Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Peter B]

6 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

 

Point 1 - If Israel can't land something safely in 2019 with state of the art technology, investments, and simulations, then my point stands that it is incredibly hard to believe America did it successfully (go there, land, broadcast, and return) in 1969.  Which is why a number of people doubt we went to the Moon 50 years ago.  Perfectly legit point to make.

Point 2 - If Russia failed repeatedly, perhaps they realized it was an impossibility and that is what the doubters would say.  Other than America, no other country sent a man to the Moon which brings me to point 3.

Point 3 - From personal experience dealing with Americans.  The American ego is large, with constant self righteous claims and being the most loud and noticeable person in the hotel, restaurant, or beach.  It is understandable that doubters would take whatever America claims it does with a pinch of salt.

Point 4 - The recent photos which are supposed to show aerial views of the moon landing are not good quality and with today's capability of photoshopping it is understandable why doubters can not accept the aerial photos as evidence

e.g.  Back in 1913 the police were photographing suffragettes.  We thought they had their photos taken normally, but the originals were released and we now realize they were physically held when the photos were taken and the photos were faked to create the illusion they stood and posed for them normally.

If they could fake it in 1913 then in 1969 - 2019 would be child's play.

 

1913 technology

Real / Faked

 

Point 5 - Covering up the moon landings would be relatively easy.  First they genuinely try at first to reach the moon and the original team are killed or they run out of money and resources.  Time is running short so they turn to plan B and allow the scientists and crew to continue with their work so that money was continually being invested and embezzled.  They build a studio in a secluded area which they pretend will be used for simulations.  While the unmanned rocket blasts off and does its thing, the TV cameras are fed into the studio and the actors do their thing.  They could genuinely believe they are going to the moon and are pumped with enough drugs in their system to combat space sickness that they can't tell what is real or not and any blunders on the studio set will be explained to them later as hallucinations.  This is just one scenario that doubters will say is highly possible.  The reasons for the cover up could simply be that something disastrous did take place, but in order to avoid all cases of legal negligence which would shut down the project and open a public inquiry, they decided to turn to plan B and fake it with or without the governments approval.

Point 6 - If JFK was advised to say.... or was prepared to say....is not important because he was on record as saying they would land on the moon by the end of this decade (1960's).  Failure to meet that deadline would look bad.  When British Prime Minister Theresa May delayed the Brexit date it infuriated the public and she agreed to resign as soon as the next phase begins.  If JFK could not keep his word to the people and had to return and apologise and delay the date, then it would have a similar negative effect on his leadership.  Similar to those who believe Osama Bin Laden was not killed, and the assassination was faked to increase Obama's public ratings.  Just like the moon landing there are pros and cons to believe both sides of the debate.

Point 7 - Like I said, the doubters will only believe we went to the moon if we return to the moon (assuming we went before).

 

Since we can only believe what is presented as evidence, we can therefore only put our faith in the credibility of the people who presented it.  Since I never met the people who presented the evidence and I have no idea what their motives, or agendas were, I can only place a limited value on their credibility.  Hence the reason why I am still on the fence, as many others are.

 

Hi, welcome back to round 2!

*waves*

Okay, let's go through these points...

1. Sure, the Israeli mission failed. But let me put it to you...if China can land something safely in 2019 with good (if not the best) technology, then my point stands that it's conceivable to believe that Apollo was real in 1969.

2. If the Soviets concluded that going to the Moon was impossible, why didn't they reveal this in 1969? Regardless of whether it was possible to go the Moon, if the Americans faked Apollo, why didn't the Soviets reveal this in 1969? Either point would have destroyed American credibility in the eyes of people around the world, at a particularly delicate stage of the Cold War.

3. Sure, Americans have large egos. Sure, you're entitled to take American claims with a pinch of salt. Now please explain how those 380 kilograms of Apollo rocks (which have been examined by scientists from around the world) came to be on Earth, unless inside American spacecraft.

4. Sure, the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites aren't great quality, and by themselves they're not proof Apollo was real. And sure, people have been faking photos for more than a century. But (a) the LRO images are entirely consistent with all the other Apollo evidence, and (b) before the LRO launched many Apollo Hoax Believers demanded exactly the sort of evidence you've now dismissed.

5. Your "highly possible" scenario is very entertaining, but spectacularly impractical. For just one thing, how do you simulate live on TV the effect of a low gravity vacuum on the movement of the astronauts and the behaviour of the soil when the astronauts kick it? If you think it can be faked live on TV, then it must be "child's play" (to quote someone on this thread) to fake it in movies or TV shows where you can do retakes. On that basis, why do none of the movies or TV shows featuring people on the Moon get the effects right?

6. Yes, failure to meet JFK's challenge would have been bad, and may well have reflected badly on both American technology and their can-do attitude. But being caught faking it would have been catastrophic by comparison. And given that the Soviets had agents inside NASA, how could NASA have possibly prevented the Soviets from finding out about any fakery?

7. I love your confidence that Apollo Hoax Believers will be convinced Apollo was real when people next walk on the Moon. :-) Sadly, I think most will find some other reason to not believe... :-(

8. I agree that evidence, and the credibility of the people who present it, are both important. Well, I've looked at the evidence. I've spoken to people who were involved in the Apollo missions - specifically, people who worked at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, which was one of three ground stations receiving signals from the Moon. They know what their equipment could do, and they knew they were receiving live signals from the Moon. I'll leave it up to you whether you might like to talk to these people, or their equivalents in Spain or the USA. Or you could go to the geology department of your nearest university and ask them about the Apollo rocks; there's a reasonable chance that someone in the department has studied an Apollo sample, or knows someone who has.

[+OverSword]

20 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

When it comes to state of the art technology and research, Israel leads the way.  They tried to land on the moon in 2019 and failed.  Convincing the public that we landed on the moon 50 years ago will be harder than ever because of it.

 

Dude.  Maybe read up on the subject a bit.  Just from memory I can tell you that the USA, Japan, India, China, Russia and the European space agency have all landed craft on the moon.  If you really doubt the USA sent men to the moon maybe go to youtube and listen to men such as Neil Degras Tyson or Michio Kaku debunk every single argument presented.  You may as well argue the pseudo science of flat earth if you're going to argue that humans haven't walked on the moon.

[Merc14]

30 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

You may believe it happened because you have been told it happened, have trust in what other's have said, and have read. seen photos, and watched footage.  I am just saying that this may appear to be convincing evidence to some, and not convincing at all to others.

The evidence that it happened is overwhelming, only a truly ignorant person would say otherwise.  We even have images from satellites orbiting the Moon that show the landers, footprint trails, tracks from the rover etc.  Your evidence is so full of holes and so ignorant of the various subjects like telescope optics, distance between objects in space, rocketry and spacecraft in general and the history of space travel that it is hard to read.

[Obviousman]

3 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

You may believe it happened because you have been told it happened, have trust in what other's have said, and have read. seen photos, and watched footage. 

Pot, pot, this is kettle - over.

And I asked you, in one of my first posts, what YOUR qualifications were to judge the topic. You do know some people here are engineers, etc? That people have met and spoken to people involved (e.g. people who tracked the spacecraft, people who were involved in the design & testing of the spacecraft)? That verifiable, reproducible science has been developed from the results of the lunar exploration? That we have hardware today that is directly attributable to the Apollo flight hardware?

[TigerBright19]

1 hour ago, Obviousman said:

Pot, pot, this is kettle - over.

And I asked you, in one of my first posts, what YOUR qualifications were to judge the topic. You do know some people here are engineers, etc? That people have met and spoken to people involved (e.g. people who tracked the spacecraft, people who were involved in the design & testing of the spacecraft)? That verifiable, reproducible science has been developed from the results of the lunar exploration? That we have hardware today that is directly attributable to the Apollo flight hardware?

The doubters would say those people who believe we went to the Moon are overwhelmed with patriotism and blind devotion and loyalty to protect their fellow colleagues profession and reputations that they will see only one version of history (the one that protects their profession and credibility) and that they feel a slur against one of them is a slur against all.

Like I said, I am on the fence.  I merely voice the concerns of others. e.g.  Like this guy:

I can't prove or disprove this guy's claims, which is why I stay on the fence and hear both sides.

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Aaron2016

[Obviousman]

6 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

The doubters would say those people who believe we went to the Moon are overwhelmed with patriotism and blind devotion and loyalty to protect their fellow colleagues profession and reputations that they will see only one version of history (the one that protects their profession and credibility) and that they feel a slur against one of them is a slur against all.

Okay, so they are all in it. Your pool of conspirators seems to be growing exponentially.

And you still haven't stated your qualifications.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Obviousman

[TigerBright19]

48 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Okay, so they are all in it. Your pool of conspirators seems to be growing exponentially.

And you still haven't stated your qualifications.

 

Not a big conspiracy.  Just keep the majority involved in the project in the dark.  We could easily have gone to the Moon.  It is the original 1969 televised space mission that I have doubts about.  What would be more convincing to believe is that we attempted to land several times and failed several times and the footage we saw might not have been live from the Moon but instead a pre-recording which was on standby in case something bad happened.  Every other moon landing could have been legit.  I just have doubts about the first one.  America had much to lose if they messed it up and little to gain.  By the late 1970's the novelty of landing on the moon had gone away.  The nation was happy to elect politicians who would channel the money into better resources and we haven't been back since (assuming we went at all).  Qualifications?  We have Google.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Aaron2016

[Obviousman]

2 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Not a big conspiracy.  Just keep the majority involved in the project in the dark.  We could easily have gone to the Moon.  It is the original 1969 televised space mission that I have doubts about.  What would be more convincing to believe is that we attempted to land several times and failed several times and the footage we saw might not have been live from the Moon but instead a pre-recording.  Every other moon landing could have been legit.  I just have doubts about the first one.  America had much to lose if they messed it up and little to gain.  By the 1970's the novelty of landing on the moon had quickly gone away.  The nation was so disinterested in the subject that they were happy to spend the money elsewhere and we haven't been back since (assuming we went at all).  Qualifications?  We have Google.

 

*sigh*

That's it for me; I'm not wasting any more time on you. Ignorance is acceptable; willful ignorance is not. Enjoy your own version of reality.

[Peter B]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

The doubters would say those people who believe we went to the Moon are overwhelmed with patriotism and blind devotion and loyalty to protect their fellow colleagues profession and reputations that they will see only one version of history (the one that protects their profession and credibility) and that they feel a slur against one of them is a slur against all.

Like I said, I am on the fence.  I merely voice the concerns of others. e.g.  Like this guy:

I can't prove or disprove this guy's claims, which is why I stay on the fence and hear both sides.

 

 

 

*waves harder*

Hey, over here! Stop ignoring me!

The category of "people who believe we went to the Moon" includes people who lived in the USSR when it was the mortal enemy of the USA - that is, people who are NOT in the category of people "overwhelmed with [American] patriotism and blind devotion and loyalty..."

When will you accept that the USSR accepted the reality of the Apollo missions. All of the missions.

And regarding the dude on TV. You're the one who raised the issue of the credibility of evidence and the people who present it. What are Martin Kenny's qualifications to pass judgement on the reality of Apollo? Why not accept the credibility and evidence of professional scientists and engineers with qualifications relevant to the subject?

[Peter B]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

Not a big conspiracy.  Just keep the majority involved in the project in the dark.  We could easily have gone to the Moon.  It is the original 1969 televised space mission that I have doubts about.  What would be more convincing to believe is that we attempted to land several times and failed several times and the footage we saw might not have been live from the Moon but instead a pre-recording which was on standby in case something bad happened.  Every other moon landing could have been legit.  I just have doubts about the first one.  America had much to lose if they messed it up and little to gain.  By the late 1970's the novelty of landing on the moon had gone away.  The nation was happy to elect politicians who would channel the money into better resources and we haven't been back since (assuming we went at all).  Qualifications?  We have Google.

 

Not a big conspiracy? How? How do you fake a Moon landing and create convincing evidence that it wasn't faked, and keep that a small conspiracy? Come on, give us a narrative of how this happened. Consider that the people operating the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station here in Australia pointed their highly directional dish at the Moon and received signals. That is effectively impossible if the mission wasn't real.

And as for the risk. Sure, the USA had a lot to lose if Apollo 11 was a disaster. But things would have been immeasurably worse if they'd faked it - because they would have been caught out.

As for qualifications, does this mean you think you're the equal of every expert on the Earth in every subject because you have access to Google? That's almost a dictionary definition of chutzpah right there. I await your judgement on the wisdom of the San Francisco 49ers in using their 4th draft pick to select a punter.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

The doubters would say those people who believe we went to the Moon are overwhelmed with patriotism and blind devotion and loyalty to protect their fellow colleagues profession and reputations that they will see only one version of history (the one that protects their profession and credibility) and that they feel a slur against one of them is a slur against all.

Like I said, I am on the fence.  I merely voice the concerns of others. e.g.  Like this guy:

I can't prove or disprove this guy's claims, which is why I stay on the fence and hear both sides.

 

 

 

Do you know what a strawman argument is?  Probably not, you aren't very knowledgeable, obviously, well that is what this crank is doing.  Frankly he is an idiot

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

Not a big conspiracy.  Just keep the majority involved in the project in the dark.  We could easily have gone to the Moon.  It is the original 1969 televised space mission that I have doubts about.  What would be more convincing to believe is that we attempted to land several times and failed several times and the footage we saw might not have been live from the Moon but instead a pre-recording which was on standby in case something bad happened.  Every other moon landing could have been legit.  I just have doubts about the first one.  America had much to lose if they messed it up and little to gain.  By the late 1970's the novelty of landing on the moon had gone away.  The nation was happy to elect politicians who would channel the money into better resources and we haven't been back since (assuming we went at all).  Qualifications?  We have Google.

 

Hey bright boy, earlier you said it was so

33 minutes ago, Peter B said:

*waves harder*

Hey, over here! Stop ignoring me!

The category of "people who believe we went to the Moon" includes people who lived in the USSR when it was the mortal enemy of the USA - that is, people who are NOT in the category of people "overwhelmed with [American] patriotism and blind devotion and loyalty..."

When will you accept that the USSR accepted the reality of the Apollo missions. All of the missions.

And regarding the dude on TV. You're the one who raised the issue of the credibility of evidence and the people who present it. What are Martin Kenny's qualifications to pass judgement on the reality of Apollo? Why not accept the credibility and evidence of professional scientists and engineers with qualifications relevant to the subject?

Hell, the Soviets tracked that mission every inch of the way just to make sure we actually made it and also gather data if they wanted to try again.  The saddest thing about this aaron2016 is that he doesn't seem to realize that man-made space craft have been landing on the Moon since 1964.  This is proof that he hasn't done ANY research at all and is completely ignorant about space travel in general.  He is likely an adolescent and not a very educated one at that.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Merc14

[qxcontinuum]

Oh no, really the ppl believe it was fake? Shame man, show them videos... oh the most important tapes in the history of space travel were rewritten? Not a problem, there's still plaintly to belive a tinfoil aluminium covered capsule went to the moon and back.

[pallidin]

What even be the purpose of a Moon-landing-hoax, when Russia, China and countless other tech-nations have accepted this?

Ah, global conspiracy, of course, by nations which hate us yet fully recognize the U.S. Moon landings.

Wonder if this notion of "hoax" will ever go away... probably not... even after we colonize Mars in the future.

They will claim that's a hoax.

 

[pallidin]

I was born very close to the flight center in Florida... didn't seem like any hoax to me as I watched all the Apollo misions from those massive rocket take-off's.

Must have been faked... sure.

[pallidin]

"Conspiracy theorists" claim that going to the moon was faked, and yet, our most tenacious nation, Russia, said we did.

How to you explain that?

[pallidin]

Oh, I forgot, Russia is "in" on the elaborate scheme via the "illuminate"

Pfffttt...

[Peter B]

4 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

Oh no, really the ppl believe it was fake? Shame man, show them videos... oh the most important tapes in the history of space travel were rewritten? Not a problem, there's still plaintly to belive a tinfoil aluminium covered capsule went to the moon and back.

Videos: All of the data transmitted from the Moon was received on Earth. All of it was then copied onto other media. No data was lost. The original tapes were then likely recorded over in the 1980s because such tapes by then were rare and if they weren't reused then data on other missions would be lost. Seeing as no data was lost from Apollo 11, the only problem was the loss of image quality.

Tinfoil aluminium covered capsule: Where is the problem? Those thin, light, literally bendable panels forming the outer skin of the Lunar Module were not the pressure vessel of the spacecraft. The pressure vessel was inside those outer panels, and it was made of thicker material. The outer panels were intended to help with temperature control and to be a sacrificial outer skin to protect against meteor impact. Given the Lunar Module was only ever intended to operate in the vacuum of space, and in gravity no stronger than the Moon's, this was a perfectly adequate design. Your argument is a bit like saying that because a car has leather seats, then the car is made of leather and couldn't possibly work.

As I've said to Aaron2016, if you want to claim that Apollo was faked, you have to explain how the Earth is home to 380 kilograms of material which scientists from around the world agree was formed in a waterless, low-gravity vacuum, and yet which passed through the Earth's atmosphere without any damage or contamination.

[TigerBright19]

46 minutes ago, Peter B said:

As I've said to Aaron2016, if you want to claim that Apollo was faked, you have to explain how the Earth is home to 380 kilograms of material which scientists from around the world agree was formed in a waterless, low-gravity vacuum, and yet which passed through the Earth's atmosphere without any damage or contamination.

"Scientists from around the world agree"

Be very skeptic when using this phrase.  As professor Ian Plimer once said - "Scientists agree on nothing."  Getting just a dozen scientists to agree on anything is a challenge.  Looking at a rock and declaring it is from the Moon could be considered by many to be just as far-fetched as looking at a tiny rock on Earth and declaring it is millions of years old.  The scientists just examine, speculate within the limits of their technology, and conduct a theoretical supposition on what it might be and how old it might be.  Nothing more can be determined.  The scientists limited in certain fields can be just as clueless as the average person when it comes to studying topics that are well beyond their understanding.  They may respect their colleagues and endorse their work, but they by no means are compelled to examine, agree, and understand it. e.g. Just like a married couple who support each other without question.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Aaron2016

[Robotic Jew]

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

"Conspiracy theorists" claim that going to the moon was faked, and yet, our most tenacious nation, Russia, said we did.

How to you explain that?

Russia is part of the global elite that want everyone to believe the Earth is round. Can't go to the moon because it's a projection so that we all believe we aren't really living on a plate.

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Peter B said:

Videos: All of the data transmitted from the Moon was received on Earth. All of it was then copied onto other media. No data was lost. The original tapes were then likely recorded over in the 1980s because such tapes by then were rare and if they weren't reused then data on other missions would be lost. Seeing as no data was lost from Apollo 11, the only problem was the loss of image quality.

...

The image coming from the Apollo missions was a horrendous 'home brew' format that had to be converted for use in TV transmissions (and videotape recordings). It was this conversion process which accounted for the poor quality. Zillions of tapes would have been made of this by various TV companies on 2" Quadraplex tapes.

The original transmissions, however, where actually high quality, and where recorded on telemetry tapes (essentially computer tapes). It was THESE that where re-used. So the original high-quality video footage HAS been lost. The person responsible for this vandalism should be shot. 

[+Desertrat56]

I have only met one person who believed the moon landing was faked when hanging out with a bunch of conspiracy groups which is a small sample, one out of  50, but still, I find it hard to believe that it is a theory running rampant in the conspiracy circles, unless maybe they are all flat earthers.

[Peter B]

4 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

"Scientists from around the world agree"

Be very skeptic when using this phrase.  As professor Ian Plimer once said - "Scientists agree on nothing."  Getting just a dozen scientists to agree on anything is a challenge.  Looking at a rock and declaring it is from the Moon could be considered by many to be just as far-fetched as looking at a tiny rock on Earth and declaring it is millions of years old.  The scientists just examine, speculate within the limits of their technology, and conduct a theoretical supposition on what it might be and how old it might be.  Nothing more can be determined.  The scientists limited in certain fields can be just as clueless as the average person when it comes to studying topics that are well beyond their understanding.  They may respect their colleagues and endorse their work, but they by no means are compelled to examine, agree, and understand it. e.g. Just like a married couple who support each other without question.

Scientists didn't "look at a rock and declare it was from the Moon". They were given Moon rocks and performed a suite of tests on them to determine their chemical and physical composition. They found the rocks have distinctive characteristics, such as: they're all extremely low in elements and compounds with low boiling points; they're all covered on their exposed sides with microscopic impact marks called 'zap pits' caused by the impact of sand-grain-sized meteors at speeds of tens of kilometres a second; and they're all altered on their exposed sides by exposure to millions of years' worth of solar radiation. These characteristics are absent in all Earth rocks. There is, for example, nowhere on Earth a rock can be exposed to the impact of sand-grain-sized meteors at speeds of tens of kilometres a second.

That's why scientists say things like, "Wherever NASA says this rock is from, I can sure tell you it ain't from Earth."

And the business of determining the age of a rock is just a teeny tiny bit more sophisticated than "conducting a theoretical supposition". If your Google Fu was as good as you blithely claim it is, you'd be able to find articles which explain why that statement is wrong.

And what gives you the idea that scientists studying Moon rocks are studying "topics that are well beyond their understanding"? Moon rocks are...drumroll...rocks. The scientists who study rocks are rock choppers geologists. So the people who study Moon rocks are...drumroll...geologists! How about that!

In conclusion, scientists certainly disagreed about the conclusions to be drawn from the data provided by the Apollo rocks (at least up to the 1980s). But they didn't disagree about the data itself.

But hey, don't trust me. Like I said before, go to the geology department of the university nearest to you and ask the staff there about Moon rocks. Go on. I dare you.

[Peter B]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The image coming from the Apollo missions was a horrendous 'home brew' format that had to be converted for use in TV transmissions (and videotape recordings). It was this conversion process which accounted for the poor quality. Zillions of tapes would have been made of this by various TV companies on 2" Quadraplex tapes.

The original transmissions, however, where actually high quality, and where recorded on telemetry tapes (essentially computer tapes). It was THESE that where re-used. So the original high-quality video footage HAS been lost. The person responsible for this vandalism should be shot. 

*sigh*

Please pull your head in. The reuse of these tapes back in the 1980s was S.O.P. Yes, we've probably forever lost higher quality video footage of Apollo 11, and that's a crying shame. But as has been pointed out we didn't lose any video (and who knows what technology might be able to retrieve from surviving videos in coming years?). Plus, at the time the tapes were erased general interest in Apollo as a topic of history was much less than it is today. This is no different to the way there are no flying examples of many WW2-era planes which once filled the skies - sure it'd be nice to have examples for the historical record, but the people who wrecked them in the years after the war just wanted to recycle them.

[TigerBright19]

20 minutes ago, Peter B said:

In conclusion, scientists certainly disagreed about the conclusions to be drawn from the data provided by the Apollo rocks (at least up to the 1980s). But they didn't disagree about the data itself.

But hey, don't trust me. Like I said before, go to the geology department of the university nearest to you and ask the staff there about Moon rocks. Go on. I dare you.

Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins presented a Moon rock to the Dutch prime minister.  (Drum roll)  It turned out to be fake.  The report said people were "able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon."  Yet the famous astronauts who presented the rock had no idea they were presenting a fake.  Something odd there.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Aaron2016