the moon was too much. Or they wanted to be remembered as explorers, not figure heads or celebrities. A5) Or more likely, he wanted privacy. He might have hated cameras or interviews. B) That is actually the reason why we sent to the moon like that. To upstage the Russians.

>>I'm just 16, so be gentle with me, ok?<< OK >>A) I've seen a BBC documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"<< That is NOT a BBC documentary. It was made (badly) by an American named Bart Sibrel. He essentially makes his living harrassing astronauts and calling them liars over this alleged fake moon landings business. The trouble is he knows nothing about space, space flight or space vehicles, and on top of that he is a fraud. I say that based on my own communication with him, in which it rapidly became clear his only interest is in gaining money and notoriety for his claims. >>1. The "Van Allen Belt" is a band of radiation surrounding Earth that is so harmful to man that we CANNOT cross it.<< A claim that billions of dollars of international commercial revenue contradicts. The Van Allen Belts are regions of charged particle radiation which is easy to shield against, and we have been collecting data on it for decades. Communications satellites spend their entire lives within the belts, so we have to know what the environment there is like. On top of all that, he overlooks two other important things: first, they are belts, and space travel is a 3D affair, so the spacecraft could simply avoid the most intense regions by flying over or under them; second, Dr James Van Allen himself says they pose no barrier to manned space flight. >>2. That some astronauts faked footage inside their capsule to show that they were close to the moon; but actually just in Earth orbit.<< In order to convey that he misrepresents some footage, editing out parts that clearly show his claim to be false. He also claims he is the only source of that footage, but that is not true at all. Firstly it is available to anyone from the same place he got it, i.e. NASA itself, and second it is available commercially on DVD. >>3. That the top hancho in NASA resigned days before Apollo 11. The film's assertion was he was too ashamed to participated in a hoax. << The movement of upper management people is irrelevant. His reasoning is well documented. Sibrel asserts it was out of shame, but since moving on at that stage still leaves him involved in the years of development, it hardly helps him. >>4. That the Apollo 11 astronauts resigned a sort time after Apollo 11. The film's assertion was they were too ashamed to have participated in a hoax. << Or they reasoned there was nowhere else to go to top what they had done. NASA's budget was being cut, and lunar flights for the next couple of years had been planned. They were not likely to get to go to the Moon again, so maybe they wanted new challenges. >>5. Neil Armstrong, to this day, refuses to be interviewed about the Apollo 11 landing. Is this because he doesn't want to lie anymore?<< This is simply false. Armstrong refuses to be interviewed BY SIBREL, because he knows who Sibrel is. Only a couple of years ago Armstrong was interviewed for a Discovery Channel documentary. >>B) If the US DID go to the Moon, was it just to upstage the Russians for the sake of National pride -- and to prove that we are better than the Communist/Socialist USSR?<< Although there were scientific reasons for planning a lunar flight, this was the main political argument that secured the funding, yes.

>>I'm just 16, so be gentle with me, ok?<< OK >>A) I've seen a BBC documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"<< That is NOT a BBC documentary. It was made (badly) by an American named Bart Sibrel. He essentially makes his living harrassing astronauts and calling them liars over this alleged fake moon landings business. The trouble is he knows nothing about space, space flight or space vehicles, and on top of that he is a fraud. I say that based on my own communication with him, in which it rapidly became clear his only interest is in gaining money and notoriety for his claims. >>1. The "Van Allen Belt" is a band of radiation surrounding Earth that is so harmful to man that we CANNOT cross it.<< A claim that billions of dollars of international commercial revenue contradicts. The Van Allen Belts are regions of charged particle radiation which is easy to shield against, and we have been collecting data on it for decades. Communications satellites spend their entire lives within the belts, so we have to know what the environment there is like. On top of all that, he overlooks two other important things: first, they are belts, and space travel is a 3D affair, so the spacecraft could simply avoid the most intense regions by flying over or under them; second, Dr James Van Allen himself says they pose no barrier to manned space flight. >>2. That some astronauts faked footage inside their capsule to show that they were close to the moon; but actually just in Earth orbit.<< In order to convey that he misrepresents some footage, editing out parts that clearly show his claim to be false. He also claims he is the only source of that footage, but that is not true at all. Firstly it is available to anyone from the same place he got it, i.e. NASA itself, and second it is available commercially on DVD. >>3. That the top hancho in NASA resigned days before Apollo 11. The film's assertion was he was too ashamed to participated in a hoax. << The movement of upper management people is irrelevant. His reasoning is well documented. Sibrel asserts it was out of shame, but since moving on at that stage still leaves him involved in the years of development, it hardly helps him. >>4. That the Apollo 11 astronauts resigned a sort time after Apollo 11. The film's assertion was they were too ashamed to have participated in a hoax. << Or they reasoned there was nowhere else to go to top what they had done. NASA's budget was being cut, and lunar flights for the next couple of years had been planned. They were not likely to get to go to the Moon again, so maybe they wanted new challenges. >>5. Neil Armstrong, to this day, refuses to be interviewed about the Apollo 11 landing. Is this because he doesn't want to lie anymore?<< This is simply false. Armstrong refuses to be interviewed BY SIBREL, because he knows who Sibrel is. Only a couple of years ago Armstrong was interviewed for a Discovery Channel documentary. >>B) If the US DID go to the Moon, was it just to upstage the Russians for the sake of National pride -- and to prove that we are better than the Communist/Socialist USSR?<< Although there were scientific reasons for planning a lunar flight, this was the main political argument that secured the funding, yes.