Of all the things in human history (and human present, really) to be cynical about, why the Moon landings? Do people really want them to have been faked?
I just don't understand that mindset.
So the moon landing was faked!
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Of all the things in human history (and human present, really) to be cynical about, why the Moon landings? Do people really want them to have been faked?
I just don't understand that mindset.
Film and TV technology to fake it existed, the man on the video is wrong, quality of the landing footage was so bad you could make it on the fly with static camera filming screen in projection room instead of telecine. Did they fake it? Highly unlikely.
I'm often surprised people question moon landing, which would require a lot of effort and staff to fake but rarely anyone doubts Gagarin's flight, which as a story not only has less material proof (in terms of media coverage), more conspiracy adaptable "issues" and "plot holes", but historically, in part is also 100% proven to be far from truth (as in Russians at the time said the flight ended in manned landing as it wouldn't count otherwise, then decades later officially admitted they lied, the capsule was in fact empty when it slammed and plowed the ground plummeting from the sky).
Why is it always only the events that would require superb precision, surgical finese and mastery, all of which American government desperately lacks, generate so many conspiracy theories, but the obvious eye brow lifting, highly unlikely news "true stories" outside of US never attract as much attention?
I'm often surprised people question moon landing, which would require a lot of effort and staff to fake but rarely anyone doubts Gagarin's flight, which as a story not only has less material proof (in terms of media coverage), more conspiracy adaptable "issues" and "plot holes", but historically, in part is also 100% proven to be far from truth (as in Russians at the time said the flight ended in manned landing as it wouldn't count otherwise, then decades later officially admitted they lied, the capsule was in fact empty when it slammed and plowed the ground plummeting from the sky).
Why is it always only the events that would require superb precision, surgical finese and mastery, all of which American government desperately lacks, generate so many conspiracy theories, but the obvious eye brow lifting, highly unlikely news "true stories" outside of US never attract as much attention?
I'm not sure who's worst, the die hard conspiracy theorists or the die hard believers....
One thing that always bugged me, why did NASA not allow any tv station to broadcast live. Instead they made everyone watch tv from cameras filming a crappy tv. Something's a bit fishy. .....it's a amazing way to hide every detail till it can be edited to perfection
Fluke runs after throwing grenade in thread
Could you even do that back then though?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
No, I desperately want them to be real.
I'm sure in 1969 there was satellites relaying analog tv signals
I'm apologise if there was not.....
The first TV signal was relayed from Europe to US via Telstar satellite in 1962.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Lance was the fake not Neil.
There were satellites capable of relaying analogue TV signals in 1962 as mentioned a few posts up.
So, what's stopping you from believing the wealth of evidence that says 'yep, NASA went to the Moon a bunch of times'? What have you seen/read/heard that introduces doubts?
Because I've seen, and read, and heard a hell of a lot of stuff regarding the Apollo program. And the conspiracy theories have always held about as much water as a smashed teacup. And it's the same nonsense, over and over again.
Lance Armstrong has just finally admitted to taking performance-enhancing drugs. You're seriously going to suggest than in all these years not one of those men who you reckon faked a spaceflight out to the lunar surface would come out and say 'sorry guys, but we didn't really do it'?
Erm... You were there on moon ?, that is in fact the only way you could be 100% accurate in your assumption. Maybe you are likely to be correct, but would you stake your life on this assumption ?
I wouldn't for sure
Just because you don't have the intellect to think of an alternative reason, that does not mean you can just assert "cover up". This is a failure of critical thinking and reason. This is what what creationists do in religious debates. They can't explain "X" ergo God did it.
Sorry everyone for bringing religion into the thread ! lol
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
I'll cover that point in my analysis.
The counter argument to that is look how well it was covered up for so many years
Out of interest, where have you heard/read that this was the case?
I can't even find mention of this gem on conspiracy sites
Conspiracy theorists are the die hard believers in this instance - they've adopted a position that requires the disregard of evidence counter to it and a leap of faith/assumption based on very little 'evidence' most of which has already been debunked - its hardly a new idea... rather its one that's been put forward and debunked countless of times. Its a bit pathetic really as people pushing it are taking away from what was at the time a huge achievement for mankind. To continue to promote the idea that it was faked only illustrates a lack of intelligence or just general ignorance on the part of the person making that claim.
A lack of belief in the various ludicrous and far fetched conspiracy theories dreamed up re: the moon landing doesn't require much more than knowledge and rational thought.
Can you think of any plausible reason that this would aid a cover up?!
It could be as simple as the TV broadcast signal du jour was incompatible with the video cameras used to make the footage, and that this was the simplest solution.
Erm... You were there on moon ?, that is in fact the only way you could be 100% accurate in your assumption. Maybe you are likely to be correct, but would you stake your life on this assumption ?
I wouldn't for sure
By that reasoning you wouldn't believe anything to be true that you haven't witnessed yourself. I've never been to Australia but I reckon it exists. Could just be an elaborate hoax though...
There's plenty of evidence the moon landings happened. The mirrors left up there, the people who tracked it on ham radio, the lack of denial by the Soviets, the rock samples brought back, the behaviour of the dust stirred up by the astronauts boots, the enormous rocket that blasted off, the missions that followed including the failed Apollo 13, the fact that no one from inside has blown the whistle on it etc. I'm not quite sure what else you need to believe it as fact.