Page 1 of 3 123>
Topic Options
#116079 - 03/18/18 09:51 PM Moon Landings: Faked?
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
While considering BS exposes:

Some years ago some people claimed that the Apollo Moon landings never happened, were faked. This was generally dismissed as "lunatic fringe" and forgotten. Of course the Apollo missions were authentic.

A week or so ago I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsCqsJDpHHU&t=2813s

and now I find myself not so sure.

At least we can be certain that Oswald was the lone JFK assassin, because the Warren Commission told us so. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116081 - 03/19/18 02:33 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 21
I destroyed my Social Psych professor when she proclaimed in class that she didn't think the US went to the Moon. As I said, forget the hard science aspects and let 15 minutes of hard thought guide you: this was the hottest part of the space race. All the world was paying attention. You know every telescope in the USSR was trained on the path of the Apollo missions in an attempt to gain some sort of intel. If the trips were faked, don't you think the Soviets would have said something?

(Now that I think about it, I slammed her pretty hard on her end-of-the-semester student evaluation, and she never got tenure there.)

Top
#116084 - 03/19/18 03:14 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3395
Cross hairs are used for positioning and measuring.
Back in those days, before digital photography, you had to rely on other tricks to measure distance.

The crosshairs enabled people to triangulate objects and map out the entire zone once brought back to earth. We lacked digital recognition software and powerful GPS in those days to abolish its need.

Now, it needs to be said how certain photos have been actually tweaked for marketing purposes. These are the ones frequently used to prove a non-point. It was a cold-war era where any strategic advancement was celebrated and preferably smeared in the other ones face in high-definition and in picture-perfect.

The originals are made available online (with a bit of searching). I do not doubt about the moon landing. It happened. There's too much material brought back and way too many knit-picking (steeped in ignorance of basic techniques) on the other side.


Edited by Dimitri (03/19/18 03:16 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#116086 - 03/19/18 04:15 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ShadowLover Offline
member


Registered: 05/26/16
Posts: 351
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
Jury is still out for me. There was a period of time that I thought it was fake, but then the Mythbusters declared it real. Although, I thought their voices might have been shaky when they did. At the end of the day, I have no clue, and it doesn't really bother me that much that I need to look into it.

The thing that I don't get, though, is why interest in it died out? (Or got deflected). I mean, was it boring? Or useless? I don't buy that money is the reason as there seems to be plenty being spent on other space stuff. Why isn't there a hotel there? Where the insanely rich can stay and take pictures of Earth? People can stay in satellites, so why can't they stay on the moon?

Just seems like the project is only half finished. If it was started at all?
_________________________
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Top
#116088 - 03/19/18 04:25 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: ShadowLover]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 21
Because the point was made. America won the Space Race, and the Soviets couldn't muster the national will to meet it or top it.
Top
#116091 - 03/19/18 09:51 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: ShadowLover]
Kori Houghton Online
member


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 194
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: ShadowLover
The thing that I don't get, though, is why interest in it died out? (Or got deflected). I mean, was it boring? Or useless?


I think this is the really significant question. If people can be made to doubt any of the landings happened, they won't be wondering about why exploration of the Moon came to a sudden halt. Because you don't "stop" doing something you never did.

 Originally Posted By: ShadowLover
I don't buy that money is the reason as there seems to be plenty being spent on other space stuff.


No, money was not the reason. But it wasn't too difficult to manipulate enough Americans into believing that money wasn't available to continue the Apollo program during the economic upheavals of the 1970s. The 1970s was the decade of gasoline "shortages", major loss of manufacturing jobs, the beginning of the shift of design/manufacture of higher ticket consumer goods to Asia, decreased buying power for Americans generally, crank science issues in major state run American universities, such as Creation Science and the dangers of birth control use. There was even a small group of Americans who disdained the space program generally because they felt it had Nazi associations.

 Originally Posted By: ShadowLover
Why isn't there a hotel there? Where the insanely rich can stay and take pictures of Earth? People can stay in satellites, so why can't they stay on the moon?


Having a lot of money to throw around isn't the only requirement for space travel. Having untrained undisciplined guests on a lunar voyage would endanger not only spoiled rich people, but the employees as well. It's a problem when someone kooks out on an airliner, and wants to open a hatch, but the pilot can always make an emergency landing at the closest airport to remove uncontrolled passengers. Much harder to do on the way to the Moon. And I doubt the ultra rich oligarchs are all that keen on taking the risks involved with space flight, just so they can take selfies with the Earth floating in the background.


 Originally Posted By: ShadowLover
Just seems like the project is only half finished. If it was started at all?


My late husband worked on Apollo for a while, so it was definitely started.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
#116093 - 03/19/18 02:38 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: ShadowLover]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3395
I can think of a reason.
The moonlanding was a bit like the virtual boy from nintendo. The technology was available and could be utilized... but too early for decent utilization.

The landing could only indicate what was the top of human ingenuity and potential at the time. Repeating it would imply to great a risk of failure and lose the strategical advantage it created.

The mission, from what I think and can deduce, has been archived because there is no real good reason to have a redo. There's no economical interest. No advantage to be had without global effort.


Edited by Dimitri (03/19/18 02:38 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#116094 - 03/19/18 04:40 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Mr Chips]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Mr Chips
I destroyed my Social Psych professor ...

Yes, I grok that, and until bumping into this video would have casually agreed with you. Of course I wan't paying personal attention, since I was somewhere in Indochinese jungles with SF at the time and had other things to worry about!

As a PSYOP officer, deceptions and false-flags don't impress me any more on a big scale than on a small. In some ways big lies are easier to sell, because the target audience is reassured by the apparent mass of belief. Many historical examples, from the official version of the JKF hit to Obama's faked Osama hit, 9/11, Tonkin, on and on.

Doesn't sound to me as though you've watched this video yet. If/when you do, I'd be interested in your comments. \:\)

Thinking further myself, two additional possibilities:

(1) The expose is of the faked Moon surface photos, doesn't address the flights pr se as I recall. The US may have been able to send rockets to the Moon but not land, so the landings were staged for prestige.

(2) Or there was just a staged launch and later recovery, with nthing in-between.

I''m guessing #1, as it would have accounted for watching astronomers and Soviets.

As as old goat who lived through that time, I remember the USA had a huge inferiority complex because of losing the races for first Sputnik 1 and then Gagarin. So we had to walk on the Moon to show we really did have the bigger space dick, as it were.

Also from a PSYOP perspective: The Soviets didn't announce Spjutnik or Gagarin until they were safely successful. No one knows if there were previous failures.

Compare this to Apolloi 11, which was a media sensation from the start. If the landing had failed and Buzz and Neil had died, it would have been a PR disaster, not to mention heads rolling at NAZA like at CIA after the Bay of Pigs.

My PSYOP nose tells me that if A11 had been a real landing, it would have been kept secret until safe splashdown in case something did go wrong. That it was sensationalized from start to finish suggests that it was pre-known that there was no risk of accident, failure, death because it was a stunt.

All this is incidental now, because the Apollo landings are locked into "historyy".
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116096 - 03/19/18 07:05 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 21
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Doesn't sound to me as though you've watched this video yet. If/when you do, I'd be interested in your comments. \:\)


Challenge accepted, Dr. Aquino. \:\)

1. The lecturer's questions about the quality of pics taken from a camera that cannot be used while wearing a space suit are explained by the fact that the cameras were mounted on the front of the suit on a bracket... thus the camera basically caught what the astronaut was seeing at any given time.

2. The atmosphere on the Moon is extremely thin... about a 1,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter. There will be little if any dust from the lander. I THINK but I'm not sure that the landing jets were NOT the equivalent of a Harrier but softer.

3. The mysterious footprint was made by Aldrin while he photographed it to test the tensile strength of the lunar dust. There's no mystery here because he took the camera off his chest bracket to do this. The lecturer's point seems to be that only one pic was taken, but actually he doesn't know how many because even he says that 32 thousand pics were taken.

4.The lecturer complains about light sources and shadows. There are, in fact, many light sources present: the Sun, the Earth, the lander, and the space suits themselves. Plus, with a thin atmosphere, the light will not diffuse as well.

5. By 25 minutes, I crapped out because a) the lecturer is boring and b) he's droning on about the same old topics concerning light.

But you get the idea. Each point he brings up can be researched and explained. More snake oil.

Top
#116097 - 03/19/18 08:50 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Mr Chips]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Having watched the complete video through twice, I'm not satisfied that you have made your points. They sound to me more like desperate grabs at excuses - for instance that a camera mounted on a space suit bracket can be targeted so perfectly, with precise exposure, all the time, including after squeezing in/out of the lander. And alternative light sources are not nearly so bright as you imply. Then there's everything you don't mention, such as the moving and disappearing backgrounds. But you really have to examine the entire presentation, whether or not you find the presenter droning. Actually I would have been a bit more suspicious if this had been a "showy" presentation!

When you refute or debunk something, you have to leave nothing out. Otherwise the implication is that you're cherry-picking what you think can be "arguable".

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I would personally rather the Apollo missions be as claimed. I had no trouble blowing off the really wacky "hoax" sensationalists. This video striks me as much more troublesome. All things considered, my current bet is on my "Option #1": that the flights were authentic, but unmanned and no landings; the latter were staged. This kind of thing is not at all unusual in Black Ops, the "Osama raid" a more recent and obvious example. The principle, whose power has never ceased to impress me, is that people have an extremely strong disposition to believe what they want to, and simply tune out what gets in the way.

The PSYOP and Intel Officer's first requirement is thus to be objective, disinterested as much as possible. In today's conditioned cultures and environments this is difficult, occasionally outright dangerous.

Apollo is now not dangerous - just a parlor game like the JFK snuff. Any proof one way or the other now has no effect on current power structures or agendas. No one cares about Monica's thong any longer.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116098 - 03/19/18 09:35 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 21
Nah, I'm too intellectually lazy to spend over an hour of my time refuting stuff that's already been refuted and available to anyone with an internet connection... an hour better spent doing something productive.

Actually, I think you're pulling some reverse psychology and attempting to goad me into laying it out point by point, and I'm not falling for it. \:\)

Top
#116101 - 03/20/18 02:34 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Mr Chips]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
No, I'm not jerking your chain; I said that all this is Old News whether it's correct or not. Your pleasing laziness is fine, but the excuse that "it's all been disproven" is unsubstantiated BS. If you're lazy or don't care, that's all you need say. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116102 - 03/20/18 09:50 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dark Light 444 Offline
member


Registered: 08/02/17
Posts: 384
Watched almost the whole video last night before dozing off, and itís clear that those photos were staged. No way of getting around that.

So that begs the question....has man ever really been anywhere but here or in mid flight?

Itís sad to think we havenít. But again, considering the lack of interest from 1969 on, it isnít that surprising.
_________________________
K.I.S.S.

Top
#116103 - 03/20/18 10:29 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 21
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, I'm not jerking your chain; I said that all this is Old News whether it's correct or not. Your pleasing laziness is fine, but the excuse that "it's all been disproven" is unsubstantiated BS. If you're lazy or don't care, that's all you need say. \:\)


Well, I've certainly been accused of being lazy before, but in this case I'm content to rely on those who have done the research and disproved the Moon Landing Hoax. This is a good read, for example:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Arguments_against_a_conspiracy

They concur with my earlier statement about the Soviets:

 Quote:
Tens of thousands of people worked on the Apollo project at NASA, as did a variety of contractors. There were also many people around the world working peripherally on the project, e.g. relay stations in Australia and Spain[27]. Anyone who came forward to demonstrate it was a hoax would have become famous. And yet none have.

The Moon landings took place at the height of the Cold War, and transmissions came from the surface of the Moon. These were picked up all over the world, including by the Soviet Union, the party that had the greatest interest in exposing a hoax. It's easy to tell which direction a radio transmission is coming from; had NASA faked it, the Soviets would have pissed themselves laughing and told felt it their grave historical mission to inform the whole world.

In an effort to counter this rather gaping hole in the conspiracy theory, hoax believers claim that the Soviets were bribed in secret with large grain shipments. But there are a number of reasons why this is obviously fallacious:

It is difficult to believe that this bribe would have paid for 40+ years of silence, even after the Soviet Union ceased to exist and was replaced by a government that was happy to showcase the USSR's failings.
It is especially difficult to believe that the information would have remained secret after the collapse of the Soviet Unionóparticularly since post-Soviet Russia publicized the secrets of its own lunar program.
Grain shipments were stopped in 1980 and yet the Soviets still kept silent about the Moon landings, even though it would have been a massive propaganda coup.
It would seem patently absurd to secretly prop the Soviet Union up with vast amounts of free grain while at the same time spending even more money on a faked moonshot to publicly humiliate the same entity.
The Soviets were not the only other nation which picked up the signals.

Top
#116104 - 03/20/18 10:48 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dark Light 444]
Kori Houghton Online
member


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 194
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: Dark Light 444
So that begs the question....has man ever really been anywhere but here or in mid flight?

Itís sad to think we havenít. But again, considering the lack of interest from 1969 on, it isnít that surprising.




So, thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians landed astronauts on the Moon several times in the late 1960s -- early 1970s, while a bunch of armchair analysts and conspiracy theorists didn't.

Again, the interesting question for me is how/why the public "lack of interest" was created and encouraged.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
Page 1 of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.009 seconds were spent on 29 queries. Zlib compression disabled.