I really am agnostic about the issue-maybe additionally so in that I haven't done much research about it. But I do think it's possible they could be faked (there certainly were incentives to do so) and, more so, it is entertaining that a lot of people get enraged that there are any people that don't believe it.
Does anyone here believe the Moon Landings were fake?
- Thread starter WraithDukat
- Start date
I really am agnostic about the issue-maybe additionally so in that I haven't done much research about it. But I do think it's possible they could be faked (there certainly were incentives to do so) and, more so, it is entertaining that a lot of people get enraged that there are any people that don't believe it.
Even though I don't think the moon landings were fake I still want to see a movie that tells that story. I think it's perfect idea for a comedy or some weird alternate earth type of story. I found it funny last year on "X-Files" when we find out the Smoking Man was behind it in that universe.
Jason
Jason
The reason both for people being skeptical and for the landing to have maybe been faked seems obvious to me-too much money had been spent on the space program and too much more money could be spent on it later for the moon landing goal to not be achieved.
Capricorn One
Theres 'Operation Avalanche' too, while not a comedy it's pretty light hearted. It's a mocumentary done found footage style.
It's on Netflix, in the UK it is anyway.
This feels like passing the buck to me. We live in an era of unprecedented access to information. We are no longer slaves to a trickle of information. It is there if we want to take the time.
It sucks that they clog the internet with bologna, but people still have to have some responsibility for ingesting that bologna no questions asked.
Unfortunately we have a lot of people who struggle with this for a variety of reasons:
- First and foremost, political engagement has been anemic in the USA. It could almost be a cultural thing. One can only hope that will change, if people are starting to recognize that ignorance allows other people to get away with so much that ultimately affects them. Time to get involved, vote with discretion.
- Second, there are people who are consumed with so much else in life they can't devote much to politics. So they rely on a few "trusted" sources. But that may be from tradition or suggestion from a friend/family member. If they don't scrutinize the source, they become knee-jerk believers of it.
- Third, there is so much information out there, it requires time to sort through it all. If there's so much noise you don't even know where to begin, you kind of give up. We're not all part-time investigators. And simply put, some people are just clueless as to how to go about it. It's not like there's a manual or free seminar out there that objectively informs you "how to deal with the political propaganda."
- And fourth, there is so much contaminated information at this point. True all media houses do colorize news a bit for their own agenda, but it's all about the degree. A little "garnish" is quite different from a stark departure from the truth. That frustrates a lot of people. "Who can we trust?"
Last edited:
I agree. Lets hope folks are beginning to realize there is some work involved in living in a democracy.
I don't think there's a practical need for settling on the moon at this point, if only to provide an off-world form of entertainment for the mega-wealthy. There needs to be more reason than that. The main thing is, if we do plan on doing a lot more space exploration of our solar system, we need to find better ways to source the materials and increase efficiency.
Launching vehicles from the moon is significantly less expensive than doing so from the Earth. If one could build a launch station of some kind on the moon, that would be good reason enough to go there. But it would have to be more than just having it for a platform. Otherwise you could just build one floating in orbit. But there's that space junk problem... As I see it, if the moon has raw materials, such as metal ores underneath all the dust and rock, then perhaps it may be possible to build automated mining equipment and send it there. After some time, humans arrive and find a nice stockpile of metal in various shapes created for them, to be used for constructing a moon base of some kind. The other consideration is fuel. Fossil fuel propelled rockets won't cut it. We need something else. Ideally, something that could be solar recharged.
Then you have absolutely no idea how difficult it was to engineer and design hardware capable of putting two people, not only ON the moon but in designing a single stage to orbit vehicle to get them back and rendevous with a craft with enough power to get them back.
And every landing but one, was successful.
to put in perspective: at the time of Apollo's announcement, the US had managed to put on man in space, not in orbit, for a few minutes past the Karman line on a modified Redstone missile. They had to go from there to conducting these flights in less than a decade. Nothing like that had ever been done before, or since. It was the peacetime equivalent of the Manhattan project. Funny now nobody denies that nukes are real.
to make Apollo work, they had to learn how to develop:
large first stage engines (there has never been an engine as large as the F1 since)
develop cryogenic engines (the J2's are still studied to this day)
build the infrastructure for building, assembling, and moving skyscraper sized launch vehices
build the tracking network for tracking deep space objects
design and use integrated circuits
develop the first true computer user interfaces (the DSKY interface for the AGC)
learn how to live in space
life support design and testing
orbital rendezvous
orbital docking
orbital mechanics
landing a vehicle vertically on an alien world using only manually operated thruster rockets
training
capsule recovery
lunar sciences
safety enhancements (many redesigns after the fatal Apollo 1 fire)
launch abort system design and testing
lunar activity suit design and manufacture
precursor probe missions
and that's just a small list.
if they'd spread it out over decades it might have cost less, but the impetus may have been lost and perhaps no one would have ever went. The Soviets finally called it quits after losing too many N1 launch vehicles.
Yes it cost a lot. All of that, done in a hurry, and it was, cost billions, and would cost far more now. Look how much Gateway (LOP-G) is going to cost. Look how much ISS cost. Space is expensive.
It's like not believing Carnival has a fleet of cruise ships worth billions because dayum you can take a weekender on one for $300!
Yes but the government can print money. New theory is that black ops groups are constantly given money made in secret that doesn't go under any official books.
Jason
I saw that but I don't think I liked it. Only scene I can recall is with Elliot Gould in his car with the breaks cut.
Jason
Last edited by a moderator:
Sometimes I wish this movie was never made. The foot hold it has given so many conspiracy theories... not worth it!
Btw, interesting that Lew Grade backed this. He was the main backer for Gerry Anderson's productions over the years (Fireball XL5, Thunderbirds, UFO, Space:1999, etc.).
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course Guam is real! Everyone knows that.
But, you all do understand that Australia is an illuminati coverup and everyone who 'lives there' is really just an actor hired to fool you, right? (https://www.refinery29.com/2017/03/146852/australia-fake-conspiracy-theory)
Actually Australia is just New Zealand. It's a little joke they like to play on the world. Also they filmed Jurassick Park on Skull Island to cover two big conspiracies. One is that Skull Island is a real place and two CGI isn't real. If we can't go to the moon did anyone think people could come up with that kind of tech?. No they had to use real Dino's and pretend they are fake.
Jason
Jason
It is just unfortunate some folks are so weak-minded that they use it as proof of some kind of conspiracy.
The video makes it look like a quick (though understandable) loss of temper, though, when in reality the violence was completely justified self-defense after (as Leviathan says) several minutes of verbal and physical harassment, which was why the police dropped the charges filed against Aldrin by the sack of shit conspiracy theorist who instigated the whole confrontation.
What the short video of the punch alone doesn't show is that the conspiracy theorist, Bart Sibrel, was the one who lured Aldrin to the hotel under false pretenses saying that he would be interviewed for a Japanese children's educational program about space. Then once Aldrin and his stepdaughter got there, Sibrel, who was 34 years younger, about eight inches taller, and about a hundred pounds heavier than the 72-year-old (at the time) Aldrin, proceeded to follow him around with his camera crew, blocking their attempts to leave even in the middle of the street, poking him with a Bible asking him to swear on it, calling him a liar and a coward and a thief, and looming over him and his stepdaughter. So after a few minutes of this crap where Buzz and his stepdaughter kept trying to get away and repeatedly asked the guy to leave them alone and demonstrated incredible restraint, Buzz finally clocked him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2272321.stm
This still isn't the full video (there was more inside the hotel), but it clearly show Sibrel and his crew blocking Aldrin and his stepdaughter's path repeatedly and harassing him:
Honestly, the asshole is lucky Aldrin didn't press charges against him, which he would have been justified to do.
Last edited:
