Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

1,127 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TigerBright19
16 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Here it is everyone...

The stupidest thing you will read today

Your patriotism serves you well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
36 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

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.

Okay, let's just look at this first "reason".

  • We used to have supersonic airliners that flew across the Atlantic but don't have one today, therefore Concorde was faked.
  • I can drive safely without having any accidents yet there are people who - despite holding a licence - have multiple accidents every year therefore the ability to drive safely & accident free is faked,
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19
19 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Okay, let's just look at this first "reason".

  • We used to have supersonic airliners that flew across the Atlantic but don't have one today, therefore Concorde was faked.
  • I can drive safely without having any accidents yet there are people who - despite holding a licence - have multiple accidents every year therefore the ability to drive safely & accident free is faked,

No.  There are inventions and events that are possible and within our reach.  Landing on the Moon has been a dream goal for many for so many centuries and when I hear that we managed to achieve this on our first attempt and broadcast it live on TV and successfully return to Earth.  Well, that is something altogether so incredible that it is perfectly understandable why many doubt it happened.

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
12 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

No.  There are inventions and events that are possible and within our reach.  Landing on the Moon has been a dream goal for many for so many centuries and when I hear that we managed to achieve this on our first attempt and broadcast it live on TV and successfully return to Earth.  Well, that is something altogether so incredible that it is perfectly understandable why many doubt it happened.

Oh - I'm sorry... your specialty is? Aeronautics? Aeronautical engineering? Astronautics? Software engineering?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
3 hours ago, Brok said:

Don't worry, I think most of us are capable of seeing through such blatant baiting.

They can't resist the urge to throw in that passive aggressive anti-religious jab whenever possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

Russia has landed probes on Venus. Freaking Venus. We have launched and landed probes on the Moon, Mars and Titan. Japan has a probe orbiting an asteroid which it bombed, is going to land and collect samples to return to Earth. Every country that has EVER been involved in doing ANYTHING in space has had losses and those will continue. It is not an easy thing to do. 

The number one argument against idiots, and I do mean that, that do NOT believe we landed on the moon is the COLD WAR. As it has been pointed out, the Russians were VERY aware of what was going on and tracking every single thing that the US was doing with regards to the landing on the moon. If there were ANY CHANCE AT ALL it was not what it actually was there is absolutely no chance the Russians would have played along. NONE. All the other BS conspiracy theories would be unnecessary because of that fact.

The best and only thing to do with conspiracy theories involving the moon landing is to completely ignore them. Any and all attempts to show proof is countered with more and more convoluted conspiracies and ultimately ends up a game of troll feeding on an epic scale.

Let the conspiracy folks feel like they have "special knowledge". 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
16 minutes ago, esoteric_toad said:

Russia has landed probes on Venus. Freaking Venus. We have launched and landed probes on the Moon, Mars and Titan. Japan has a probe orbiting an asteroid which it bombed, is going to land and collect samples to return to Earth. Every country that has EVER been involved in doing ANYTHING in space has had losses and those will continue. It is not an easy thing to do. 

The number one argument against idiots, and I do mean that, that do NOT believe we landed on the moon is the COLD WAR. As it has been pointed out, the Russians were VERY aware of what was going on and tracking every single thing that the US was doing with regards to the landing on the moon. If there were ANY CHANCE AT ALL it was not what it actually was there is absolutely no chance the Russians would have played along. NONE. All the other BS conspiracy theories would be unnecessary because of that fact.

The best and only thing to do with conspiracy theories involving the moon landing is to completely ignore them. Any and all attempts to show proof is countered with more and more convoluted conspiracies and ultimately ends up a game of troll feeding on an epic scale.

Let the conspiracy folks feel like they have "special knowledge". 

I used to feel that way, being tired of going over the same old arguments time and time again.... but that changed when I heard a couple of younger people saying things like "Oh yeah, the USA faked the Moon landing to win the Cold war...". And they mean that. They think it literally meant the the US won and the USSR lost with that one event, game over. Simplistic and ignorant.

I can't stand back and allow that situation to fester and grow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad
12 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

I used to feel that way, being tired of going over the same old arguments time and time again.... but that changed when I heard a couple of younger people saying things like "Oh yeah, the USA faked the Moon landing to win the Cold war...". And they mean that. They think it literally meant the the US won and the USSR lost with that one event, game over. Simplistic and ignorant.

I can't stand back and allow that situation to fester and grow.

I was born in Cocoa Beach, Florida. I still live in the area and everyday on the way to work I can see the VAB across the river. I have worked for United Space Alliance, the major contractor for NASA during the Space Shuttle Program. I vaguely remember some of the moon landings but mainly things from the Apollo-Soyuz programs and beyond. I remember the first Shuttle launches, during the first few launches the schools would shut down. I witnessed the Challenger disaster and had to go to work the day of the Columbia disaster when the entire space center was basically shut down. I worked in the warehouse where they placed the debris that was collected from Columbia, laid out in the basic shape of the orbiter. I have worked on both launch pads 39A and 39B, the OPF's, the VAB.

I know what we have accomplished. I am hopeful of what we will accomplish in the near future. 

All of that I have found fighting with idiots to be pointless. They contribute nothing and thrive on antagonizing. It is one thing to educate someone that may be ignorant of the accomplishments man's accomplishments but those that spout conspiracy against common sense are trolls or delusional. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InconceivableThoughts

Ive read several of your post and you my good sir be a troll. Nothing he said in his original post was stupid. While i dont agree that the landing was faked i dont see any false information he posted. Well exept 7. Regardless. What gives you the right to belittle people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InconceivableThoughts
4 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Here it is everyone...

The stupidest thing you will read today

Ive read several of your post and you my good sir be a troll. Nothing he said in his original post was stupid. While i dont agree that the landing was faked i dont see any false information he posted. Well exept 7. Regardless. What gives you the right to belittle people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
3 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Ive read several of your post and you my good sir be a troll. Nothing he said in his original post was stupid. While i dont agree that the landing was faked i dont see any false information he posted. Well exept 7. Regardless. What gives you the right to belittle people?

Simple because I can. Report button is in the top right. Otherwise, p*** off.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
4 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Let cover this.

Point 1 I already dealt with.

Point 2. Incorrect; the USSR had an advanced lunar landing programme underway but could not solve problems with their launch vehicle, the N-1. After four unsuccessful launch attempts between 1969 and 1972, and the fact the US had already made several landings, the USSR abandoned the programme. This is well documented.

Point 3. Your opinion and no evidence that it points to a faked lunar landing.

Point 4. Incorrect - shows a basic misunderstanding of optics. Firstly, lunar orbiters from a number of nations HAVE shown the remnants to the lunar landers, including footprints. Things like Hubble cannot be used because the Moon is too close.

Point 5. Your opinion, unsupported by facts. Much smaller conspiracies have been blown: the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandal, etc.

Point 6. When JFK asked for when a lunar landing could be achieved, he was advised that it should be possible by 1967. He decided that ".. before this decade is out..." sounded better. Incidentally, they were prepared to say they had achieved it if they landed and returned before 1 Jan 1971, since the 'decade' ended at the end of 1970. Apollo 11 was the first H Mission (landing attempt) and they expected it might take three attempts before a successful landing occurred. And that is after a lunar orbit mission (Apollo 8) and a full dress rehearsal (Apollo 10), where they gained a LOT of experience in what was needed.

Point 7. Fine - get out your wallet and fund NASA to do it. Go see your elected reps and lobby them to give NASA the funds to do it. Get private enterprise to do it. It's not the technology per se, it the money.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InconceivableThoughts
4 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Simple because I can. Report button is in the top right. Otherwise, p*** off.

You must live a sad pathetic existence.  Grow up no one really cares that you think you are the smartest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InconceivableThoughts
4 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Let cover this.

Point 1 I already dealt with.

Point 2. Incorrect; the USSR had an advanced lunar landing programme underway but could not solve problems with their launch vehicle, the N-1. After four unsuccessful launch attempts between 1969 and 1972, and the fact the US had already made several landings, the USSR abandoned the programme. This is well documented.

Point 3. Your opinion and no evidence that it points to a faked lunar landing.

Point 4. Incorrect - shows a basic misunderstanding of optics. Firstly, lunar orbiters from a number of nations HAVE shown the remnants to the lunar landers, including footprints. Things like Hubble cannot be used because the Moon is too close.

Point 5. Your opinion, unsupported by facts. Much smaller conspiracies have been blown: the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandal, etc.

Point 6. When JFK asked for when a lunar landing could be achieved, he was advised that it should be possible by 1967. He decided that ".. before this decade is out..." sounded better. Incidentally, they were prepared to say they had achieved it if they landed and returned before 1 Jan 1971, since the 'decade' ended at the end of 1970. Apollo 11 was the first H Mission (landing attempt) and they expected it might take three attempts before a successful landing occurred. And that is after a lunar orbit mission (Apollo 8) and a full dress rehearsal (Apollo 10), where they gained a LOT of experience in what was needed.

Point 7. Fine - get out your wallet and fund NASA to do it. Go see your elected reps and lobby them to give NASA the funds to do it. Get private enterprise to do it. It's not the technology per se, it the money.

 

See this is a constructive post. Its makes valid points and gives reasons why the moon landing was impossible to fake. Sitting there telling someone what they think is stupid is highly counterproductive . The only thing it will cause is unrest and shut down ones ability to learn because once you insulted this person they are unlikey to listen to your truth. People on this site need to learn manners because the ones without them just come off as arrogant pricks(children)  that are here just to troll and nothing else. Isnt this website about learning?

Edited by InconceivableThoughts
  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19
9 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Let cover this.

Point 1 I already dealt with.

Point 2. Incorrect; the USSR had an advanced lunar landing programme underway but could not solve problems with their launch vehicle, the N-1. After four unsuccessful launch attempts between 1969 and 1972, and the fact the US had already made several landings, the USSR abandoned the programme. This is well documented.

Point 3. Your opinion and no evidence that it points to a faked lunar landing.

Point 4. Incorrect - shows a basic misunderstanding of optics. Firstly, lunar orbiters from a number of nations HAVE shown the remnants to the lunar landers, including footprints. Things like Hubble cannot be used because the Moon is too close.

Point 5. Your opinion, unsupported by facts. Much smaller conspiracies have been blown: the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandal, etc.

Point 6. When JFK asked for when a lunar landing could be achieved, he was advised that it should be possible by 1967. He decided that ".. before this decade is out..." sounded better. Incidentally, they were prepared to say they had achieved it if they landed and returned before 1 Jan 1971, since the 'decade' ended at the end of 1970. Apollo 11 was the first H Mission (landing attempt) and they expected it might take three attempts before a successful landing occurred. And that is after a lunar orbit mission (Apollo 8) and a full dress rehearsal (Apollo 10), where they gained a LOT of experience in what was needed.

Point 7. Fine - get out your wallet and fund NASA to do it. Go see your elected reps and lobby them to give NASA the funds to do it. Get private enterprise to do it. It's not the technology per se, it the money.

 

 

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

wonderwomen_edit.jpg

 

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.

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
15 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.

 

 

15 hours ago, 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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

 

 

I think others have already pointed this out Aaron 2016, but just to throw in my sixpennyworth. 

1) The Israeli project cost around $100 million. The Apollo program cost the modern equivalent of over $100 BILLION. A thousand times more. 

2) No other country wanted to spend that much money. There are limited scientific benefits of a manned moon landing, and the cost is prohibitive. 

3) That sentence doesn't make any sense. 

4) As others have already pointed out, the long-range telescopes are incapable of focusing on something just a few hundred thousand miles away (like the moon). Terrestrial OPTICAL telescopes - on the other hand  - don't have the resolution to pick out items on the moons surface. You may be confusing them with Radio telescopes, which only detect radiation, not optics. Meanwhile... the Apollo site HAS been extensively photographed by various unmanned spaceships. 

5) The sentence makes no sense; it appears to be comparing modern 'scams' with events from the 1970's (e.g. the Apollo program). 

6) Self-referential, and not evidence of fakery. 

7) Not a bad idea, but it wouldn't convince anyone. The loonies would just say "oh, but we have better technology than the 1970's. The Apollo program was STILL faked". 

Oh.. just to address another point you made. The USA didn't land on the moon "first time". They had flypast missions prior to the landings. The Apollo program was the culmination of MANY space missions, each trying and testing different technical challenges. (launch to orbit and return to earth, travel to moon and back, and finally land on moon). 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
1 hour 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

wonderwomen_edit.jpg

 

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.

 

*sigh* Okay, let's try this again.

Point 1 - WHAT caused the latest lander to crash? Was it mechanical? Software? Micrometeoroid? If you don't know WHAT the issue was, how can you say it was because we couldn't do it? There have been failures of tried and true aeronautical systems for decades, none of which means the particular system was "faked".

Point 2 - They couldn't get their launch vehicle to work. There is a wealth of information of what and why this occurred; why don't you look it up? Or don't you want anything to burst you bubble? The LOK spacecraft was progressing well, and the LK lander flew in Earth orbit several times. Once again, do your research.

Point 3 - Still opinion and no actual evidence.

Point 4 - I was waiting for this one; the images have been taken by a number of non-US countries. Despite that:

  • "Show us evidence of the landings!!!"
  • Evidence provided
  • "That must be faked!!!"

Point 5 - Handwaving, with no evidence (again).

Point 6 - Irrelevant, Besides, Kennedy was killed in 1963, well before Apollo flight hardware had even been finalised, never mind flown. LBJ could have easily cut back the programme, with Vietnam as justification (which was still supported by the general public at this time). And when the Apollo 1 crew were killed in 1967, that was a perfect opportunity to end the programme.... but they didn't.

Point 7 - Every time 'hoaxers' get shown the evidence they ask for, they find reasons to change tack and call it faked. You sound like the old fraud Jack White who said words to the effect of:

"If there is evidence that the lunar landings were real then I am happy to examine it... but since the landings were faked, any evidence proving otherwise must also be faked and therefore it is a waste of my time examining it."

 

Edited by Obviousman
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reignite
10 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Simple because I can. Report button is in the top right. Otherwise, p*** off.

Even the simplest of animals spend their time better than you, who mindlessly demotivates people from having a different opinion on a public forum whose very name motivates the idea of cultivating a unique opinion by thinking outside of the box. If that offends you, why don't you either p*** off, or hit the report button?

I think having an open mind regarding anything NASA is a healthy thing, although I also think it's very unnecessary to dwell on past events like these.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
51 minutes ago, Reignite said:

Even the simplest of animals spend their time better than you, who mindlessly demotivates people from having a different opinion on a public forum whose very name motivates the idea of cultivating a unique opinion by thinking outside of the box. If that offends you, why don't you either p*** off, or hit the report button?

I think having an open mind regarding anything NASA is a healthy thing, although I also think it's very unnecessary to dwell on past events like these.

Put me down firmly in the "You're opinion means nothing to me" category

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reignite
1 hour ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Put me down firmly in the "You're opinion means nothing to me" category

I'd prefer it if you just p*** off since your comments are inappropriately off-topic and a plain waste of energy for both you and the serious readers. I'm just returning the favor but will stop wasting any more energy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

and yet we still use reflectors we placed on the moon to bounce lasers of it, if we did not go, who put them there? 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Aaron2016 provides a wonderful illustration of just how deeply ignorant, of several subjects, one has to be to buy into the "The Moon landings were faked" silliness.      Rationalizing his belief by saying "Israel can't land on the Moon even today." ignorantly ignores all the successful landings on the Moon, by several countries, starting in 1964. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Aaron2016 provides a wonderful illustration of just how deeply ignorant, of several subjects, one has to be to buy into the "The Moon landings were faked" silliness.      Rationalizing his belief by saying "Israel can't land on the Moon even today." ignorantly ignores all the successful landings on the Moon, by several countries, starting in 1964. 

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.

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
18 hours ago, 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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

 

You're welcome to sit on the fence, but there isn't really a need to do so.

I know others have addressed your points, but I thought I'd share my unique view on them too...

1. The recent crash landing of the Israeli spacecraft on the Moon is relevant only to that spacecraft. Sure, the first manned spacecraft to attempt to land on the Moon succeeded, but consider that this is comparing apples and oranges. The advantage of a manned spacecraft attempting a landing over an unmanned spacecraft attempting a landing is...drumroll...there's a person right there at the controls with (a) a pair of eyes scanning the ground to look for a safe landing spot, (b) the ability to decide whether to abort the landing if something has gone wrong, and (c) the ability to actually undertake the abort if considered necessary. In other words, a soft landing by an unmanned spacecraft is actually harder to achieve than a soft landing with a manned spacecraft. (I could also match your sample size of one with another sample size of one - Luna 9 successfully soft-landed on the Moon in 1966, so it must be easy...yeah?)

2. Yes, the USA is the only nation to land people on the Moon. This wasn't for lack of trying by the USSR. They tried to get people to the Moon and developed the hardware they needed. However they fell at the first hurdle - as others have pointed out - they couldn't get their needed launcher to work. They then settled for a combination of unmanned sample retriever missions (three of which successfully soft-landed on the Moon and returned to Earth, so obviously soft-landing on the Moon can't be that hard) and a propaganda campaign to point out the expense of Apollo and claim that they had themselves never intended to try to send people to the Moon. So why didn't they keep trying? Because in the context of the Cold War, as it is in any two-horse race, coming second was the same as coming last. By contrast, if it was impossible to go to the Moon, why didn't the USSR point this out? Again, in the context of the Cold War, proving that the USA had faked Apollo would be a propaganda victory of incredible value.

3. Faking it for ego. The USA didn't go to the Moon for ego. They went in order to win a propaganda victory over the USSR, after the propaganda victories the USSR had gained by launching the first satellite and the first man in space. In other words, it was intended to show to the nations of the world that American technology was better than Russian technology, therefore those nations should back the USA rather than the USSR. In that context, given there was no doubt Sputnik and Vostok were real, Apollo had to be real too (for the reason spelled out in point 2). Read any half-decent history of the Cold War (or play the boardgame "Twilight Struggle") and you'll understand why.

4. You can see stars and galaxies a long way away, but not Apollo materiel on the Moon. So what? You can see a tree which is a kilometre away but you can't see a stationary ant which is on the other side of the road. The reason for these two statements is the same: their angular size is tiny. There's a formula which allows you to calculate how big an Earth-based telescope would have to be to have the resolving power sufficient to detect the Apollo materiel. Spoiler alert: it would need to be way bigger than any telescope on Earth (and any such telescope would have a heap of more interesting things to look at anyway).

5. Easy to fake the Moon landings. Yeah, no! Never mind how easy it would be to fool the "gullible public". The trick would be fooling the Soviets. And given that at least some of the few hundred thousand employees and contractors working on the Apollo program were selling/giving information to the Soviets, the Soviets would have been extremely well placed to explain to the world that the USA was faking Apollo - if that was actually happening. On top of that would have been the business of fooling the world's scientists: scientists studying the hundreds of kilograms of Apollo rocks quickly established that the rocks they'd been given to study had characteristics unlike any Earth rock, but characteristics which were consistent with them having formed in a waterless low-gravity vacuum...such as the Moon. You now have to explain how these hundreds of kilograms of rocks arrived on the Earth.

6. JFK's challenge and going back. Okay, a bit of a grab-bag here. First, you have no objective basis for saying that the chance of meeting JFK's challenge was slim. In fact JFK asked NASA to tell him what they thought they could achieve in coming years - they were the ones who felt a Moon landing was possible (plus, you probably need to know that Project Apollo existed before JFK's challenge, created by NASA as a logical next step after Project Mercury, so they already had their minds pointed in that direction before JFK came knocking). Second, repeating the missions in the 1970s...why, unless you're actually going there? JFK's challenge was to land a man on the Moon - there was nothing in the challenge about extra missions. The more times you fake it, the more chances you provide to be caught out faking it. In fact if NASA had stopped going to the Moon after Apollo 11, there's plenty of evidence that plenty of people would have been perfectly satisfied, including people within NASA. So simple logic dictates that if NASA was going to fake it they'd only go once. Third, broadcast live on the Moon. Once again, if you're going to fake the mission, why would you attempt live TV? Once again there's this evidence thing - it's well known that (a) the TV was a very late addition to the mission, and (b) Armstrong and Aldrin were very unhappy about having it along. Yet faking Apollo 11 would have been much simpler without TV. Fourth, repeating the missions became child's play. Once again, yeah, no! If you knew the slightest bit about the later missions you'd know that they were more complex in a variety of ways - multiple moonwalks, live colour TV, mountainous terrain, lunar rovers allowing more distant traverses. Each of these mission characteristics simply make faking it harder in a whole bunch of ways that could only be avoided if you didn't include them in the mission.

7. What would convince you. Well, thank you for telling us what would convince you. But perhaps you might also like to spell out why you think it was necessary to fake Apollo 11 - what made it impossible to land on the Moon (or extremely difficult if that's your standard)? How do you explain how 380 kilograms of material definitely from the Moon is now located on the Earth, given that the only explanation for its passage through the Earth's atmosphere is that it was inside a spacecraft (and keep in mind you can read literally thousands of scientific papers discussing the Apollo rocks - I dare you! Because they're all pretty dull). How do you explain that images of the Moon captured by countries other than the USA and Russia/USSR exactly match photos taken on the Apollo missions? How do you explain that the Soviets made no claim that Apollo was faked? How do you explain that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images of the Apollo landing sites exactly match photos taken on the Apollo missions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
19 hours ago, 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.  I see three possible scenarios:

 

1 - We went to the moon, broadcast to the world, and returned successfully.

2 - We attempted to reach the moon and the astronauts were killed.  So plan B was implemented and the mission was faked.

3 - We never even attempted to reach the moon as our research confirmed it was impossible in our lifetime and the money was privately invested (like climate change appeal) and the moon landings were faked.

 

Can't decide which one happened, as they are all convincing.

 

Can you believe the Chinese managed it in 2019?

Can you believe the Chinese managed it in 2013?

If a difficult thing can't be achieved with the best technology, does that automatically mean it can't be achieved with lesser technology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.