I watched the Apollo missions as a kid on tv. I had no reason to doubt.
But as an adult I've come to learn about human psychology and how it relates to economics, politics and science. Every discipline is subject to the
limits of the individual. A belief in a god of a specific faith puts certain boundaries on the individual. It gives the ego component comfort and
can lead to a happy life but it still may not be able to face the ultimate question of the open-minded: "What are my own flat-earth beliefs that even
if shown evidence to the contrary, I would still believe (have faith in)?" -- a difficult question for a culture that has no concept of life being a
mirror of what we bring to it.
What does this have to do with Apollo? Well, for me it starts with Stanley Kubrick. Something happened during 2001 filming, the Apollo "missions",
and the making of "The Shining". Kubrick's involvement opens enough doors of doubt to at least explore the possibility of a staged landing.
"Kubrick's Odyssey" is a fascinating dissection of the similarities between Kubrick's techniques and those used by NASA.
The logical answer for me is found using Occam's Razor - select from the possible scenarios the one with the fewest assumptions, or the simplest in
Did NASA design and build rockets for the Apollo missions? Obviously.
Did NASA train astronauts for these missions? Obviously.
Did NASA have teams of specialists, scientists and engineers working on the program? Obviously
Did NASA contract out hundreds of thousands of components to the tech industry, basically launching Aerospace Engineering to new heights?
Did NASA launch rockets into space? Obviously.
Did NASA recover vehicles upon splashdown/re-entry? Obviously.
But what happened in between?
What makes sense to me is this. The desire to trump the fear of cold-war threats caused the US to make some bold claims as to their capabilities.
Look at countries that tend to "save face" (Japan, China, most eastern countries) and how they control/spin propaganda to make them look good. The US
is caught in a physics problem, half of which they can complete and half of which is highly suspect.
So what do you do?
Kill a bunch of birds with one stone.
How do you save face and at the same time complete the impossible mission? You continue as planned. You develop all of the technology you think
you'll need. You will test it and refine it to get the mission to a point of having the hardware to do it. You create an entire industry that
funnels through NASA's tech needs and spills into military and commercial applications. You create jobs through this backwards economics but the jobs
are real, the tech is real, the emotion and investment in national pride is real.
Win win win win win.
So back to Occam. Is it easier to build the technology you think you'd need and roll the dice as the world watches you shoot the moon? Or is it
easier to reap all of the benefits of the missions without having to do the near impossible?
You only need a small group to pull it off. Actors & directors. Astronauts & production crew. You have state-of-the-art film gear and a highly
secretive and focused group put together all of the "scenes" you would need.
Which is easier? Do it or film/fake a chunk of it?
The 99% not in the know who are working on the project are working on real technologies. The stuff isn't fake. But when you control the data that is
sent to the computers, the film images that are relayed, and the audio, you control the information funnel and it's not hard to see how this could be
done. It's all tv screens, line graphs, lights and indicators. Complex? Absolutely. Easier than actually going? Obviously.
It took 30 years to be able to see the advances in film tech & CGI to see cutting edge tech of the sixties look like Plan 9 from Outer Space complete
There was a lot at stake and failure was not an option. NASA might be the vehicle that launched the US into sole territory as super power of the
world through it's tech development. And they didn't even have to go to the moon to do it.
It's brilliant if true. I'm afraid Occam might agree.
When there's no reason NOT to believe something, it can be as powerful as believing in something. Two sides of the same coin. It's the bi-polar
nature of ego-driven political systems to do whatever it takes to be the best, remain in power, save face, save the world, save the economy. What if
you can accomplish all of these? Would it be worth it for the greater good in terms of jobs, tech and quality of life, not to mention thrusting a
country to the top of the power pile?
Now look at these clowns running for office. How much do you trust any of them? Pathological liars, the lot of them. Over and over. Yet we still
hold on beliefs that fit our belief framework.
Anyhow, that's where I'm at with all this.
edit on 30-8-2012 by elmoastro because: (no reason given)