5 replies to this topic

[postbaguk]

A lot of threads I've read on the alleged Apollo hoax are coming from the angle of presenting evidence (often photographic), and then attempting to demonstrate that the evidence is somehow fake. This has all been covered in great depth on other threads on this and other forums, so I thought we could do with a thread looking at things from a different angle. My question is, what do Conspiracy Theorists believe is the main reason/problem that would have prevented the Apollo missions from going ahead as documented? Technology? Radiation? Something else? I think it's important to look at it from this angle, as well as looking at the specific claims of fakery.

So, what is/are the Apollo show-stopper(s) that would have prevented it from happening? (No fake photos please!) Please back up any claims with relevant sources, etc.

(I'd like to politley ask the Mods to ensure the thread doesn't get de-railed into discussing whether evidence was faked or not - showstoppers only please! I know you all do a good job, and we don't really need another thread to discuss "faked evidence"   )

[aquatus1]

This should be interesting.  It reminds me a bit of of my "Proof of Creationism" thread, where I asked for evidence supporting Creationism as real, and for no arguments about evolution being fake.  It took about 7 pages of continous "Do NOT argue that evolution is FAKE."  Before it became clear that no one had anything to support creationism.

Simply because on thing is false does not mean another is true.  Look at the Red Bull commercials.

[MID]

Most interesting idea, Posty.

As is the case with aquatus, I am thinking it'll take a while to get on track...


Based on the criteria, I should think photos, which are a mainstay of HB fare are off the table, because the contention is that they're fake.  You can't present photos without the contention they're fake.

So I suppose that leaves the following:

1) Radiation of the Van Allen belts and cosmic radiation in cis-lunar space and on the lunar surface made the missions impossible.
2) The technology of the late 1960s and early 1970s wasn't advanced enough to allow such a mission to occur.


Other than faked photos, which are of course off the table, everything seems to stem from these two contentions.  I will be interested to see if there's something else involved, as a core principal, or show-stopper.

But I suppose, this is for the CT to say, not me!

[Adam2006]

The main one i can think of is the radiation being a problem, but it may have been exagerated at how damaging it is.
The only other one is: 'We haven't been back since', but this is rather poor.

I saw a program basically saying how the 'fake evidence' wasn't so fake, like the excuse of 'there were no stars' is because of the light difference and the camera.

I agree that this will be a very interesting topic, and it could be very short, or very very long.

I love your avatar posty, i sat staring at it.

[MID]

Quote

The only other one is: 'We haven't been back since', but this is rather poor.

I'd agree, Adam...

In fact, I think that one would be disqualified.
The contention is that we were never there in the first place, and the thread is to determine why that wasn't possible.
That we haven't been back since isn't what we'd call a show-stopper, since it seems to imply that we once were!

And even if not, something of the present (that we haven't recently been there), cannot be considered in any way a reason for something that happened, or not,  in the past.

[postbaguk]

As mentioned in this thread, I suspect that radiation and technology may well be on the list, but I'm interested to hear those claims fleshed out (rather than the usual hand-waving style of argument), and there may well be others I haven't considered. It's only by examining the minutiae of claims that they can be effectively addressed (for example, "computers weren't powerful enough to fly to the moon" is the sort of argument we've all heard of before. OK, explain how Surveyor missions successfully flew to and soft-landed on the moon.)

Being the night that it is, I don't expect this topic to flourish for a while! Hopefully in a few days we'll have a list of reasons why HBers believe Apollo couldn't have happened, and we can discuss those reasons individually.

Have a nice night everyone - spare a thought for those of us who are keeping the wheels of industry grinding!