The Space Race Conspiracy

[SeventyOne]

No, not a good analogy. A better analogy would be someone arguing that it is impossible for humans to play the game of baseball and that the game of baseball cannot exist and must be CGI faked.

Then you go step by step. Do balls exist? Do bats exist? Do gloves exist? Can humans hold a bat? Can humans catch a ball? Can humans throw a ball? Can humans swing a bat? Therefore put all of that together and you have the game of baseball and thus baseball is possible.

If you want to go back to your MLB argument. The question isn't whether or not someone plays for the MLB. No, the question is whether it is POSSIBLE for someone to play for the MLB. And if said person can "throw a ball, Catch a ball, swing a bat, has decent hand to eye coordination and decent physical abilities..." then yes, it is POSSIBLE for them to play for the MLB.

Back to fake moon landings. If it was technically possible for us to go to the moon back then, and if faking the moon landings was harder than actually going to the moon, then logically you have to wonder why people would still insist on the moon landings being faked.

In what world is faking moon landings harder then actually doing them? Just because you say it was possible, doesn't mean the action was performed. You're just taking it on faith.

 

[JackRT]

I have a friend who I thought was "normal" until we got on the subject of Space and he revealed to me that the moon landings were faked.

People who believe the moon landings were faked are people who do not have a firm understanding of science nor an understanding of just how smart human beings on the right side of the bell curve are...

When trying to convince my friend that the moon landings were real, I went step by step through all of his arguments and refuted them. Then I tried a different tact... I asked him if the following were real.

Submarines: He agrees, they are real and we had that tech way back then
A-bomb dropped on Japan: He agrees, it happened
Rockets capable of breaking orbit: He agrees begrudgingly but only "barely" capable of breaking orbit
Breaking the sound barrier: Yes, back then we could break the sound barrier with jets
Telescopes: Yes, we've always had telescopes
Radar: Yes, we had radar back then
Sputnik in orbit around the earth: Yes, he agrees this was real and happened

Then I hit him with a curveball. I said, if you believe in all of the above, then you believe in the moon landing. Reason being... In order to reach the moon, we had to have all of that capability that you just agreed we had back then.

I explained to him that from a rocketry standpoint, breaking Earth's orbit is the hard part, once you break Earth's orbit (which he agreed we could do back then) then getting to the moon is relatively easier provided you are willing to spend some serious money...

So then, after he absorbed what I told him, he changed his argument to "well, just because technically they could get to the moon doesn't mean they wouldn't fake it"

I then argued that it would actually be HARDER to fake a moon landing than to just go ahead and do it for real... In fact, I argued that with telescopes and radar being used around the world from various vantage points, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to fake the launch and breaking orbit and going to the moon. Not to mention the whole thing was televised and again, analysis of signal origin would have revealed the location of the transmitter i.e. the Apollo mission going to the moon...

He absorbed all this, then said, "Well, I still think it was faked..."

When you are talking to a "true believer" do not expect to change their mind. It almost never happens.

 

[A Realist]

Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short

Phhhffftttttt.....just another blurb from a conspiracy theory site that doesn't document any sources in its article.

 

[Lost4words]

Too many people, too many countries, too many organisations etc involved in space technology etc for it all to be fake.

 

[SeventyOne]

Too many people, too many countries, too many organisations etc involved in space technology etc for it all to be fake.

Funny, if I were to just alter that a bit to something like, "Too many people, too many countries, too many organisations etc involved in evolutionary science etc for it all to be fake", evolution would still be fake.

 

[Lost4words]

Funny, if I were to just alter that a bit to something like, "Too many people, too many countries, too many organisations etc involved in evolutionary science etc for it all to be fake", evolution would still be fake.

Twisting words and facts is what flat earth and conspiracy theory 'experts' are good at.

 

[A Realist]

Funny, if I were to just alter that a bit to something like, "Too many people, too many countries, too many organisations etc involved in evolutionary science etc for it all to be fake", evolution would still be fake.

Based upon your own perceptions, but nice try.

 

[SeventyOne]

Twisting words and facts is what flat earth and conspiracy theory 'experts' are good at.

I used your words. I only substituted the subject.

 

[SeventyOne]

Based upon your own perceptions, but nice try.

And reality. Evolution is also a huge global lie, and that also doesn't change one bit based on how many believe it.

 

[Lost4words]

I used your words. I only substituted the subject.

​

 

[A Realist]

Funny, if I were to just alter that a bit to something like, "Too many people, too many countries, too many organisations etc involved in evolutionary science etc for it all to be fake", evolution would still be fake.

And reality. Evolution is also a huge global lie, and that also doesn't change one bit based on how many believe it.

Funny, if I were to just alter that a bit to something like, "Creation Science is also a huge global lie, and that also doesn't change one bit based on how many believe it."

 

[dgiharris]

In what world is faking moon landings harder then actually doing them? Just because you say it was possible, doesn't mean the action was performed. You're just taking it on faith.

In order to fake a moon landing, you've got to launch something the size of a building into orbit (remember, there are about a hundred thousand people watching live on site and they've got binoculars and telescopes

then, after you launch said building into orbit, you've got to figure out a way to fake a TV signal that can easily be traced at the source, so you've got to put TV signal generators into orbit that are actually going to the moon

then you have to also figure out a way to deceive multiple telescopes on the ground and around the globe

Speaking of the return trip, you've got to launch a pod into space and have it touch down in the ocean as if it is on a return projectory from space all the while fooling all those cameras, binoculars, and telescopes that are watching world wide

The above conspiracy would require thousands upon thousands of people to be "in on it" and those same people need to be able to keep a secret

So yeah, faking the moon landing would be way harder than just actually doing it.

To think otherwise belies serious ignorance of what would actually be involved in order to fake it. You'd have just as much luck faking a continent wide solar eclipse... It's almost the same scale

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the main argument is you cannot go through lethal radiation. The fact is no one has gone through the belts since and we stay well in the safe zone. If you can go through the belts why has one done it in over 50 years. You know the whole world teaches the big bang and life came from nothing and evolved into everything we see today. They actually teach that as a fact of science. Science does lie and is opposed to the creator.

I assume you mean the Van-Allen radiation belts? NASA has an explanatory document giving the figures for how long astronauts on a lunar trajectory will be in each of the radiation zones, the dosage from each, and the total dosage. Here's a copy of NASA's 1973 Experience Report on the measured radiation dosage for Apollo astronauts from all sources (including radioluminescent panels and lighting).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In order to fake a moon landing, you've got to launch something the size of a building into orbit (remember, there are about a hundred thousand people watching live on site and they've got binoculars and telescopes

then, after you launch said building into orbit, you've got to figure out a way to fake a TV signal that can easily be traced at the source, so you've got to put TV signal generators into orbit that are actually going to the moon

then you have to also figure out a way to deceive multiple telescopes on the ground and around the globe

Speaking of the return trip, you've got to launch a pod into space and have it touch down in the ocean as if it is on a return projectory from space all the while fooling all those cameras, binoculars, and telescopes that are watching world wide

The above conspiracy would require thousands upon thousands of people to be "in on it" and those same people need to be able to keep a secret

So yeah, faking the moon landing would be way harder than just actually doing it.

To think otherwise belies serious ignorance of what would actually be involved in order to fake it. You'd have just as much luck faking a continent wide solar eclipse... It's almost the same scale

Not to mention the ham radio operators that listened in to the comms links, and the lack of video recording & playback technology to simulate hours of live broadcast, and the laser reflectors they left on the moon that you can use even today to calculate the moon's distance.

 

[dgiharris]

Not to mention the ham radio operators that listened in to the comms links, and the lack of video recording & playback technology to simulate hours of live broadcast, and the laser reflectors they left on the moon that you can use even today to calculate the moon's distance.

I feel that people who claim the moon landing was faked just don't understand the enormity of what something like that would entail.

It feels like they just think it would be equivalent to faking out a junior high school class that is watching the launch and moon landing from the TV in their classrooms during a 30 minute school break.

No. You are talking about MILLIONS of people world wide watching the launch and/or monitoring the progress from their respective vantage points 24/7. Then you have the Russians, French, British, Australians, and other countries with equivalent or near equivalent technology watching LIKE A HAWK, taking notes, doing round the clock analysis...

Truth be told, if I was to seriously sit down and try to figure out how to "fake it" with 1969 technology and a trillion dollar budget... I'd keep coming back to the conclusion that it would just be easier to do it for real... I don't even think it is possible to fake it technologically. And then add in the human element, thousands of people keeping their mouths shut, figuring out a way to fool thousands of journalists looking for the scoop and millions of academics and rocket enthusiasts...

Lies are very complex things, think about how hard it is for a criminal to lie his way out of jam when he is arrested and the cops have a good idea that he is guilty. Think of how easily evidence mounts up against him. Fingerprints, alibis not completely checking out, ... there are a million little unanticipated things that can trip you up on something as small scale as stealing a car.

I couldn't even begin to imagine the infinite things that would make it impossible to fake the moon landing with the entire world watching...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I feel that people who claim the moon landing was faked just don't understand the enormity of what something like that would entail.

It feels like they just think it would be equivalent to faking out a junior high school class that is watching the launch and moon landing from the TV in their classrooms during a 30 minute school break.

No. You are talking about MILLIONS of people world wide watching the launch and/or monitoring the progress from their respective vantage points 24/7. Then you have the Russians, French, British, Australians, and other countries with equivalent or near equivalent technology watching LIKE A HAWK, taking notes, doing round the clock analysis...

Truth be told, if I was to seriously sit down and try to figure out how to "fake it" with 1969 technology and a trillion dollar budget... I'd keep coming back to the conclusion that it would just be easier to do it for real... I don't even think it is possible to fake it technologically. And then add in the human element, thousands of people keeping their mouths shut, figuring out a way to fool thousands of journalists looking for the scoop and millions of academics and rocket enthusiasts...

Lies are very complex things, think about how hard it is for a criminal to lie his way out of jam when he is arrested and the cops have a good idea that he is guilty. Think of how easily evidence mounts up against him. Fingerprints, alibis not completely checking out, ... there are a million little unanticipated things that can trip you up on something as small scale as stealing a car.

I couldn't even begin to imagine the infinite things that would make it impossible to fake the moon landing with the entire world watching...

Yes; some conspiracy theories are just lazy thinking, and this is a prime example. I spent my formative years watching it all develop, from the X-15, through the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs - around 20 years of technology development and test flights involving tens of thousands of people around the world and tens of billions of dollars (when a billion dollars was really worth something). There's no way faking it could work or be kept secret.

Incidentally, you can watch the film of the astronauts on the moon, performing tasks at normal speed while the moondust thrown up moves in a 1/6th g arc that's not possible to fake with slow motion - this is particularly noticeable in the lunar rover filming in the later missions. But it's most noticeable when they fall over or throw things around (here's an amusing compilation).

 

[JackRT]

Yes; some conspiracy theories are just lazy thinking, and this is a prime example. I spent my formative years watching it all develop, from the X-15, through the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs - around 20 years of technology development and test flights involving tens of thousands of people around the world and tens of billions of dollars (when a billion dollars was really worth something). There's no way faking it could work or be kept secret.

And it is also impossible to keep the technology secret as well. Today literally dozens of nations have launch capability.

 

[dgiharris]

And it is also impossible to keep the technology secret as well. Today literally dozens of nations have launch capability.

we couldn't even keep the details and specs of the atomic bomb a secret for crying out loud...

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

In order to fake a moon landing, you've got to launch something the size of a building into orbit (remember, there are about a hundred thousand people watching live on site and they've got binoculars and telescopes

then, after you launch said building into orbit, you've got to figure out a way to fake a TV signal that can easily be traced at the source, so you've got to put TV signal generators into orbit that are actually going to the moon

then you have to also figure out a way to deceive multiple telescopes on the ground and around the globe

Speaking of the return trip, you've got to launch a pod into space and have it touch down in the ocean as if it is on a return projectory from space all the while fooling all those cameras, binoculars, and telescopes that are watching world wide

The above conspiracy would require thousands upon thousands of people to be "in on it" and those same people need to be able to keep a secret

So yeah, faking the moon landing would be way harder than just actually doing it.

To think otherwise belies serious ignorance of what would actually be involved in order to fake it. You'd have just as much luck faking a continent wide solar eclipse... It's almost the same scale

the launch of the space shuttles looked a lot like the launch of Apollo and they went up into low earth orbit and then came down. if the belts are no problem why have we stayed to low and all the other nations for 50 years? I go farther in jet then they go high in a space craft. If it is a space craft they certainly would have sent them above the belts if they could.

This is a side issue but what is your eschalogical point of view? In my view we are approaching the tribulation and the nations are demonically inspired and I expect lies, murder and theft from the leadership of the worlds governments as we near the unfolding of the prophetic destiny. i am not convinced we did or did not go to the moon. I will have serious doubt until we or someone else sends someone through the belts.

 

[JackRT]

The Van Allen radiation belts are indeed a serious hazard to any astronaut spending an extended time within them. All the earth orbit manned missions' including the international space station are well below this radiation hazard. However, the manned missions to the moon had to transit the VA belts both outbound and inbound. A lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rad in one hour. At the time of these missions the VA belts had been well mapped out in terms of radiation intensities. The Apollo mission's average speed through the belts was about 25,000 km/hr for a transit time of about 53 min each both outbound and inbound. Each transit would have resulted in crew members receiving about 12 Rads of radiation. So each astronaut on each complete Mission would have received about 24 Rads or about 8% of a lethal dose. Is there a risk? Yes, but it was a calculated risk. All such voyages of exploration were calculated risks. Some never came back. Lief Erikson, Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan did. Well, Magellan died in the last leg of the journey home, but his crew did make it back with his records. They were all calculated risks. That is how human progress takes place. The risks may vary but they are all risks.