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

King Mob · 23-02-2021 6:04am

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely had no idea that there were conspiracy theories about modern spaceflight. What a trip.

It's a pretty popular one. It mostly centers around claims like the above where the Challenger Crew are still alive.
Occasionally also an astronaut has a brain fart and says something that cranks can misinterpret to be evidence, like one guy saying "next door" when referring to Mission Control in Houston.

A lot of it is held up by the Flat Earther types cause they also have to believe all space missions are fake.

namloc1980 · 23-02-2021 1:01pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Oh I have plenty of evidence. Much of which I saved before it was mysteriously censored from the internet.

So any sign of all this evidence that you claim to have that the Mars landings are faked?

JJayoo · 23-02-2021 1:49pm

Parachute/heat shields/sky crane all crashed onto mars, fly tipping is gonna piss off the aliens

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2021 2:54pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Oh I have plenty of evidence.

Good, I'd like to know what it is, but I suspect you don't have any because you have resorted to excuses and evading questions.

Now I will address any lurkers who are open minded and interested in the topic.

Translation: You want to engage with posters who will simply validate your extreme views instead of challenging them

Quantum Baloney · 23-02-2021 4:28pm

Always find it funny that people that all this space travel baloney at face value. It may be true, but you're a fool not to question it.

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2021 4:54pm

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

Always find it funny that people that all this space travel baloney at face value. It may be true, but you're a fool not to question it.

Which "space travel baloney" are you referring to exactly?

Hotblack Desiato · 23-02-2021 5:07pm

King Mob wrote: »

A lot of it is held up by the Flat Earther types cause they also have to believe all space missions are fake.

I wonder do any of them have satellite TV?

bfa1509 · 23-02-2021 7:49pm

King Mob wrote: »

You have evidence, you just can't provide it?

Sure buddy. That've very believable...

I think it's clear to everyone you have no evidence.

A crank, not an investigative journalist. He did no investigating. His documentary is a collection of long debunk silly arguments.

Ok. So your evidence is that they faked a shuttle explosion. They went to the bother of building a fake shuttle and running a fake shuttle program for years before and after.
But they didn't bother to change the appearance of their fake victims, or even change their names. Or even just you know, shoot them.

That's ridiculous.

Why do you think this argument will convince anyone or do anything other than make your position look silly?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Good, I'd like to know what it is, but I suspect you don't have any because you have resorted to excuses and evading questions.

Translation: You want to engage with posters who will simply validate your extreme views instead of challenging them

It's incredible how quickly one or both of you respond to posts in the conspiracy forum, it's almost as if threads are constantly monitored so you can flood them with posts and prevent any meaningful conversation. You are either die-hard NASA fanboys or you have some ulterior motive against conspiracies being discussed online. Which is it? I find both equally tiresome

Of course, when I present solid evidence that the moon landing is faked you attack the integrity of the character who created it. Very mature, King Mob, just your style.

Have you even watched the documentary? How can you explain the clear staging of the moon landing footage?

Also another thing I've noticed is your overuse of the word "silly". A very common technique for influencing the reader to distract them from the facts. You plant this idea in people's heads that if they could be so "silly" to believe such a thing then they are very childish indeed. How about you let the reader decide for themselves if it's so ridiculous?

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2021 8:21pm

Extraordinary claim
No evidence
No explanation
Avoids questions
Plays the victim card <--- We are currently here
Accuses others of being shills

EyesClosed · 23-02-2021 8:26pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

It's incredible how quickly one or both of you respond to posts in the conspiracy forum, it's almost as if threads are constantly monitored so you can flood them with posts and prevent any meaningful conversation. You are either die-hard NASA fanboys or you have some ulterior motive against conspiracies being discussed online. Which is it? I find both equally tiresome

Of course, when I present solid evidence that the moon landing is faked you attack the integrity of the character who created it. Very mature, King Mob, just your style.

Have you even watched the documentary? How can you explain the clear staging of the moon landing footage?

Also another thing I've noticed is your overuse of the word "silly". A very common technique for influencing the reader to distract them from the facts. You plant this idea in people's heads that if they could be so "silly" to believe such a thing that they are very childish indeed. How about you let the reader decide for themselves if it's so ridiculous?

What evidence did you provide?

namloc1980 · 23-02-2021 8:49pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

It's incredible how quickly one or both of you respond to posts in the conspiracy forum, it's almost as if threads are constantly monitored so you can flood them with posts and prevent any meaningful conversation. You are either die-hard NASA fanboys or you have some ulterior motive against conspiracies being discussed online. Which is it? I find both equally tiresome

Of course, when I present solid evidence that the moon landing is faked you attack the integrity of the character who created it. Very mature, King Mob, just your style.

Have you even watched the documentary? How can you explain the clear staging of the moon landing footage?

Also another thing I've noticed is your overuse of the word "silly". A very common technique for influencing the reader to distract them from the facts. You plant this idea in people's heads that if they could be so "silly" to believe such a thing that they are very childish indeed. How about you let the reader decide for themselves if it's so ridiculous?

Bart Sibrel is a joker to be honest. To the gullible it all seems convincing but scratch beneath the surface and his claims are just ludicrous. He's claimed that the moon photos are clearly staged because the shadows show multiple light sources and the shadows don't fall in the same direction. This is the most easily debunked of the numerous ridiculous claims he makes. Anyone with a pair of eyes knows how sun shadows work. But not Bart and his followers it seems.

bfa1509 · 23-02-2021 9:18pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Extraordinary claim
No evidence
No explanation
Avoids questions
Plays the victim card <--- We are currently here
Accuses others of being shills

Identify and confirm highly emotional attachment to topic
Question OP's mental state
Flood thread with meaningless, repetitive posts
Ignore evidence provided
Ignore questions
Thread neutralised <-- No, we are currently here
Move to next popular conspiracy thread, Repeat

namloc1980 · 23-02-2021 9:22pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Identify and confirm highly emotional attachment to topic
Question OP's mental state
Flood thread with meaningless, repetitive posts
Ignore evidence provided
Ignore questions
Thread neutralised <-- No, we are currently here
Move to next popular conspiracy thread, Repeat

Except you haven't yet provided the evidence piece, just the usual tactic of referring to a YouTube video. You claimed you had plenty of evidence but none has been provided yet. I wonder why?

JJayoo · 23-02-2021 9:25pm

The whole 'man hasn't gone to the moon/space' conspiracy is pretty boring.

At least the ' haven't returned to the moon because they saw/found something' conspiracy has a bit of bite to it.

Personally I believe it's made off cheese and has giant alien mice rampaging around.

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2021 9:36pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Identify and confirm highly emotional attachment to topic
Question OP's mental state
Flood thread with meaningless, repetitive posts
Ignore evidence provided
Ignore questions
Thread neutralised <-- No, we are currently here
Move to next popular conspiracy thread, Repeat

I'm simply asked you to back up your claim that the Mars landing was "faked", something you haven't done yet. I don't think you are able to provide any details because you don't have any.

Claim: Perseverance landing on Mars is "fake"
Details: zero
Timeline: none
Evidence: zero

Not looking good so far

King Mob · 24-02-2021 12:16am

bfa1509 wrote: »

It's incredible how quickly one or both of you respond to posts in the conspiracy forum, it's almost as if threads are constantly monitored so you can flood them with posts and prevent any meaningful conversation. You are either die-hard NASA fanboys or you have some ulterior motive against conspiracies being discussed online. Which is it? I find both equally tiresome

I am a die hard space fan. I'm also interested in conspiracy theories.

It's very funny that we keep being accused of "ulterior motives" yet you guys never elaborate on what those are.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Of course, when I present solid evidence that the moon landing is faked you attack the integrity of the character who created it. Very mature, King Mob, just your style.

But you haven't presented any evidence for anything.
And yes Bart Sibeal is a conspiracy crank, not an investigive journalist.

Also he's the guy who cornered Buzz Aldrin, called him a lair and a coward and got a well deserved pop in the face for it.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Have you even watched the documentary? How can you explain the clear staging of the moon landing footage?

Yes I've seen the documentary.
There isn't any "clear staging" of the moon landing.

Your boy makes the claim that the Van Allen belts would have made the missions impossible.
In the documentary he never provides any numbers for this claim.
So could you please tell us how much radiation someone might receive if they went through the belts? How much is a lethal dose? Please also provide a source for these numbers.

If you can't provide this, please don't dodge and avoid, just admit you can't.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Also another thing I've noticed is your overuse of the word "silly". A very common technique for influencing the reader to distract them from the facts. You plant this idea in people's heads that if they could be so "silly" to believe such a thing then they are very childish indeed. How about you let the reader decide for themselves if it's so ridiculous?

But suggesting that all space missions are faked is silly.
You haven't presented any facts to be distracted from.

I'm allowed to express my opinion unfortunately.
If you want to influence people away from the idea that it's silly you're going to have to stop whinging about how mean we are and actually present evidence.

King Mob · 24-02-2021 12:21am

bfa1509 wrote: »

Identify and confirm highly emotional attachment to topic
Question OP's mental state
Flood thread with meaningless, repetitive posts
Ignore evidence provided
Ignore questions
Thread neutralised <-- No, we are currently here
Move to next popular conspiracy thread, Repeat

But no one has questioned your mental state.
You haven't provided any evidence at all.
None of your questions have been ignored.

The only one who has done any of those things is yourself.
You've questioned other posters motives.
You've ignored tons of questions and evidence.

And what do you mean by "thread neutralised" exactly?

24-02-2021 7:27am

bfa1509 wrote: »

It's incredible how quickly one or both of you respond to posts in the conspiracy forum, it's almost as if threads are constantly monitored so you can flood them with posts and prevent any meaningful conversation. You are either die-hard NASA fanboys or you have some ulterior motive against conspiracies being discussed online. Which is it? I find both equally tiresome

Of course, when I present solid evidence that the moon landing is faked you attack the integrity of the character who created it. Very mature, King Mob, just your style.

Have you even watched the documentary? How can you explain the clear staging of the moon landing footage?

Also another thing I've noticed is your overuse of the word "silly". A very common technique for influencing the reader to distract them from the facts. You plant this idea in people's heads that if they could be so "silly" to believe such a thing then they are very childish indeed. How about you let the reader decide for themselves if it's so ridiculous?

It is absolutely sad, indeed. Worse, it's not just a silly passing interest of theirs; they've both been at it for many years :pac: (I actually couldn't believe that at first, but it's true). One must have little going on in their life for this to occupy so much of their time.

I'd be curious as to what causes/drives such behavior on a psychological level. I sensed passive agressiveness, and projection of insecurity/inferiority from the very beginning. KingMob, in particular, gets very insecure when I've made any jokes about him, which is telling.

Imagine their conversations with anyone they might happen to spend time with in person:

"Hey, why are you constantly on that forum"?
"I'm interested in conspiracies.."
"Oh really, what conspiracies do you subscribe to"?
"None of them. They're all silly nonsense"
"Eh, okayyyy..."

It's all stranger than the strangest of conspiracies

I'd honestly feel sorry for them if it weren't such a nuisance and dragging the threads down. Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do but ignore, like many of us already have. These guys are in for the long haul.

robinph · 24-02-2021 10:24am

Have the USSR ever disputed that the moon landings happened? Have the USA ever disputed that USSR got to Mars and the moon first? Have the USA or Russia disputed that China landed on the moon?

What is the purpose of faking a rover landing on Mars?

King Mob · 24-02-2021 10:36am

robinph wrote: »

Have the USSR ever disputed that the moon landings happened? Have the USA ever disputed that USSR got to Mars and the moon first? Have the USA or Russia disputed that China landed on the moon?

Pretty much never. There was one Russian official a while back who made some sly remarks around "confirming if the Americans went" or some such.
Other than that neither Russia or America or any other country or agency has suggested that any space missiin has been faked.

In fact they did a lot of cross confirmation. For example the soil samples retrieved by the Russia Luna program were checked against the Apollo samples since they were made available to scientists from all countries.

Generally when confronted with this issue, conspiracy theorists ignore it and pretend they didn't see it.
Otherwise the claim is that the Americans and Russians were in it together for some reason.
Or if it's one of the flat earth folks, it's cause the entire world is under the control of a sinister satanic cabal who are dedicated to making people think the world is round.

robinph wrote: »

What is the purpose of faking a rover landing on Mars?

Apparently, spending billions on making fake rovers, probes, rockets, launch pads and other infrastructure, then hiring and training thousands of actors and fake experts and also bribing all the earth's scientists and paying for the department to keep all of this running in secret is part of an elaborate scam to get money out of the government.

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2021 10:37am

robinph wrote: »

Have the USSR ever disputed that the moon landings happened? Have the USA ever disputed that USSR got to Mars and the moon first? Have the USA or Russia disputed that China landed on the moon?

What is the purpose of faking a rover landing on Mars?

Was it just this one that was faked? faked how? were other Mars landings faked, if so which ones and how can we tell? what about the orbiters are they also faked? how have all the world's scientists, experts, international space agencies, foreign intelligence agencies all been fooled?

So many questions that will be evaded or unanswered for obvious reasons.

24-02-2021 10:38am

robinph wrote: »

Have the USSR ever disputed that the moon landings happened? Have the USA ever disputed that USSR got to Mars and the moon first? Have the USA or Russia disputed that China landed on the moon?

What is the purpose of faking a rover landing on Mars?

Just my own thoughts on this, is it the case no one will out the other as it keeps all programmes running and solvent, (lots of money involved in this, government and military funding).

I can't prove or disprove moon or mars landings, we take it for granted that the people working in these programmes have the best of intentions and only want to further the understanding of what is life for all humanity.

I'm a sceptic anyway find it very hard to trust anything.

robinph · 24-02-2021 10:48am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just my own thoughts on this, is it the case no one will out the other as it keeps all programmes running and solvent, (lots of money involved in this, government and military funding).

I can't prove or disprove moon or mars landings, we take it for granted that the people working in these programmes have the best of intentions and only want to further the understanding of what is life for all humanity.

I'm a sceptic anyway find it very hard to trust anything.

Except the primary reason for the USSR and USA missions back in the day was for propaganda purposes and to show who had the biggest willy/ rockets. If either superpower could have saved some money on their own projects by being able to prove that the other was faking it they would have jumped at the chance.

Any opportunity to say the other guy was lying would have been infinitely preferable to blowing dogs, monkeys and people up in stupidly expensive and unreliable missiles.

King Mob · 24-02-2021 10:59am

robinph wrote: »

Except the primary reason for the USSR and USA missions back in the day was for propaganda purposes and to show who had the biggest willy/ rockets.

It should be pointed out that this actually a big driver in the space race. A lot of the technology was derived from and funneled back into ICBM research among other military applications.
So if one or both were faking it, there'd be no point to the space race in the first place.

Similarly, there'd be no point in stopping it. Why wouldn't Russia just say they also landed someone on the moon? And then make the race for a moon base or to go to Mars.

It's not possible that the governments wouldn't know. If untrained amateurs with no idea of science or engineering could figure it out, so could the Russians.

24-02-2021 11:04am

robinph wrote: »

Except the primary reason for the USSR and USA missions back in the day was for propaganda purposes and to show who had the biggest willy/ rockets. If either superpower could have saved some money on their own projects by being able to prove that the other was faking it they would have jumped at the chance.

Any opportunity to say the other guy was lying would have been infinitely preferable to blowing dogs, monkeys and people up in stupidly expensive and unreliable missiles.

But thats what i'm trying to say "that they wont rat each other out as it kept the money rolling into these programmes" as per what you say the cold war, it was profitable for both sides to not say anything eg. (the military)
Feed the monster so to speak.

biobot · 24-02-2021 11:08am

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

How do they have the technology to go to Mars but they don't have the technology to go to the moon anymore because they destroyed it

What was the name of that filim...?

King Mob · 24-02-2021 11:09am

Deleted User wrote: »

But thats what i'm trying to say "that they wont rat each other out as it kept the money rolling into these programmes" as per what you say the cold war, it was profitable for both sides to not say anything eg. (the military)
Feed the monster so to speak.

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?

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2021 11:09am

Deleted User wrote: »

Just my own thoughts on this, is it the case no one will out the other as it keeps all programmes running and solvent, (lots of money involved in this, government and military funding).

The entire Cold war was based on paranoia and suspicion. Both sides watched each other like hawks, there were vast spy networks, all space launches and missions were tracked by the other side, hundreds of thousands of employees were involved on either side. There's never been any leaks or evidence indicating missions were "faked".

The notion that e.g. the moon landings were faked is simply a fantasy constructed by individuals not based on any credible evidence, like the flat-earth theory.

I can't prove or disprove moon or mars landings, we take it for granted that the people working in these programmes have the best of intentions and only want to further the understanding of what is life for all humanity.

There's no credible evidence of any alternative happening. So why would you be "on the fence" about it?

richardkeiths · 24-02-2021 11:16am

The same nut jobs who claim the moon landings were faked more than likely are sceptics about vaccines and the origins of Covid 19.

Conspiracy theorists come from a lack of control. These individuals are usually uneducated so thinking they know something that the mainstream public dont helps them compensate for their inferiority.

robinph · 24-02-2021 11:19am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But thats what i'm trying to say "that they wont rat each other out as it kept the money rolling into these programmes" as per what you say the cold war, it was profitable for both sides to not say anything eg. (the military)
Feed the monster so to speak.

It wasn't profitable to blow up massive rockets and waste tonnes of resources during the Cold War. Whilst it might be true that the military had some power in government in the USSR, for the USA the government would have cancelled the waste of money at any chance if they thought they could win the war by just proving that the USSR was faking it. Whilst the military had power in USSR, they didn't have money.

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2021 11:23am

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.

24-02-2021 11:26am

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.;)

24-02-2021 11:29am

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 · 24-02-2021 11:32am

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 · 24-02-2021 11:34am

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 · 24-02-2021 11:40am

[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

King Mob · 24-02-2021 11:42am

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 · 24-02-2021 12:15pm

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 · 24-02-2021 12:19pm

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.

King Mob · 24-02-2021 12:31pm

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 · 24-02-2021 12:40pm

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 · 24-02-2021 12:41pm

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.

King Mob · 24-02-2021 12:43pm

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 · 24-02-2021 12:54pm

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.

24-02-2021 1:32pm

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 · 24-02-2021 1:57pm

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.

King Mob · 24-02-2021 2:43pm

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 · 24-02-2021 2:50pm

And this classic is always worth reposting.

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

namloc1980 · 24-02-2021 3:29pm

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 · 24-02-2021 3:30pm

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.

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

Comments