Well they can tell what materials other planets/moons are made from using spectroscopy without needing to go there, plus probes have been to the moon (both before and after the moon landing) and have sent back analyses of the moon's surface. So they could've compared the moon rocks with those. They couldn't be meteorites anyway, there'd be evidence of them travelling through the atmosphere and impacting on the ground.
Well they did have a computer on board Apollo 11, I just meant that they didn't have a powerful modern computer. It was state-of-the-art for its day but obviously would be simple by today's standards.
I get being sceptical, the right amount of scepticism is healthy. There's certainly a huge problem in the world with too many people being too open-minded and will believe anything without evidence. But too much scepticism is just as harmful.
NASA probably do create some 'fake' composite images for artistic reasons, but they never claim them to be real. I do know they composited a load of photos of the Earth together, ones without much clouds in them, in order to create a single cloudless photo of the Earth, just because it looks great. It's the conspiracy theorists then that misunderstand that and twist it to make it sound like NASA is trying to fool us.
The probes and accuracy of spectroscopy data aren't proven either, they are also coming from NASA. I believe it was a hoax from the beginning, Operation Paperclip Nazis must have been quickly found out to not actually have working plans for a space ship. How sad, and after a while we figured out we couldn't do it either. So they decided to continue with the show anyway because it made good TV and created an awesome funnel of money that could go... wherever? Who knows? As long as the videos and pictures keep coming.
We were supposed to have space tourism by 2009. Now in 2020 we have zero space tourism. It all follows the same pattern, somebody promises some ambitious project like going to the moon, happens a couple times, then the program gets defunded and somehow loses all the technology. This has been a continuing pattern which is why these ridiculous impossible domed settlements on the moon and mars are never going to happen. Who would even want to live in a place like that? How do you regulate population growth?
I've spent a lot of hours going over all of this stuff, I've been looking for something to change my mind for a long time. I can't find one piece of evidence that stands up to critical analysis. Obviously the astronauts aren't going to say anything, they probably get paid very well. Well I mean Gus Grissom basically said apollo was never going to work but he died under really suspicious circumstances pretty shortly afterwards.
NASA aren't the only people who can analyse the moon to see what it's made of, scientists from all around the world have done that and have examined the lunar rocks too.
Well technically those predictions for space tourism did come true. There have been a few space tourists sent up, the first being in 2001. But yeah, I wouldn't consider a handful of billionaires to be a correct prediction either. It's not only in space travel that past predictions have come up short though, it's been in all areas of technology. If that makes you doubt any more predictions scientists make (like future Mars settlement programs) then fair enough, but it doesn't have anything to do with what they've actually accomplished.
It's obvious NASA would get defunded looking back on it, the public was bored of it all by Apollo 17, and there were protests that NASA was spending all this money going to the moon when there were citizens who couldn't afford food. They didn't lose the technology after it though, they could do it again today if they wanted. It's just that once you stop working on it, it takes that much more money to get it all set up again. So it'd just cost too much money to do it again, especially since there's not much point in doing it again. People are more interested in Mars now, which is much more difficult.
Lots of people didn't believe the moon landings were gonna work. And the NASA missions were dangerous, it's no surprise that someone died during them. That's a very weak unimpressive coincidence about Gus Grissom.
NASA astronauts have openly said they lost all the telemmetry data and technology to build apollo rockets. Don petit famously said "we destroyed that technology" Plus, you keep ignoring the fact that basic analysis of the moon landing footage is obviously fake. The raw cuts are gone, all the moon video you can see was recorded off a projection screen by TV cameras to further degrade the video quality. And come on, at a time when everyone's got rabbit ears on their TV they can talk on the phone in real time to people on the moon? Meanwhile now in 2020 you can't get cell reception in the mountains? Seems like a religion-level leap of faith to believe any of this stuff was real. Looking it up online the budget for the new star wars movie that came out was $200 millon. That's 4 days of NASA's budget with money left over. You really don't think they could fake space footage?
Gus grissom talked openly about what a joke the apollo project was. The test exercise that he and 2 other astroNOTs died in was to lock three people into a capsule full of 100% oxygen. Why would they do this if not to create a really fast burning fire? It's less of a coincedence when you realize he was openly saying they were never going to be able to go to space.
Oh I didn't know that about them losing the data. Still they'd be able to build new lunar rockets if they had the same budget that they did back then.
The footage isn't obviously fake. Yeah I've heard they lost the original footage and what we have now has been converted into another format, and that is a tragedy, but there's no way it's to hide the fact that it's fake. If it was fake then reducing the quality a little wouldn't have been enough to hide that fact. Every detail of every frame of that footage has been scrutinised obsessively by thousands of people, desperate to find something wrong with it, and every possible flaw they have found has been debunked. Do you know how many mistakes are discovered in movies by fans, no matter how careful the director tries to be? This footage has been studied by professional forensic video analysts.
Communicating via radio was no big deal back then. Space is empty, so the signal quality wouldn't degrade over that vast distance. The phone was just connected to the radio then for the president to talk to them. It's different when your reputation in front of the entire world is at stake, you're gonna make sure to get it right. They don't care if someone in the mountains is disgruntled because they can't get wireless cell phone reception.
They used pure oxygen because it's much more efficient to bring pure oxygen with them rather than just normal air. Air is only 21% oxygen, so the other 79% would be a waste. And they had to cut down on waste as much as possible. If they wanted to get rid of him, then why not simply fire him? They could've just told him his attitude towards the mission is disrespectful and bad for NASA's image, and let him go. Or even poisoned him to make him sick so that he'd be unable to continue. Those astronauts' deaths severely hurt NASA's image, why would they do that to themselves?
Same reason they faked the challenger explosion, they have to fail once in a while.
Look, I can't prove that anything is fake, especially if you don't want to believe it anyway but you can't prove a negative. Atheists can't prove god doesn't exist, but they can choose not to believe in god because of the lack of evidence proving he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anything god is credited with can also be credited to chance or forces of nature, or stories that people made up. The church is the one claiming god exists, so they're the ones that atheists expect proof from
The same thing goes for space travel. I don't have absolute proof, like some mainstream media outlet coming out with proof of it being faked (which would never happen) to show you. On the other hand, they're the ones making ridiculous claims about performing maneuvers at insane speeds that nobody was really around to see, and things that can't be reproduced by models like rockets launching and landing themselves on boats. They I'm a skeptical person, I say prove it. I don't see any proof, just pictures and videos which absolutely could have been created outside of space. Why can't they launch and land falcon rockets on a small model scale? It's a huge jump between a guided missile and a rocket that can land itself.
Seeing a video doesn't prove they went to space to make the video, just like they don't go to space to make star wars. Add that to the bubbles floating by in space walk footage and green screen glitches of astronauts inside the space station, and the whole thing looks pretty fake to me. I don't think it holds much water.
Just because both religion and NASA are claiming something to have happened, rather than not to have happened, doesn't mean the burden of proof is on them. The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. Conspiracy theorists (like religious people) have made an extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on them. Also (like religious people) all of their former proofs have been debunked. And there's an overwhelming amount of undeniable evidence in favour of the moon landing (just like there is for certain things that contradict the religious texts).
Also in space it doesn't matter how fast you're travelling when you perform a maneuvre. Because there's no air resistance, and because there's nothing near for you to judge by how fast you're moving, it'll seem like you're not moving at all. So it wouldn't be much different than if you weren't moving at all and were just floating in space.
I'm not familiar with rockets, but I do know that physics changes when you scale things up or down. So I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's impossible to perform certain things on a model rocket that you could with a full-size rocket, and vice versa.
As for things like 'bubbles' and 'green screen glitches', that's just embarrassing to use those as evidence. They're obviously just standard video glitches that paranoid conspiracy theorists jump on and use to spread their nonsense.
To me it's the fact it looks unimpressive tells me it's real. If it was fake they'd be trying to make it look cinematic and visually impressive, like a movie. It's fiction that displays things as way more impressive than they actually are, like fight scenes and car chases, etc. (they look depressingly disappointing in real life). But because it's so basic, just landing and walking around on the moon, you know it's real.
This was in the 60s. They didnt have the cinematic thing down yet. If you go watch the scifi movies from back then they look just as cheesy. Go look at some of the episodes of the twilight zone and you'll see the same stuff.
You can tell they're on cables. The scene where the astronaut falls down on the moon and then jumps up. Its soooo bad dude. Not even just alittle bad its 100% unbelievable to me. No way that footage is real.
Most adults don't watch it very often. It's funny, I actually got to talking to somebody like 2am in the train station who worked at a hospital nearby about this. He said he actually believes the space station is fake, just because anything hes seen of it looks really fake, but he absolutely believes the moon landings were real because he remembers watching them with his parents on TV as a kid and he just cant believe that it was a lie cause it was so amazing at 8 years old. Most people outside school science classes don't really watch any space stuff anyway, most grown adults that do consider themselves very smart and would never even entertain the idea that they were being fooled.
The moon landing videos are comical. If you took scenes from 1960's B movies and moon landing clips and mixed them all together nobody would be able to tell the difference.
Yeah my dad is the same way he says he lived through it and he knows in his heart it happened. But after a debate about it i begged him to watch some of the footage. 30 seconds in he laughed and told me it did indeed look very fake. He's not the conspiracy type at all. I didnt get an admission from him but him saying it looked fake was damning coming from him. He's like pro Vietnam and pro Iraq war guy.
People don't want to admit it. It's actually painful to people who were kids at that time, like a little bit of santa claus that they were holding onto just dies.
Everyone can believe what they like. Just gotta ask, since we can all agree apollo is fake, what would you consider to be the first real NASA space mission? Like if you believe any of it was ever real, what's the first one that's credible enough to be considered real?
Conspiracy Theorists
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well they can tell what materials other planets/moons are made from using spectroscopy without needing to go there, plus probes have been to the moon (both before and after the moon landing) and have sent back analyses of the moon's surface. So they could've compared the moon rocks with those. They couldn't be meteorites anyway, there'd be evidence of them travelling through the atmosphere and impacting on the ground.
Well they did have a computer on board Apollo 11, I just meant that they didn't have a powerful modern computer. It was state-of-the-art for its day but obviously would be simple by today's standards.
I get being sceptical, the right amount of scepticism is healthy. There's certainly a huge problem in the world with too many people being too open-minded and will believe anything without evidence. But too much scepticism is just as harmful.
NASA probably do create some 'fake' composite images for artistic reasons, but they never claim them to be real. I do know they composited a load of photos of the Earth together, ones without much clouds in them, in order to create a single cloudless photo of the Earth, just because it looks great. It's the conspiracy theorists then that misunderstand that and twist it to make it sound like NASA is trying to fool us.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The probes and accuracy of spectroscopy data aren't proven either, they are also coming from NASA. I believe it was a hoax from the beginning, Operation Paperclip Nazis must have been quickly found out to not actually have working plans for a space ship. How sad, and after a while we figured out we couldn't do it either. So they decided to continue with the show anyway because it made good TV and created an awesome funnel of money that could go... wherever? Who knows? As long as the videos and pictures keep coming.
We were supposed to have space tourism by 2009. Now in 2020 we have zero space tourism. It all follows the same pattern, somebody promises some ambitious project like going to the moon, happens a couple times, then the program gets defunded and somehow loses all the technology. This has been a continuing pattern which is why these ridiculous impossible domed settlements on the moon and mars are never going to happen. Who would even want to live in a place like that? How do you regulate population growth?
I've spent a lot of hours going over all of this stuff, I've been looking for something to change my mind for a long time. I can't find one piece of evidence that stands up to critical analysis. Obviously the astronauts aren't going to say anything, they probably get paid very well. Well I mean Gus Grissom basically said apollo was never going to work but he died under really suspicious circumstances pretty shortly afterwards.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
NASA aren't the only people who can analyse the moon to see what it's made of, scientists from all around the world have done that and have examined the lunar rocks too.
Well technically those predictions for space tourism did come true. There have been a few space tourists sent up, the first being in 2001. But yeah, I wouldn't consider a handful of billionaires to be a correct prediction either. It's not only in space travel that past predictions have come up short though, it's been in all areas of technology. If that makes you doubt any more predictions scientists make (like future Mars settlement programs) then fair enough, but it doesn't have anything to do with what they've actually accomplished.
It's obvious NASA would get defunded looking back on it, the public was bored of it all by Apollo 17, and there were protests that NASA was spending all this money going to the moon when there were citizens who couldn't afford food. They didn't lose the technology after it though, they could do it again today if they wanted. It's just that once you stop working on it, it takes that much more money to get it all set up again. So it'd just cost too much money to do it again, especially since there's not much point in doing it again. People are more interested in Mars now, which is much more difficult.
Lots of people didn't believe the moon landings were gonna work. And the NASA missions were dangerous, it's no surprise that someone died during them. That's a very weak unimpressive coincidence about Gus Grissom.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
NASA astronauts have openly said they lost all the telemmetry data and technology to build apollo rockets. Don petit famously said "we destroyed that technology" Plus, you keep ignoring the fact that basic analysis of the moon landing footage is obviously fake. The raw cuts are gone, all the moon video you can see was recorded off a projection screen by TV cameras to further degrade the video quality. And come on, at a time when everyone's got rabbit ears on their TV they can talk on the phone in real time to people on the moon? Meanwhile now in 2020 you can't get cell reception in the mountains? Seems like a religion-level leap of faith to believe any of this stuff was real. Looking it up online the budget for the new star wars movie that came out was $200 millon. That's 4 days of NASA's budget with money left over. You really don't think they could fake space footage?
Gus grissom talked openly about what a joke the apollo project was. The test exercise that he and 2 other astroNOTs died in was to lock three people into a capsule full of 100% oxygen. Why would they do this if not to create a really fast burning fire? It's less of a coincedence when you realize he was openly saying they were never going to be able to go to space.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh I didn't know that about them losing the data. Still they'd be able to build new lunar rockets if they had the same budget that they did back then.
The footage isn't obviously fake. Yeah I've heard they lost the original footage and what we have now has been converted into another format, and that is a tragedy, but there's no way it's to hide the fact that it's fake. If it was fake then reducing the quality a little wouldn't have been enough to hide that fact. Every detail of every frame of that footage has been scrutinised obsessively by thousands of people, desperate to find something wrong with it, and every possible flaw they have found has been debunked. Do you know how many mistakes are discovered in movies by fans, no matter how careful the director tries to be? This footage has been studied by professional forensic video analysts.
Communicating via radio was no big deal back then. Space is empty, so the signal quality wouldn't degrade over that vast distance. The phone was just connected to the radio then for the president to talk to them. It's different when your reputation in front of the entire world is at stake, you're gonna make sure to get it right. They don't care if someone in the mountains is disgruntled because they can't get wireless cell phone reception.
They used pure oxygen because it's much more efficient to bring pure oxygen with them rather than just normal air. Air is only 21% oxygen, so the other 79% would be a waste. And they had to cut down on waste as much as possible. If they wanted to get rid of him, then why not simply fire him? They could've just told him his attitude towards the mission is disrespectful and bad for NASA's image, and let him go. Or even poisoned him to make him sick so that he'd be unable to continue. Those astronauts' deaths severely hurt NASA's image, why would they do that to themselves?
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Same reason they faked the challenger explosion, they have to fail once in a while.
Look, I can't prove that anything is fake, especially if you don't want to believe it anyway but you can't prove a negative. Atheists can't prove god doesn't exist, but they can choose not to believe in god because of the lack of evidence proving he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anything god is credited with can also be credited to chance or forces of nature, or stories that people made up. The church is the one claiming god exists, so they're the ones that atheists expect proof from
The same thing goes for space travel. I don't have absolute proof, like some mainstream media outlet coming out with proof of it being faked (which would never happen) to show you. On the other hand, they're the ones making ridiculous claims about performing maneuvers at insane speeds that nobody was really around to see, and things that can't be reproduced by models like rockets launching and landing themselves on boats. They I'm a skeptical person, I say prove it. I don't see any proof, just pictures and videos which absolutely could have been created outside of space. Why can't they launch and land falcon rockets on a small model scale? It's a huge jump between a guided missile and a rocket that can land itself.
Seeing a video doesn't prove they went to space to make the video, just like they don't go to space to make star wars. Add that to the bubbles floating by in space walk footage and green screen glitches of astronauts inside the space station, and the whole thing looks pretty fake to me. I don't think it holds much water.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Just because both religion and NASA are claiming something to have happened, rather than not to have happened, doesn't mean the burden of proof is on them. The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. Conspiracy theorists (like religious people) have made an extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on them. Also (like religious people) all of their former proofs have been debunked. And there's an overwhelming amount of undeniable evidence in favour of the moon landing (just like there is for certain things that contradict the religious texts).
Also in space it doesn't matter how fast you're travelling when you perform a maneuvre. Because there's no air resistance, and because there's nothing near for you to judge by how fast you're moving, it'll seem like you're not moving at all. So it wouldn't be much different than if you weren't moving at all and were just floating in space.
I'm not familiar with rockets, but I do know that physics changes when you scale things up or down. So I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's impossible to perform certain things on a model rocket that you could with a full-size rocket, and vice versa.
As for things like 'bubbles' and 'green screen glitches', that's just embarrassing to use those as evidence. They're obviously just standard video glitches that paranoid conspiracy theorists jump on and use to spread their nonsense.
Your argument would persuade me but its not like the moon landing footage just looks a little fake. It looks so unbelievably fake its comical.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
To me it's the fact it looks unimpressive tells me it's real. If it was fake they'd be trying to make it look cinematic and visually impressive, like a movie. It's fiction that displays things as way more impressive than they actually are, like fight scenes and car chases, etc. (they look depressingly disappointing in real life). But because it's so basic, just landing and walking around on the moon, you know it's real.
--
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This was in the 60s. They didnt have the cinematic thing down yet. If you go watch the scifi movies from back then they look just as cheesy. Go look at some of the episodes of the twilight zone and you'll see the same stuff.
You can tell they're on cables. The scene where the astronaut falls down on the moon and then jumps up. Its soooo bad dude. Not even just alittle bad its 100% unbelievable to me. No way that footage is real.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
They had a budget far beyond what any film/tv studio had back then, they could've easily set a new level in cinematic quality with that money.
They actually cancelled the original "Lost in space" series because it was too expensive to go to space to film it
--
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I sort of believe people that argue that its real have not went back and watched the footage in a while.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Most adults don't watch it very often. It's funny, I actually got to talking to somebody like 2am in the train station who worked at a hospital nearby about this. He said he actually believes the space station is fake, just because anything hes seen of it looks really fake, but he absolutely believes the moon landings were real because he remembers watching them with his parents on TV as a kid and he just cant believe that it was a lie cause it was so amazing at 8 years old. Most people outside school science classes don't really watch any space stuff anyway, most grown adults that do consider themselves very smart and would never even entertain the idea that they were being fooled.
The moon landing videos are comical. If you took scenes from 1960's B movies and moon landing clips and mixed them all together nobody would be able to tell the difference.
--
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah my dad is the same way he says he lived through it and he knows in his heart it happened. But after a debate about it i begged him to watch some of the footage. 30 seconds in he laughed and told me it did indeed look very fake. He's not the conspiracy type at all. I didnt get an admission from him but him saying it looked fake was damning coming from him. He's like pro Vietnam and pro Iraq war guy.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
People don't want to admit it. It's actually painful to people who were kids at that time, like a little bit of santa claus that they were holding onto just dies.
Everyone can believe what they like. Just gotta ask, since we can all agree apollo is fake, what would you consider to be the first real NASA space mission? Like if you believe any of it was ever real, what's the first one that's credible enough to be considered real?