We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]

Dohnjoe

A simple exercise for "doubters".

On one side of the room put all the evidence that man landed on the moon. The documents, the hundreds of thousands of employees who worked on the program, the rivals who tracked the missions, the physical evidence (moon rocks, reflectors left on the moon, etc), the footage, the data collected, the landing sites being photographed by a later mission, the corroborating testimony, the millions of scientists (from around the world, including competing countries) who have examined all the evidence, the radar tracking of the missions, the 6 separate landings, etc

On the other side of the room put all the evidence that it was all shot in a studio somewhere. Which studio? when? there's absolutely nothing.

Then ask yourself why you think both are equally plausible. It's not rational.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

But why would they be rolling money into these programmes when they get nothing out of it?

Why not rat the other guy out, have him lose prestige and then you can spend your money on other more useful stuff?

Because it was profitable to both sides that each programme survived and compete with each other.
They would go to each leader of the respective countries and say do you really want the other guy to be the first, the first in space on the moon and so on

It's all about big willies, so to speak.;)

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A simple exercise for "doubters".

On one side of the room put all the evidence that man landed on the moon. The documents, the hundreds of thousands of employees who worked on the program, the rivals who tracked the missions, the physical evidence (moon rocks, reflectors left on the moon, etc), the footage, the data collected, the landing sites being photographed by a later mission, the corroborating testimony, the millions of scientists (from around the world, including competing countries) who have examined all the evidence, the radar tracking of the missions, the 6 separate landings, etc

On the other side of the room put all the evidence that it was all shot in a studio somewhere. Which studio? when? there's absolutely nothing.

Then ask yourself why you think both are equally plausible. It's not rational.

Much cheaper to shoot it all in a studio, just saying.

richardkeiths

Deleted User wrote: »

Much cheaper to shoot it all in a studio, just saying.

lol

And all of the many people it would have taken to pull that off are in on this conspiracy are they??

Let me guess, you wont take the vaccine!?

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Much cheaper to shoot it all in a studio, just saying.

Is there any credible evidence that the above happened? No

So the only reason you are entertaining the idea is because you can conjure up a motive for it in your head. That's a logical fallacy, aka bad logic. It's on the same level as claiming anything in history didn't happen because you can invent a motive about it. Events in the world don't revolve around what you can rationalise in your head, and that's not a good path to be going down.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Much cheaper to shoot it all in a studio, just saying.

And how do you explain the thousands of people watching the launches in person on the Florida coast and them wondering if that day's episode would explode on the launch pad or not?

Have a look at the number of launch failures in the early moon missions, why fake so many disasters?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it was profitable to both sides that each programme survived and compete with each other.
They would go to each leader of the respective countries and say do you really want the other guy to be the first, the first in space on the moon and so on

It's all about big willies, so to speak.;)

But it wasn't profitable. It was just burning money in a big pile for no reason.
If they can show the other guy isn't really going into space, why would they need to spend money to pretend to go into space?

Deleted User wrote: »

Much cheaper to shoot it all in a studio, just saying.

It wouldn't be.
You still have to develop the rockets and spacecraft. You still have to actual launch the things.
You still have to bring back the lunar samples.

And this is on top of the technology you need to fake everything. All developed in secret and never used again.

And this is on top of all the Nasa personnel you have to pay extremely well to stay quiet.
And then there's all the actors and fake experts you have to hire.
And then there's all the bribes to unaffiliated scientists and astronomers.
And all the brides to all future aerospace agencies and companies to keep them quiet.

And you'd have to keep all of that up for decades.

And this is just for Apollo.
If it's every space mission like the folks here are claiming...

robinph

Where is the profit in faking blowing up three people in a test exercise for Apollo 1? Was the explosion faked, or did they really blow the astronauts up as part of the long game to make it seem believable? Why really blow them up and risk the program being cancelled by politicians or having the public turn against you? If they were not really blown up then where did those astronauts go? Were they taken off and shot in the desert somewhere? Who shot them? Who shot the people who shot the astronauts so that they would never speak of it? Were those guys then shot as well to make sure they never spoke of it?.... Etc...

richardkeiths

robinph wrote: »

Where is the profit in faking blowing up three people in a test exercise for Apollo 1? Was the explosion faked, or did they really blow the astronauts up as part of the long game to make it seem believable? Why really blow them up and risk the program being cancelled by politicians or having the public turn against you? If they were not really blown up then where did those astronauts go? Were they taken off and shot in the desert somewhere? Who shot them? Who shot the people who shot the astronauts so that they would never speak of it? Were those guys then shot as well to make sure they never spoke of it?.... Etc...

dont make the conspiracy theorist consider reality. It deepens their psychosis.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Where is the profit in faking blowing up three people in a test exercise for Apollo 1? Was the explosion faked, or did they really blow the astronauts up as part of the long game to make it seem believable? Why really blow them up and risk the program being cancelled by politicians or having the public turn against you? If they were not really blown up then where did those astronauts go? Were they taken off and shot in the desert somewhere? Who shot them? Who shot the people who shot the astronauts so that they would never speak of it? Were those guys then shot as well to make sure they never spoke of it?.... Etc...

According to Bart Sibrel, the crank being billed as an "investigative journalist" in this thread, they were murdered.

Apparently, despite being totally involved and committed to the cause of the fake moon landings, they were unhappy and were threatening to go public. So Nasa killed them in the most visible and elaborate way possible.
This of course make no rational sense.
It's just a shocking fantasy story to hook in credible viewers who probably had never heard of the Apollo 1 fire.

robinph

King Mob wrote: »

According to Bart Sibrel, the crank being billed as an "investigative journalist" in this thread, they were murdered.

Apparently, despite being totally involved and committed to the cause of the fake moon landings, they were unhappy and were threatening to go public. So Nasa killed them in the most visible and elaborate way possible.
This of course make no rational sense.
It's just a shocking fantasy story to hook in credible viewers who probably had never heard of the Apollo 1 fire.

A car crash on the way to work would have been easier to fake, and waste less resources, and involve less other people, and not risk the space program being cancelled, or risk USSR using it in propaganda against you if they got wind of it.

It's hilarious the stuff they come up with and how they justify it, but scary that there are so many people who fall for the BS.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

It's just a shocking fantasy story to hook in credible viewers who probably had never heard of the Apollo 1 fire.

Viewers who are impervious to logic/reason and, as we've seen from this thread, require little or no evidence to believe a made-up moon landing and space travel conspiracy guff.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Viewers who are impervious to logic/reason and, as we've seen from this thread, require little or no evidence to believe a made-up moon landing and space travel conspiracy guff.

Well it's not so much about convincing people, it's about making an attention getting propaganda piece that will generate more profit.

Dohnjoe

Indeed as we've seen time and time again, conspiracy believers tend to be people who gravitate towards conspiracies very easily with little real evidence required, making them ideal targets for people who want to make money off them or simply other conspiracy believers

It's a feedback loop.

richardkeiths

richardkeiths wrote: »

lol

And all of the many people it would have taken to pull that off are in on this conspiracy are they??

Let me guess, you wont take the vaccine!?

Yes I am taking the vaccine

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Much cheaper to shoot it all in a studio, just saying.

Let's take this angle and say yep that's what the Americans did, they shot it all in a studio. OK. Now these days we're used to incredible special effects, computer generated mostly and high definition video etc. Slight problem, none of that existed in the 1960's. Not even close. They had film tech well established and down to a fine art and very high def, but herein lays the problem; TV and video footage.

To film the moon footage you need well, film cameras and they have rolls that that last around ten minutes of shooting before they have to be swapped out, even less if as suggested they were shooting the moon walks in slow motion(you have to speed up the camera). Now you could maybe double that time if you shoot at slower frame rates(like the onboard film cameras did during the LM decent stage), but that would totally screw up your slow motion bouncing on the moon stuff.

But OK let's say you get around that problem. Now you have to transfer many many hours of developed film onto videotape of the day(we'll ignore the developing film delay). So like in the old days of going to the cinema you'd need the NASA projectionist swapping rolls live on the fly throughout this process, while at the same time making it look live with near constant video feeds on the later missions for many hours at a time and sync it all to the live faked audio of the guys on the moon set and the guys on the ground including backroom scientists all reading from the exact same script. All that without any mistakes. And you'd have to feed that through a transmitter on or near the actual moon to keep the signal telemetry that the world, including America's enemies were monitoring, and do that for mission, after mission, after mission.

Never mind that even with the best of Hollywood cinema special effects technology today, we still can't make TV and Movie Apollo sequences look "real". Look at that Armstrong biopic First Man from 2018. Huge budget with the top professionals at the top of their game using all the tech available from model shots to CGI and usually both. The launch sequences look pretty convincing, the descent to the moon looks pretty good too(if over the top, cos Hollywood), right until the part where the moon itself is shown and then it looks wrong. The EVA moonwalk parts look fake as feck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1CgNrjVHBU

In essence in the late 1960's it was actually technically easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

In essence in the late 1960's it was actually technically easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.

There's stuff that's pretty much impossible to fake even now:

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust/?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=5&con=proof-we-landed-on-the-moon-is-in-the-dust

The dust thrown up follows a trajectory that's impossible to do on Earth.
The only way to replicate the effect would be to create a chamber large enough to contain the landing site in a perfect vacuum and to fly this chamber in parabolic arcs to reduce the apparent gravity. (Or otherwise reduce the gravity.)

Dohnjoe

And this classic is always worth reposting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

namloc1980

Can we take it that zero evidence is going to be provided for the fake landings on Mars? 200 posts in and not a single shred of evidence or proof has even been offered up for discussion by the conspiracy theorists. As such I'm struggling to see the conspiracy here.

Wibbs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And this classic is always worth reposting.

He makes good points about the video tech of the time which I'd not considered. Indeed they were so flaky and delicate that the reason we've no video footage of Apollo 12 is because during the setup of the new improved video camera astronaut Alan Bean momentarily exposed the lens to the direct sun and blew the circuitry. At one point he resorted to that old trick of dads everywhere in the 1970's when the telly went wonky, he gave it a clatter on the top. No joy. They got some great B&W and colour photos of the moon, but Alan was so pissed off and guilty at his mistake when he got home and became an artist he painted canvas after canvas of moonscapes trying to show the feeling of the place.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can we take it that zero evidence is going to be provided for the fake landings on Mars? 200 posts in and not a single shred of evidence or proof has even been offered up for discussion by the conspiracy theorists. As such I'm struggling to see the conspiracy here.

Not much motivation offered either. Some people rely on conspiracy theories to make sense of a world they're incapable of understanding.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can we take it that zero evidence is going to be provided for the fake landings on Mars? 200 posts in and not a single shred of evidence or proof has even been offered up for discussion by the conspiracy theorists. As such I'm struggling to see the conspiracy here.

I'm sure we're going to be told that the only reason we're not getting proof is because we're meanies who didn't ask nice enough.

Ger Roe

For conspiracy theorists who like a good story... look up the film Capricorn One, made in 1977. A faked mars landing mission that has OJ Simpson in a starring role.

It doesn't get more far fetched than that.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

namloc1980

Are we to take it no evidence or proof of basically anything is going to be presented to support the the "fake" Mars landing conspiracy?

ShatterAlan

kirving wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the technology in the slightest. It's not the camera that's low quality - they're within the most highly engineered cameras ever created.

Transmitting these images in high resolution is what takes time. Getting anything back from over 200 million kilometers away is an incredible achievement. Wait, and the high resolution pictures and data will come.

Well it should only take about 16 minutes for the images to reach Earth from 200million km away.

Hotblack Desiato

The poster was referring to the data rates available, not the speed of light, duh.

robinph

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well it should only take about 16 minutes for the images to reach Earth from 200million km away.

You have that time delay, plus add in that the amount of data that can be transmitted per second is about the same as you'd get if lucky over an analogue phone line 20 years ago, but the pictures being transmitted are high definition now. So they are trying to transfer modern high quality images over a connection about the same as what used to be frustratingly slow just dealing with the early Internet.

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/communications/#:~:text=The data rate direct-to,2 million bits per second.

ShatterAlan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The poster was referring to the data rates available, not the speed of light, duh.

Don't be smarmy.


The poster also said getting anything back from 200 million km away is a great achievement. Is it? In this day and age?


"Duh?" How cutesy.

ShatterAlan

Wibbs wrote: »

Let's take this angle and say yep that's what the Americans did, they shot it all in a studio. OK. Now these days we're used to incredible special effects, computer generated mostly and high definition video etc. Slight problem, none of that existed in the 1960's. Not even close. They had film tech well established and down to a fine art and very high def, but herein lays the problem; TV and video footage.

To film the moon footage you need well, film cameras and they have rolls that that last around ten minutes of shooting before they have to be swapped out, even less if as suggested they were shooting the moon walks in slow motion(you have to speed up the camera). Now you could maybe double that time if you shoot at slower frame rates(like the onboard film cameras did during the LM decent stage), but that would totally screw up your slow motion bouncing on the moon stuff.

But OK let's say you get around that problem. Now you have to transfer many many hours of developed film onto videotape of the day(we'll ignore the developing film delay). So like in the old days of going to the cinema you'd need the NASA projectionist swapping rolls live on the fly throughout this process, while at the same time making it look live with near constant video feeds on the later missions for many hours at a time and sync it all to the live faked audio of the guys on the moon set and the guys on the ground including backroom scientists all reading from the exact same script. All that without any mistakes. And you'd have to feed that through a transmitter on or near the actual moon to keep the signal telemetry that the world, including America's enemies were monitoring, and do that for mission, after mission, after mission.

Never mind that even with the best of Hollywood cinema special effects technology today, we still can't make TV and Movie Apollo sequences look "real". Look at that Armstrong biopic First Man from 2018. Huge budget with the top professionals at the top of their game using all the tech available from model shots to CGI and usually both. The launch sequences look pretty convincing, the descent to the moon looks pretty good too(if over the top, cos Hollywood), right until the part where the moon itself is shown and then it looks wrong. The EVA moonwalk parts look fake as feck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1CgNrjVHBU

In essence in the late 1960's it was actually technically easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it.

For what it's worth I don't think the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. But then I have no proof that they were authentic OR that they were faked. I'm happy enough to take their word for it. The Chinese landed on the far side of the Moon a few years ago and they were the first to do this. I'll take their word for it too despite the fact that many say "you can't believe a word they say".


The Chinese landed on the "Dark Side of the Moon" ... true or not? I believe it's true.


The Chinese only had 5000 Covid deaths.... true or not? I also believe that's true.


Anyway to get back to the issue at hand, i.e. moon landings. You state that it would have been impossible to fake the footage as the technology in 1968 didn't exist to mock up something like this. How many movies have you seen from the 60's that showed convincing footage? The 1958 movie A Night To Remember, with Kenneth Moore about the Titanic sinking looked pretty scary and real to me and it was 10 years before 1968. How many real birds were in Hitchcock's "The Birds" in 1963? Maybe 3 or 4 but I could have sworn there were thousands.


So, as I was saying, I don't believe the moon landings were faked but I don't believe your insistence either that the footage could not have been faked.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The poster also said getting anything back from 200 million km away is a great achievement. Is it? In this day and age?

From a tech point of view the whole mission is pretty amazing. Below is proper video footage from landing on another planet, the sky-crane flying off is like something out of a sci-fi film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg

And here is an interesting video just on the mini-helicopter on board the Perseverance and the engineering challenges surrounding it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhsZUZmJvaM