Finally, all the Moon Hoaxers can move on, right?

  • #26
tchitt
I've actually considered that possibility myself. That yes they landed on the moon but they may have staged some footage to be sure that they had something of a good enough quality to capture the attention of the public or perhaps something to show if the video feed was not working.
Yes, it's a possibilty. (That's why I understand most everything you post on this site... You've got the ability to be objective about most everything.) But the theory that the moon landing tapes were fake has been adequately debunked, in my opinion. I'm curious as to what the most compelling evidence that it was actually faked is to you? PM it to me, if you like... I'm not even sure if we're breaking the rules or not at this point.
 
  • #27
740
13
i don't feel strongly about it either way & I can't think of anything specific, but given that the other examples are much more recent & have been confirmed as staged in some way I don't think it's crazy that the moon-landing video was shot in a studio. it was 1969 after all.
 
  • #28
Yes, it's a possibilty. (That's why I understand most everything you post on this site... You've got the ability to be objective about most everything.) But the theory that the moon landing tapes were fake has been adequately debunked, in my opinion. I'm curious as to what the most compelling evidence that it was actually faked is to you? PM it to me, if you like... I'm not even sure if we're breaking the rules or not at this point.
Oh I've never really thought it was faked or even researched the subject very much. I just considered that idea as a possibility to explain the hoaxers theories. They mostly revolve around supposedly faked footage and a supposed secret sound stage. I find it a handy alternative explanation for these things to show that even if they are true it does not mean the landing didn't happen. And its not terribly far fetched either.
 
  • #29
740
13
I don't think it would have affected Obama's inauguration in the least but according to Itzhak Perlman, it would have been a "disaster" if, due to the weather, the instruments turned out to be out of tune:
It may be a new dawn of openness in the US but the classical music performance at Barack Obama's inauguration was not what it seemed. Although the audience saw a quartet playing John Williams' Air and Simple Gifts, they actually heard a pre-recorded version of the piece. The musicians were not amplified so the live version would have been inaudible to most onlookers.

The reason? The extreme cold, which meant the instruments could not be guaranteed to be in tune. "It would have been a disaster if we had done it any other way," violinist Itzhak Perlman told the New York Times.

Carole Florman, a spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, said: "It would never have occurred to me to announce it. The fact they were forced to perform to tape did not seem relevant."

Cold and heat cause instruments to contract or expand and the low humidity in Washington on Tuesday could have damaged them. British cellist Steven Isserlis said: "You can't play outdoors in temperatures like this," he said. "It's not fair to the instruments. There's also the impossibility of playing with frozen fingers."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/obama-inauguration-string-quartet

NASA & the US government propagandists didn't have the same concerns? they knew that the broadcast from the Moon would work perfectly? in 1969? like I say, I don't care much either way but that's where I'm coming from
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I don't think it would have affected Obama's inauguration in the least but according to Itzhak Perlman, it would have been a "disaster" if, due to the weather, the instruments turned out to be out of tune:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/obama-inauguration-string-quartet

NASA & the US government propagandists didn't have the same concerns? they knew that the broadcast from the Moon would work perfectly? in 1969?
I don't understand your point. No, they didn't know it would work perfectly. What's more, the picture quality was terrible because of the many rebroadcasts needed.
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
i don't feel strongly about it either way & I can't think of anything specific, but given that the other examples are much more recent & have been confirmed as staged in some way I don't think it's crazy that the moon-landing video was shot in a studio. it was 1969 after all.
There is a world of difference between an ipod recording of music going along with an event and a faking of the actual event. None of your examples are even remotely the same concept as you are describing. Only if the inauguration itself were faked would it be the same idea. Same for the Olympic opening ceremony - the embellished the broadcast, but the broadcast was still of the opening ceremony.
 
  • #32
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Oh I've never really thought it was faked or even researched the subject very much. I just considered that idea as a possibility to explain the hoaxers theories. They mostly revolve around supposedly faked footage and a supposed secret sound stage. I find it a handy alternative explanation for these things to show that even if they are true it does not mean the landing didn't happen. And its not terribly far fetched either.
One of the idiots pushing this nonsense puts his hand in a glove, in a vacuum chamber, and then claims that once in a vacuum, the glove is too stiff for a person to manipulate. He then alleges this is evidence that the moonlanding was not possible. Of course he ignores the fact that the same problem would exist for the space shuttle astronauts. So apparently everything since the moon landing was faked as well. :rolleyes:
 
  • #33
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,934
2,425
...given that the other examples are much more recent & have been confirmed as staged in some way I don't think it's crazy that the moon-landing video was shot in a studio...
I'm not following the logic. It's sort of retro-active.

Could the same logic not be used to speculate that the Hiroshima and Nagaskai bombings could also have been backed up by publicity footage?
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
I don't understand your point. No, they didn't know it would work perfectly. What's more, the picture quality was terrible because of the many rebroadcasts needed.
Case in point, the blast-off from the moon. The guy in mission control who tried to use the camera to follow the ascent module missed it the first two times due to the time delay.

Also, I think they used a higher quality camera on the later flights.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
One of the idiots pushing this nonsense puts his hand in a glove, in a vacuum chamber, and then claims that once in a vacuum, the glove is too stiff for a person to manipulate. Of course he ignores the fact that the same problem would exist for the space shuttle astronauts. So apparently everything since the moon landing was faked as well. :rolleyes:
You know the reason I found this site was because I was looking for an explination regarding the claim that the radiation in the van allen belt was too much for the astronauts to survive through with the minimal shielding provided by the shuttle. At the time I thought that of all reasons the hoaxers gave it may be the only good one.
 
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Oh I've never really thought it was faked or even researched the subject very much. I just considered that idea as a possibility to explain the hoaxers theories. They mostly revolve around supposedly faked footage and a supposed secret sound stage. I find it a handy alternative explanation for these things to show that even if they are true it does not mean the landing didn't happen. And its not terribly far fetched either.
Yeah, it really is far fetched. It is twisted, convoluted, perverted logic. It would make you be inclined to disbelieve every piece of video/photographic evidence of anything, ever. Good video evidence is a positive thing, not a negative thing. And they put an extrordinary amount of effort into trying to get good video and photos - but ther were plenty of problems.
 
  • #37
Yeah, it really is far fetched. It is twisted, convoluted, perverted logic. It would make you be inclined to disbelieve every piece of video/photographic evidence of anything, ever. Good video evidence is a positive thing, not a negative thing. And they put an extrordinary amount of effort into trying to get good video and photos - but ther were plenty of problems.
I don't get what you mean really. The moon landing was extremely expensive and highly politicized. The idea that they may have made back up footage for public consumption just incase is somehow twisted, convoluted, perverted logic?
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
At the time I thought that of all reasons the hoaxers gave it may be the only good one.
Of course, it is not. As you may know, Van Allen himself says so.
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I don't get what you mean really. The moon landing was extremely expensive and highly politicized. The idea that they may have made back up footage for public consumption just incase is somehow twisted, convoluted, perverted logic?
The idea is one thing, but we are talking about reality. I have to agree with Russ on this one. Anyone who takes a serious look at this knows that it does require perverted and convoluted logic to justify the claim that the landings were faked. What does justify the claim - the only thing - is ignorance.

Take for example the claim about the shadows. Frankly, even most children could probably understand that not all shadows from a single light source are parallel. It depends entirely on the surface on which the shadow is seen. In fact, it is easy to make shadows at 90 degrees to each other: All we need is a vertical surface, and a horizontal surface. The fact that the people making these claims don't understand this puts them on the intellectual level of a ten-year old - that or they are just dishonest and making the claims to make money. That alone should be sufficient cause for people to quit listening to these nuts.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
I don't get what you mean really. The moon landing was extremely expensive and highly politicized. The idea that they may have made back up footage for public consumption just incase is somehow twisted, convoluted, perverted logic?
Yeah, it's disturbing, actually, so far removed from rational thought it is.
The idea is one thing, but we are talking about reality. I have to agree with Russ on this one. Anyone who takes a serious look at this knows that it does require perverted and convoluted logic to justify the claim that the landing were faked. What does justify the claim - the only thing - is ignorance.
Nah, I'm starting from scratch here - before even looking at the claims and the evidence. The very idea that they'd make backup footage, much less attempt to pull off a huge hoax is ludicrous. The idea itself, before you even start to look at the evidence, just doesn't make sense. It should be obvious why it was never considered:

1. A hoax that requires 100,000 participants isn't possible.
2. The fallout from an unsuccessful hoax would be huge.
3. It wasn't necessary to make a hoax or backup footage. And I don't just mean because the mission succeeded, I mean the type of failures such as the out of tune string quartet - you wouldn't want, much less need to avoid that with the moon landings. Unpolished reality, complete with imperfections, is the best historical record!
4. Heck, even the Russians didn't do such things and they wouldn't announce launches until after they happened for fear of failure!
[edit]5. Odds of failure? Well plenty of rockets blew up on the pad and every one of our astronauts who has died in space died during re-entry (the Russians too, I think). You don't gain a whole lot as far as safety is concerned by faking only the landing on the moon itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685
The notion is ridiculously far-fetched and incredibly insulting. Too many people were watching. The Russians would have called our bluff if there was any sign it was a fake. So would the uncounted number of ham radio operators who monitored the mission's progress.

Too many people were involved. The planning for the Apollo missions started in 1958 -- before NASA existed. The sheer magnitude of the effort precludes it from being a hoax. The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. If it were a hoax, why repeat the effort and risk the cover being blown?

Too many people knew how to calculate whether the Saturn rockets and Apollo vehicles had the capability to go to the Moon and come back. Assuming it was a hoax, NASA would still have had to build the vehicles with the capability of sending people to the Moon and bringing them back alive. Why not just use that capability?

To claim that this was a hoax is incredibly insulting to the country and to the tens of thousands who worked on the project. Being incredibly insulting is of course the ultimate intent of most of the hoaxers.
 
  • #42
Of course, it is not. As you may know, Van Allen himself says so.
Yes. I found quite a good explanation of the radiation in the van allen belt here. One of the reasons why I stayed.

The idea is one thing, but we are talking about reality. I have to agree with Russ on this one. Anyone who takes a serious look at this knows that it does require perverted and convoluted logic to justify the claim that the landings were faked. What does justify the claim - the only thing - is ignorance.

Take for example the claim about the shadows. Frankly, even most children could probably understand that not all shadows from a single light source are parallel. It depends entirely on the surface on which the shadow is seen. In fact, it is easy to make shadows at 90 degrees to each other: All we need is a vertical surface, and a horizontal surface. The fact that the people making these claims don't understand this puts them on the intellectual level of a ten-year old - that or they are just dishonest and making the claims to make money. That alone should be sufficient cause for people to quit listening to these nuts.
Russ said:
Yeah, it's disturbing, actually, so far removed from rational thought it is.
I think people are misunderstanding. I'm not lending credibility to the idea that the landing was faked. I'm only giving an alternative explanation to why there could have been (not that there was) fake footage and/or a sound studio since alot of hoaxers seem to think that these are damning evidence. Of course my first inclination about the supposed studio was that it was a staging area where they practiced using the equipment and filmed the practice.

So my only point was: Even if there was fake footage and a secret studio these are no reason to believe that we did not go to the moon. The idea that they made backup footage for publicity/propaganda purposes is more logical and feasible than the whole thing being faked. There is too much evidence outside of the footage, fake or not, to believe that the landing did not happen.

It's coming at the discussion from a "Even if we accept your premise..." angle.
 
  • #43
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,934
2,425
Yes, point of order:

They're claiming it is plausible that, in addition to going to the Moon, they also shot some "insurance" footage.


I'm only giving an alternative explanation to why there could have been (not that there was) fake footage and/or a sound studio since alot of hoaxers seem to think that these are damning evidence.


Sorry but this smacks very strongly of a desparate attempt to trivialize what would in fact be strong evidence (i.e. if there really were faked footage). It is equivalent IMO to the Creationist desparately explaining away actual fossil evidence by claiming God buried it there.

It takes pretty twisted logic to try to turn what is very strong evidence in favour of an argument into an apparent weakness of the argument.
 
  • #44
918
16
If this doesn't get this thread locked, nothing will:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5593/6pepxjpxuzhzml2.jpg [Broken]

Edit: I don't see the picture. Can someone link to it correctly?

http://phocks.org/stumble/moon-crane/" [Broken]

Edit by Ivan: Fixed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Dave, tse - there is no such hair to be split. Whether "backup footage" or a hoax from the start, the requirements on the footage and the program and all the hoax risks are functionally identical
 
  • #46
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
13
I always wondered why the government departments that so effectively cover up UFOs, fake moon landings, rig skyscrapers to collapse and all the other conspiracy targets can't be put in charge of things like health care - they seem to be much more effective than any other government dept.
 
  • #47
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,066
8
I always wondered why the government departments that so effectively cover up UFOs, fake moon landings, rig skyscrapers to collapse and all the other conspiracy targets can't be put in charge of things like health care - they seem to be much more effective than any other government dept.
That's funny. It just brought a vision to me....an office building with a receptionist...."Sorry Sir. The moon landing hoax office is just down the hall from the 9/11 coordination offices on the third floor. If you get to the CIA/Grassy Knoll Office, you went too far."
 
  • #48
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
You know the reason I found this site was because I was looking for an explination regarding the claim that the radiation in the van allen belt was too much for the astronauts to survive through with the minimal shielding provided by the shuttle. At the time I thought that of all reasons the hoaxers gave it may be the only good one.
Electromagnetic waves from a solar flare were a bigger hazard (especially in the X-ray, gamma ray range).

There were quite a few who thought sending missions to the Moon so close to solar maximum (about 1967) was a needless risk that could be avoided minimized be delaying the missions until the solar minimum (around 1973).

In this case, Kennedy's commitment to put a man on the Moon within the decade and the pressure of the cold war overrode had a higher priority than minimizing something that was seen as a relatively small risk.

One of the tasks during the mission was to detect solar flares as soon as they happened and return astronauts from the lunar surface to the command module as soon as possible if a solar flare occurred. This wouldn't protect from the electromagnetic radiation, but it would protect from the particles ejected from the Sun since it would take the particles hours to arrive. (The command module offered some protection from high energy ionized particles while the lunar module and space suits offered virtually none whatsoever).

They got lucky during the entire Apollo program with the only really major solar flare occuring between Apollo 16 and Apollo 17.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
2,985
15
..................................ANYWAYS.


Something of actual educational value.........

Today is the 40 anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the 1969 mission with former astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin. The Newseum held a discussion on "The Apollo Legacy". Yesterday, the Apollo crew spoke at the Smithsonian Nat'l Air & Space Museum on space history.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/07/20/HP/R/21095/40th+Anniversary+of+Apollo+11.aspx [Broken]

Who cares about what people think concerning the moon hoax? Their idiots. Just pat them on the head and say "goood boyy" "sit.....sitttttt" "shake hands".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
2,685
22
Play dead would be better...
 

Related Threads on Finally, all the Moon Hoaxers can move on, right?

Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
56
Views
8K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Top