Debunking the Apollo landing conspiracies

[B.J.]

I like Buzz Aldrin's response:

 

[SchwEnt]

It's not so much the conspiracy about the moon landing being a hoax.

I prefer the conspiracies about why, some 50 years later, no one has ever gone back.

 

[JES]

I prefer the conspiracy theory that there are alien artifacts on the moon to the conspiracy theory that all those Apollo missions never went anywhere.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I prefer the conspiracy theory that there are alien artifacts on the moon to the conspiracy theory that all those Apollo missions never went anywhere.

Did you see that wacky "documentary" Syfy aired a few months back? The claim was that we found an alien city on the moon and NASA and IIRC the Soviets sent secret missions to explore it and bring back artifacts and bodies. There's some terrible found footage that looks mainly like mid 90s CG and the most clearly fake dead alien you'll ever see. It probably would have been amazing if they had aired it in the 90s or uploaded the clips to Real Video back then.

It may be on Netflix now, it's hilariously bad.

 

[fonzob1]

My favourite websites relating to space exploration (and mostly to the Apollo program): Moonbase Clavius, the ultimate Apollo hoax debunking website...

The "moon landing filmed in a studio" story, which emerged before the mission series concluded in 1972, has flummoxed me from both ends. The idea that it was really faked is absurd, yet debunking has usually proceeded on technical grounds, such as lighting in the photos, by way of refuting specific claims the conspiracy buffs advance. This seems unnecessary to me.

I have no doubt that a quality fake Apollo landing could have been put on in a studio with the technology available in 1969, provided enough money and effort were invested. But how would such a monumental effort be covered up? Hundreds of people would be in the know and inevitably some of them would leak. Meanwhile, NASA and its contractors kept some 80000 staff on the job making the rockets or doing other preparation needed to render the whole shindig convincing. After all, the launches had to be real even if the rockets weren't going to reach the moon, because they were witnessed by the general public on the ground.

This implausibility of eternal cover-up is enough reason for me to reject the conspiracy theory on sociological grounds. The government refused to officially acknowledge the existence of its National Reconnaissance Office, the program responsible for satellite spying on the Soviet Union, although it was public knowledge almost as soon as the first film canisters came down. Nixon couldn't shut the lid on Watergate. The government is able to keep some secrets involving technical or obscure material such as the identities of CIA agents. They cannot keep a major public policy initiative or issue of politics from the news very long.

Much simpler to believe that if we can launch a rocket to begin with, we ought to be able to send it to the moon with a few guys aboard. Do we have to answer the conspiracy buffs point for point, or do we simply assign them the burden of proof?

You are right to point out that all of NASA's staff would have had to have been in on it. I have known a NASA contracting officer (now deceased) and a NASA engineer that worked for NASA during the 60's and 70's. No way it was faked. lol

One thing the conspiracy theorists like to point out is that the American flag appeared to be blowing in the wind. They maintain that the moon has no atmosphere, so this is not possible. But, the flag's motion was simply due to the way the material responds to movement in a vacuum. Mythbusters duplicated this effect in a controlled environment.

Something else conspiracy theorists like to point out is that there are no stars in the camera images on the moon, and they question why this would be considering how clearly you should be able to see stars from the moon. The answer is pretty simple. Have you ever tried taking photos of clearly star lit sky with even a modern day digital camera? Stars are not bright enough to show up on modern day cameras let alone the camera technology we had in the 60's.

Some of these conspiracy theorists are just plain set in their ways, but some of them are every day people who have been roped into this crazy idea because they don't know better.

 

[Trekker4747]

Conspiracy theories always crack me up. Keep in mind officials in our government couldn't hide breaking into an elections office or the President getting a blow-job in the Oval Office.

But *somehow* there's all these huge conspiracies that'd involve hundreds of people and would need to be intricate and precise to every, single, detail to pull off and everyone involved would have to remain quiet and maintain the narrative, consistently, for the rest of their lives.

So, sure, the whole Iran-Contra thing happened and everyone found out about it but we can hide the creation of a moon landing and have no releasing of the scene.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

Forget the whole NASA staff having to be in on it. For the Moon landing to have been faked, the USSR would have to have been in on it.

Because really, if there was the slightest doubt in the Soviets' minds that the US had landed on the Moon, they would have done everything they could to prove that they hadn't, because that would have been a HUGE propaganda victory in the middle of the Cold War: "American Capitalist Running Dogs Lie to World! Glorious Soviet Revolutionary Proof!"

 

[RoJoHen]

It's not so much the conspiracy about the moon landing being a hoax.

I prefer the conspiracies about why, some 50 years later, no one has ever gone back.

Because the Moon Men asked us not to.

 

[fonzob1]

It's not so much the conspiracy about the moon landing being a hoax.

I prefer the conspiracies about why, some 50 years later, no one has ever gone back.

Because the Moon Men asked us not to.

Agreed. It couldn't be because it's sh!t @ss expensive to send people to a dead piece of rock in space (and put their lives in danger in the process).

 

[Hatshepsut]

Forget the whole NASA staff having to be in on it. For the Moon landing to have been faked, the USSR would have to have been in on it...

хорошая точка. I'm heartened by the responses. Meanwhile, on Nut Channel Two, the guy on the grassy knoll shooting at Kennedy is from the KGB, who were cooperating with the CIA to finish up ahead of schedule...

 

[MacLeod]

My favourite websites relating to space exploration (and mostly to the Apollo program): Moonbase Clavius, the ultimate Apollo hoax debunking website...

The "moon landing filmed in a studio" story, which emerged before the mission series concluded in 1972, has flummoxed me from both ends. The idea that it was really faked is absurd, yet debunking has usually proceeded on technical grounds, such as lighting in the photos, by way of refuting specific claims the conspiracy buffs advance. This seems unnecessary to me.

I have no doubt that a quality fake Apollo landing could have been put on in a studio with the technology available in 1969, provided enough money and effort were invested. But how would such a monumental effort be covered up? Hundreds of people would be in the know and inevitably some of them would leak. Meanwhile, NASA and its contractors kept some 80000 staff on the job making the rockets or doing other preparation needed to render the whole shindig convincing. After all, the launches had to be real even if the rockets weren't going to reach the moon, because they were witnessed by the general public on the ground.

This implausibility of eternal cover-up is enough reason for me to reject the conspiracy theory on sociological grounds. The government refused to officially acknowledge the existence of its National Reconnaissance Office, the program responsible for satellite spying on the Soviet Union, although it was public knowledge almost as soon as the first film canisters came down. Nixon couldn't shut the lid on Watergate. The government is able to keep some secrets involving technical or obscure material such as the identities of CIA agents. They cannot keep a major public policy initiative or issue of politics from the news very long.

Much simpler to believe that if we can launch a rocket to begin with, we ought to be able to send it to the moon with a few guys aboard. Do we have to answer the conspiracy buffs point for point, or do we simply assign them the burden of proof?

You are right to point out that all of NASA's staff would have had to have been in on it. I have known a NASA contracting officer (now deceased) and a NASA engineer that worked for NASA during the 60's and 70's. No way it was faked. lol

One thing the conspiracy theorists like to point out is that the American flag appeared to be blowing in the wind. They maintain that the moon has no atmosphere, so this is not possible. But, the flag's motion was simply due to the way the material responds to movement in a vacuum. Mythbusters duplicated this effect in a controlled environment.

Something else conspiracy theorists like to point out is that there are no stars in the camera images on the moon, and they question why this would be considering how clearly you should be able to see stars from the moon. The answer is pretty simple. Have you ever tried taking photos of clearly star lit sky with even a modern day digital camera? Stars are not bright enough to show up on modern day cameras let alone the camera technology we had in the 60's.

Stars are bright enough to appear on a modern day camera, true you tend to need a DSLR or other camera where you can adjust exposure settings.

 

[fonzob1]

The "moon landing filmed in a studio" story, which emerged before the mission series concluded in 1972, has flummoxed me from both ends. The idea that it was really faked is absurd, yet debunking has usually proceeded on technical grounds, such as lighting in the photos, by way of refuting specific claims the conspiracy buffs advance. This seems unnecessary to me.

I have no doubt that a quality fake Apollo landing could have been put on in a studio with the technology available in 1969, provided enough money and effort were invested. But how would such a monumental effort be covered up? Hundreds of people would be in the know and inevitably some of them would leak. Meanwhile, NASA and its contractors kept some 80000 staff on the job making the rockets or doing other preparation needed to render the whole shindig convincing. After all, the launches had to be real even if the rockets weren't going to reach the moon, because they were witnessed by the general public on the ground.

This implausibility of eternal cover-up is enough reason for me to reject the conspiracy theory on sociological grounds. The government refused to officially acknowledge the existence of its National Reconnaissance Office, the program responsible for satellite spying on the Soviet Union, although it was public knowledge almost as soon as the first film canisters came down. Nixon couldn't shut the lid on Watergate. The government is able to keep some secrets involving technical or obscure material such as the identities of CIA agents. They cannot keep a major public policy initiative or issue of politics from the news very long.

Much simpler to believe that if we can launch a rocket to begin with, we ought to be able to send it to the moon with a few guys aboard. Do we have to answer the conspiracy buffs point for point, or do we simply assign them the burden of proof?

You are right to point out that all of NASA's staff would have had to have been in on it. I have known a NASA contracting officer (now deceased) and a NASA engineer that worked for NASA during the 60's and 70's. No way it was faked. lol

One thing the conspiracy theorists like to point out is that the American flag appeared to be blowing in the wind. They maintain that the moon has no atmosphere, so this is not possible. But, the flag's motion was simply due to the way the material responds to movement in a vacuum. Mythbusters duplicated this effect in a controlled environment.

Something else conspiracy theorists like to point out is that there are no stars in the camera images on the moon, and they question why this would be considering how clearly you should be able to see stars from the moon. The answer is pretty simple. Have you ever tried taking photos of clearly star lit sky with even a modern day digital camera? Stars are not bright enough to show up on modern day cameras let alone the camera technology we had in the 60's.

Stars are bright enough to appear on a modern day camera, true you tend to need a DSLR or other camera where you can adjust exposure settings.

The point is... most stars will not show up on most modern day cameras, and that was especially true with camera technology in the 60's.

 

[Metryq]

Forget the whole NASA staff having to be in on it. For the Moon landing to have been faked, the USSR would have to have been in on it.

They were/are in on it. The entire world is being run by a secret society. The appearance of separate nations is just a ploy to make it easier to control the serfs. There is also a big, big PR campaign to make "conspiracy theories" a joke—people are taught to scoff at the idea as crazy. It thus becomes a self-censoring mechanism. But what the secret society doesn't know is that they are the puppets of evil alien overlords whose abandoned first bases on the Moon were discovered by NASA...

(Think BUCKAROO BANZAI, where a real alien invasion was covered up as a radio show that got out of hand.)

 

[137th Gebirg]

They're following the wrong conspiracy! The moon landings did happen. It's what we found there and never went back is the real conspiracy...

 

[Trekker4747]

You are right to point out that all of NASA's staff would have had to have been in on it. I have known a NASA contracting officer (now deceased) and a NASA engineer that worked for NASA during the 60's and 70's. No way it was faked. lol

One thing the conspiracy theorists like to point out is that the American flag appeared to be blowing in the wind. They maintain that the moon has no atmosphere, so this is not possible. But, the flag's motion was simply due to the way the material responds to movement in a vacuum. Mythbusters duplicated this effect in a controlled environment.

Something else conspiracy theorists like to point out is that there are no stars in the camera images on the moon, and they question why this would be considering how clearly you should be able to see stars from the moon. The answer is pretty simple. Have you ever tried taking photos of clearly star lit sky with even a modern day digital camera? Stars are not bright enough to show up on modern day cameras let alone the camera technology we had in the 60's.

Stars are bright enough to appear on a modern day camera, true you tend to need a DSLR or other camera where you can adjust exposure settings.

The point is... most stars will not show up on most modern day cameras, and that was especially true with camera technology in the 60's.

The answer is simpler than that. The stars weren't seen in the sky because it was DAY TIME where they were on the moon! That the sky was black is irrelevant the sun was up, the ground was reflecting light. The cameras' exposure settings would've been set to capture ground objects not to capture the very faint light of a star, in the day time, in the sky.

 

[MacLeod]

^Quite correct, but I thought the bit about it being daylight, and the moon surface being reflective was obvious and as such shouldn't need to be mentioned.

 

[Dryson]

Sure they say that the lunar landing was a conspiracy. If so then why are there millions of pages relating to costs involved with the landing readily available?

Conspiracy theorists live in the notion that they are always correct on this matter because they did not see the launch take place, were not involved with the actual landing and create simple delusions for theirselves to make their reality seem true.

I can see them now actually landing on the Moon in their spacesuits taking them off and wondering while they died that they died? Or after they have descended they look up at the top of the landing craft and notice a crane hook and then say " That's where they used the crane to lower us down from. The blinkie stars are not stars but lights.

Even if they traversed the diameter of the Moon they would say NASA built a revolving sphere 2000 miles in diameter and contained it within an even larger theatre to create the experience.

Perhaps such people should experience the atmosphere of the Moon.

I have been around such people and they are delusional and demented to the point of not believing that we have been to the Moon but will absolutely say with certainty that people can walk on water.

 

[Ithekro]

There is one thing worse. The Flat Earth Society.

One of the few things that can make me actively upset.

 

[Metryq]

There is one thing worse. The Flat Earth Society.

One of the few things that can make me actively upset.

If that's enough to upset you, then you should probably be on meds for stress. "Flat Earth" is so very tame compared to some of the nonsense out there. If it won't be life-threatening, try these on for size:

• Earth is not spinning (Never heard of a Foucault pendulum, I guess.)
  
• Dr Robert Sungenis - Geocentrism Geocentric Cosmology ("It's all relative!")

Hollow Earth is still alive and well—you know, that bit about entrance holes at the north and south pole?

 

[Ithekro]

The total nonsense ones usually don't bother me (also I almost never hear about them, which helps).

The Flat Earth group upsets me because I've been in airplanes from a very young age, and have gone high enough to see the curvature of the Earth. Together with some other things, so I take that one personally.

Other than that it usually takes a lot of anything to get be upset, and even more to make me actively upset. The Internet frustrations is something different than that as I heard about the Flat Earth group before ever having been on the Internet (that was a while ago).