Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, Aaron2016 said:

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

 

 

Hey genius, try and take your story one step further and explain how researchers could tel so easily that it wasn't a moon rock. Can you puzzle out what that means?  Here is a hint, read what Peter B said in post #78 and apply it to this fake rock.

[RoofGardener]

11 minutes ago, Peter B said:

*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.

How rude  

[Robotic Jew]

10 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

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

 

 

Nothing odd about this at all. There are probably 1 million more mundane reasons that something like this could've happened before even beginning to jump into a massive conspiracy theory about pretending to go to the moon to keep from looking bad.

[aztek]

didn't  original tapes disappear?  CT will say this is it, the proof it never happens, but anyone else would say, people steal stuff all the time and that tape would fetch quite a dollar, or a euro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

[Robotic Jew]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

didn't  original tapes disappear?  CT will say this is it, the proof it never happens, but anyone else would say, people steal stuff all the time and that tape would fetch quite a dollar, or a euro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

I used them to video my first wedding. Ironically, I then taped over that to record an episode of Big Bang Theory.

[Rlyeh]

On ‎1‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 3:09 AM, Brok said:

You know perfectly well that sentences like the one you wrote are enough to start debates about religion.

Religion and conspiracy theories are bedfellows.

[TigerBright19]

Are there any plans to send a rover to the moon and record on the ground all traces of the Apollo missions so that modern viewers can see exactly what mankind allegedly saw in 1969?  Would certainly convince many if we could see a live video feed from the moon's surface.  Maybe even a Google Earth 'street view' map of the surface as well.  If we can put a man on the moon 50 years ago and broadcast live on TV without interference or time delay then I think we can handle a simple live internet stream from a rover or drone from the moon.  Assuming it can be done at all.

 

[+Desertrat56]

@Aaron2016,  I don't know about documenting the apollo mission leavings but there is an Indian project to land on the moon near the south pole.  There is a thread about it on this site if you want to read more.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Obviousman]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

Are there any plans to send a rover to the moon and record on the ground all traces of the Apollo missions so that modern viewers can see exactly what mankind allegedly saw in 1969?  Would certainly convince many if we could see a live video feed from the moon's surface.  Maybe even a Google Earth 'street view' map of the surface as well.  If we can put a man on the moon 50 years ago and broadcast live on TV without interference or time delay then I think we can handle a simple live internet stream from a rover or drone from the moon.  Assuming it can be done at all.

 

I call bull-something on that. I believe with 100% certainty that you and other hoax believers will simply claim that the feed was faked, or that the artifacts were put there only recently in order to support the "hoax" or any one of a multitude of similarly specious reasons.

[Obviousman]

5 hours ago, aztek said:

didn't  original tapes disappear?  CT will say this is it, the proof it never happens, but anyone else would say, people steal stuff all the time and that tape would fetch quite a dollar, or a euro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

The link misses one important point (IMO) regarding the tapes: why it became so important to reuse them. 

I'll describe this in simple terms; if you want full detail you can read all about it here (see page 12). A new style of magnetic tape was introduced post-Apollo, and began to be used extensively. It was later discovered that the new tapes were degrading far quicker than expected, and replacements were needed immediately for current and future missions. The only choice for NASA was to take old tapes, which were unaffected by the degradation issue, and re-use them for the immediate needs.

[pallidin]

The Earth is flat.

Believe me, I know, I stepped-off the edge once.

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Are there any plans to send a rover to the moon and record on the ground all traces of the Apollo missions so that modern viewers can see exactly what mankind allegedly saw in 1969?  Would certainly convince many if we could see a live video feed from the moon's surface.  Maybe even a Google Earth 'street view' map of the surface as well.  If we can put a man on the moon 50 years ago and broadcast live on TV without interference or time delay then I think we can handle a simple live internet stream from a rover or drone from the moon.  Assuming it can be done at all.

 

Would you believe the images if they did?   Of course not, we have images taken by the LRO of the Apollo 15 descent vehicle, its rover, the rover's tracks and its science package, ALSEP and you don't believe those.   Side question, do you believe the earth is flat?

https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/lro-sees-apollo-15-rover-tracks/

Edited May 2, 2019 by Merc14

[Emma_Acid]

On 30/04/2019 at 9:11 PM, Aaron2016 said:

Too many reasons to believe it was faked.  I am on the fence, but I have my doubts  e.g

1 - The recent crash landing of the Israeli Moon lander tells us that we can't even land a simple unmanned craft on the moon successfully.  Yet we managed 50 years ago to land a fully manned space craft on the moon successfully in 1969 on their first attempt, and with a live television broadcast with no interference and return back to Earth successfully.  You have to admit that is hard for many to accept.  Even if it happened in 2019 it would be hard to accept.

Which is like seeing a car wreckage and refusing anyone can drive a car.

Quote

2 - America is the only nation to send people to the moon.  No other nation came close.  Is it because they know it is impossible?

Nope, it is incredibly expensive and only America really had the resources.

And what do you mean by "impossible" anyway? So we can get to the moon, but we can't land there? Why? What you're arguing makes no coherent sense.

Quote

3 - If one country was prepared to fake it just to satisfy their ego, then America is a clear winner in that regard.

Makes zero sense as an argument. Like - zero.

Quote

4 - We can see planets and galaxies millions of miles away, yet we can't even zoom in and see with convincing HD detail the Apollo landing equipment and vehicles that were left behind on the moon?

The key word here is "convincing". We have photos of the site. I mean, we have photos of the site from the site - but this kid wants something that's "convincing". I'll bet a month's wages nothing will convince you.

Quote

5- With so many scams (bogus charities, WMD, climate change, fake dossiers) it is quite easy to see that faking the moon landings was small potatoes when it comes to convincing the gullible public.

Again, an argument with so many holes I'm going to borrow it next time I cook pasta.

I'll ignore that "bogus charities" = "fake moon landings" is a non-sequitor and just go for the numbers.

Tens of thousands of people worked on the mission, and more spread around the world at relay stations. So you're offering two possibilities - that either tens of thousands of people were in on the secret and have all kept that secret for 70 years or that they were fooled by a core group of conspirators - but the complexity of the mission was such that to fool everyone involved they might as well have actually gone to the moon: amateur radio operators around the world could pick up the signal coming from the moon - so consider how amazingly complicated they would have to have made it for everyone involved to be fooled.

It would have been harder to fake it and fool everyone than actually just go.

Quote

6 - JFK declared that America would send a manned space mission to the Moon by the end of the decade (1969).  The chances of succeeding by the end of that decade were slim, yet his words became gospel and America managed to do it successfully on their first attempt and reached the Moon, landed on the Moon, broadcast live on the Moon, and returned successfully back to Earth, and once the public were fooled and accepted what they saw (convinced themselves it was real) then repeating the Apollo performance in the 1970's became child's play.

"I know understand how they did it, so it didn't happen".

Also - you're now saying the "chances were slim" - you said it was impossible earlier, despite admitting that Israel had actually got there. Which is it?

You do realise that "slim" means "possible", right?

Quote

7 - I believe only one thing could convince the public that the Apollo missions were real.  Return to the Moon. a.k.a. Go to the Moon for the first time.

Tell me - what would convince you about us going now that hasn't convinced you about the Apollo missions? Literally, what would the difference be?

Quote

Still on the fence, but there are convincing debates on both sides.

No you're not, and no there aren't.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Emma_Acid

[TigerBright19]

8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Would you believe the images if they did?   Of course not, we have images taken by the LRO of the Apollo 15 descent vehicle, its rover, the rover's tracks and its science package, ALSEP and you don't believe those.   Side question, do you believe the earth is flat?

https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/lro-sees-apollo-15-rover-tracks/

Never said the moon landings were fake.  I just have doubts about the first televised one.  Of course I don't believe the Earth is flat.  I am merely voicing the general opinions that others have in regards to why they believe the moon landings were fake, and I threw in a few hypothesis as to why they believe it did not happen.

 

 

[Emma_Acid]

On 30/04/2019 at 9:29 PM, 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.

 

Firstly, lots of scientific endeavours fail. They are human projects, and they are not the same humans doing it each time.

Secondly - please explain exactly what our technological shortcomings were in the 1960s. Lots of conspiracy theorists say "we couldn't have gone back then" but can't actually point out where the technology was lacking.

[Emma_Acid]

On 30/04/2019 at 9:37 PM, Aaron2016 said:

I am on the fence as I am not convinced to believe or disbelieve the moon landings.  So I listed a series of questions that anyone with a hint of doubt would ask. e.g. If we can't even land in 2019 with the most advanced technology (Israeli crashed module) then how can the public believe we did it successfully 50 years ago with the bonus of live television from the moon and successfully returning back to Earth. 

China landed at the beginning of the year. So that kind of torpedoes that argument doesn't it?

[Emma_Acid]

On 01/05/2019 at 11:29 AM, Aaron2016 said:

Hence the reason why I am still on the fence, as many others are.

And this post is absolute conclusive proof you have no idea what you're talking about.

[TigerBright19]

18 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

Firstly, lots of scientific endeavours fail. They are human projects, and they are not the same humans doing it each time.

Secondly - please explain exactly what our technological shortcomings were in the 1960s. Lots of conspiracy theorists say "we couldn't have gone back then" but can't actually point out where the technology was lacking.

Looking at the space record and I can see the majority of missions in the 1950's and 1960's were a technological failure when it came to space travel.

 

 

The idea that we could successfully land, walk about, televise it, and safely return to Earth in that historic Apollo mission in 1969 just seems too hard to believe.  It may have happened, it just feels too perfect.  I would believe it without doubt if the lunar module crashed landed, or fell side ways, or there was a technical difficulty with their television signal, or the jamming of the door, or trouble taking off and returning to Earth.  The idea that it all went perfectly well and in front of a live television performance just seems too incredible to be believed without taking a step back and thinking twice.  I have stepped back and am thinking twice.  That is all.  Still on the fence.  I haven't been convinced that it did or did not happen.

 

.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Aaron2016

[Emma_Acid]

7 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

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

 

 

It wasn't given by the Apollo astronauts, this is just wrong.

It was nothing to do with Apollo. It was given by the US Ambassador to the Netherlands, and could have been from anywhere. He had no connection to the Apollo programme whatsoever. Drees, the PM of the Netherlands who was gifted the rock was nearly deaf and blind at the time of the event, and almost certainly made the mistake of thinking it was something to do with the Apollo missions. More likely was the fact that the Nixon administration were showing off and giving out pieces of stone as "moon rock souvenirs" on diplomatic missions.

[Merc14]

20 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Never said the moon landings were fake.  I just have doubts about the first televised one.  Of course I don't believe the Earth is flat.  I am merely voicing the general opinions that others have in regards to why they believe the moon landings were fake, and I threw in a few hypothesis as to why they believe it did not happen.

The others you are speaking about are generally the same idiots that believe the earth is flat so the question shouldn't have surprised you.  Let me ask, do you think there are man-made vehicles roaming other planets or are they fake too?

Edited May 2, 2019 by Merc14

[Emma_Acid]

Just now, Aaron2016 said:

Looking at the space record the 1950's and 1960's were a technological failure when it came to space travel.

The idea that we could successfully land, walk about, televise it, and safely return to Earth in that historic Apollo mission in 1969 just seems too hard to believe.  It may have happened, it just feels too perfect.  I would believe it without doubt if the lunar module crashed landed, or fell side ways, or there was a technical difficulty with their television signal, or the jamming of the door, or trouble taking off and returning to Earth.  The idea that it all went perfectly well and in front of a live television performance just seems too incredible to be believed without taking a step back and thinking twice.  I have stepped back and am thinking twice.  That is all..

But you're not thinking. At all.

You're saying its impossible, then that it's "a slim chance". You're posting evidence of failure and then saying the Apollo mission was "too perfect". You do know that people died while developing this programme, right? There was nothing perfect about Apollo. They had just enough technologically to get there and some of the best engineers and pilots in the world working on it, not to mention the significant political will to beat the Russians.

None of your arguments make sense.

[TigerBright19]

2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The others you are speaking about are generally the same idiots that believe the earth is flat so the question shouldn't have surprised you.  Let me ask, do you think there are man-made vehicles, like Curiosity, roaming other planets or are they fake too?

Roaming vehicles are perfectly reasonable to believe.  It is the first steps on the moon I have doubts about.  Nothing else.

 

[Emma_Acid]

3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The others you are speaking about are generally the same idiots that believe the earth is flat so the question shouldn't have surprised you.  Let me ask, do you think there are man-made vehicles roaming other planets or are they fake too?

It's just JAQ-ing off, that's all he's doing.

[TigerBright19]

1 minute ago, Emma_Acid said:

But you're not thinking. At all.

You're saying its impossible, then that it's "a slim chance". You're posting evidence of failure and then saying the Apollo mission was "too perfect". You do know that people died while developing this programme, right? There was nothing perfect about Apollo. They had just enough technologically to get there and some of the best engineers and pilots in the world working on it, not to mention the significant political will to beat the Russians.

None of your arguments make sense.

Never said it was impossible.  I said it seems hard to believe in the context of 1960's technology.  That is all.

 

[Emma_Acid]

Just now, Aaron2016 said:

Roaming vehicles are perfectly reasonable to believe.  It is the first steps on the moon I have doubts about.  Nothing else.

 

OK - so what were the technological differences between the first and second steps?

Why could Apollo 12 have done it, but Apollo 11 couldn't have - just four months earlier?