Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.

It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.

Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.

You can't use common sense on this! Where's your sense of paranoia?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


How does that in any way negate what I said? Are you saying that because JFK wanted some cooperation with the USSR over space matters the Soviets were actually great pals with USA.

So was the Cuban Missile Crisis a false flag? Vietnam made up? And the whole history of USSR/USA cold war relations just a front? They managed to make up that whole thing, without their cooperation ever coming to light, even after the collapse of the soviet union?

If you think that you're mad. Sorry.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I'm most definitely being sarcastic! I can't for the life of me see how anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Cold War could assume that somehow, secretly, the upper echelons in the US and USSR were actually colluding. It's beyond stupid.

Why were they silent about JFK's murder? To ignore that huge conflict in your argument is beyond stupid

Because they had no evidence that US authorities were involved in it?

Are you actually saying that the whole Cold War, with its millions of victims, its proxy hot wars, its spying, extra-judicial murder, near-armageddon stand offs, exhaustively documented history at every lever - are you really saying that it is a fabrication? Because if so... well, you'll literally believe anything.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

It's not about the money. There are many very wealthy people living on this planet today who could buy a rocket (or two or three) from any one of the present day commercial manufacturers and set themselves up on a mission for the moon.

I would throw a figure out there of $5 billion dollars. And there are lot's of billionaire's out there today with much more money than this in the bank. To these people $5 b is gambling money. They could easily afford to go on a very simple "loop the moon" manned mission. But they don't or can't or won't do it. Why not?

What about the people who are planning private space missions? A piece of advice, which goes just as well for Turbonium as well: just because you don't know about stuff doesn't mean it isn't happening.

In June 2012, private Dutch non-profit Mars One announced a private one-way (no return) human mission to Mars with the aim to establish a permanent human colony on Mars.[16] The plan is to send a communication satellite and path finder lander to the planet by 2016 and, after several stages, land four humans on the Martian surface for permanent settlement in 2023.[17] A new set of four astronauts would then arrive every two years.[18]
In December 2012 a private US company, Golden Spike, announced plans for commercial human spaceflight missions to the Moon by no earlier than 2020. Their plan projects development budget of between $7 and $8 billion, followed by around $1.5 billion per each "two-human lunar surface mission".[19]
In February 2013, the US nonprofit Inspiration Mars Foundation announced a plan to send a married couple on a 2018 mission to travel to Mars and back to Earth on a 501-day round trip, with no landing planned on Mars.[20]

-- Wikipedia

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
What about the people who are planning private space missions?

With all respect to the ambition of these people (I am talking about the one-way Mars mission you mentioned), they seem to not fully understand the complexity of the undertaking, and from the standpoint of an outside observer this campaign looks like a poorly pulled scam. If it is not, then it's just a foolish attempt to put the cart before the horse with regard to the current technical capability.
As for the Apollo missions, the Soviets were actually not behind, but ahead of NASA in basically all components of space technology in the course of the history of space exploration. This includes the first sputnik, the first man in space, the first spacewalk, the first orbital docking, the first lunar rover and the first space station (which is the most important aspect in preparing for the lunar mission). A lunar mission would require all the tech needed for at least a basic oribital space station (that's what the Soyuz ships were initially made for) plus a takeoff module. And after a successful Moon program you'd get a nice space station immediately as a by-product. But the only area in which NASA was ahead of the Soviet Union was space shuttles (now retired). Manned moon missions required thorough expertise in docking, orbital maneuvering, landing, spacewalk suits, life-support systems, etc. and all these components were either lacking or not mature enough in the 60s (at least for NASA). If a manned Moon program was feasible in the late 60s-early70s, then the USSR was actually closer to implementing it. In fact, USSR was quite close to it, but dropped their program by party decision. Even now the only presence NASA has in space is the ISS, at the core of which are several modules from MIR 2.0 blueprints. Even China plans to have its own space station in the next few years. And the next logical step will be flying to the moon and back, possibly taking some photos in front of the good old Soviet Lunokhod and the NASA landing modules if they are really there. But before that happens, more automatic probes will have to be sent for studying radiation effects and levels, and protection materials will have to be carefully selected.

reply to post by mrkeen


Which campaign? There are several.

I was responding to his specific point that there are no 'billionaires planning private manned space flights'. This is palpably untrue.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.

It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.

Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.

Nyet. Are you trying to argue that Bob the welding inspector from NAA over in Bay #1-A should be included as part of the conspiracy? Because that is a logical fallacy. Maybe you think Julie the typist or George the mechanical engineer were both intimately involved in the central planning of the conspiracy along with the heads of Bellcomm in DC. Is that what and how you think of a conspiracy?

It doesn't take "thousands" for conspiracy. That's not how conspiracies work. You should already know that.

It only takes a few, dedicated anti-communists, CIA lifers, brainwashed astronauts, Nazi rocket scientists, and NASA "doctors" who don't understand that German Measles are contagious. Don't forget the Bellcomm planners in DC who approved the astronaut selections for each flight and selected every Apollo landing site.

Bob, Julie and George could all have played a major role in the conspiracy without even knowing that they did it.

Everyone else involved with Apollo is either secondary of importance or is inconsequential to the program; these "thousands" of others people, whom you call on in your defense of Apollo, have no decision making powers and are told to "do not ask questions" if any questions do so arise.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

It only takes a few, dedicated anti-communists, CIA lifers, brainwashed astronauts, Nazi rocket scientists, and NASA "doctors" who don't understand that German Measles are contagious. Don't forget the Bellcomm planners in DC who approved the astronaut selections for each flight and selected every Apollo landing site.

And don't forget the guy who brought coffee and donuts to Stanley Kubrick.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well judging by how turbonium says NASA has published falsified data. This mean that in over 40 years that the entire engineering/space/science community have kept the secret of the inexplicably high radiation data they have obtained is much much much higher than what NASA has published.

This means that the entire space/engineering/science community are in on the hoax. So yes Debra the secretary who has probably proof read some of the "true data" needs to be in on the hoax as well.

Seems the list of people involved and keep it secret has just exploded to quite a large number. Probably soon the entire world population will be in on the hoax, the only ones not part of the hoax will be... Well the hoax believers.

p.s. kinda contradicted yourself there, why does it take dedicated anti-communist?? the communists were in on it also remember..

reply to post by choos


Everybody knows why there are Keep Out Zones on the moon.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

Everybody knows why there are Keep Out Zones on the moon.

and everybody knows why there is a perimeter to keep people away from the mona lisa..

but really keep out zones of 1m and 3m for apoolo 12-16?? what kind of conspiracy is that??

and one other thing.. those were just suggestions.. so unless im mistaken please show me where the enforced keep out zones are on the moon. the ones you hark on about.. not the suggested keep out zones eg. 1m and 3m zones on apollo 12-16, the ones that are apparently enforced on the moon.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

Everybody knows why there are Keep Out Zones on the moon.

and everybody knows why there is a perimeter to keep people away from the mona lisa..

but really keep out zones of 1m and 3m for apoolo 12-16?? what kind of conspiracy is that??

and one other thing.. those were just suggestions.. so unless im mistaken please show me where the enforced keep out zones are on the moon. the ones you hark on about.. not the suggested keep out zones eg. 1m and 3m zones on apollo 12-16, the ones that are apparently enforced on the moon.

Id say the reason is in there report:

RATIONALE: Since the completion of the Apollo lunar surface missions in 1972, no missions have returned to visit these historic sites, leaving them in pristine condition and undisturbed by artificial processes (the sites have changed due to normal space weathering). It is anticipated that future spacecraft will have the technology and their operators will have the interest to visit these sites in the coming years. These visits could impose significant disturbance risks to these sites, thus potentially destroying irreplaceable historic, scientific and educational artifacts and materials.

Heres the restriction on 2 KM radius:

RATIONALE: The 2.0 km keep-out radius applies to the descent/approach path of the visiting vehicle to address three main concerns during descent:National Aeronautics and Space Administration 8 1. Overflight – possibility of creating high-velocity particles during descent, directly impinging plume on the heritage site 2. Near overflight – exhaust-blown dust onto the site 3. System failure during descent – collision potential / dust creation

And of course if you want to land outside 2 km but visit the site you can get alot closer 75 meters.

RATIONALE: It is desired to maintain the integrity of the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 sites. Since the Apollo 11 site is of great historic significance and yet is fairly contained for the hardware and footprints, landers may touch down over the horizon to protect the site from damage, and mobility systems can approach the site as long as they remain outside the larger mobility exclusion zone. The 75 m radius for Apollo 11 ensures that all human activities for that flight are contained within the keep-out zone.

So seems to me NASA made recommendations so that in the future those areas will be preserved for future study. Similar to areas they dont allow public in to so they dont damage caves or even hot springs in national parks nothing new. In fact if they didnt try to preserve these sites id think something was wrong your looking at it the wrong way.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

It only takes a few, dedicated anti-communists, CIA lifers, brainwashed astronauts, Nazi rocket scientists, and NASA "doctors" who don't understand that German Measles are contagious. Don't forget the Bellcomm planners in DC who approved the astronaut selections for each flight and selected every Apollo landing site.

What about the crew who shot the footage? Who built the sets? Who did the postproduction? That's probably a good hundred right there, possibly more.

Saying "that's not how conspiracies work" completely ignores how organisations operate. I don't know if you've ever worked at a large organisation, but secrets are very hard to keep. Even at NASA you would need at minimum several hundred people to pull this off - remember anyone doing anything remotely technical, or involved in the monitoring of the flights, or creating and filming the cover story would know - and you would then need then to say nothing to their colleagues who they work with every day. I've never seen an organisation where that's possible.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
What about the crew who shot the footage? Who built the sets? Who did the postproduction?

Most likely they were told it was an ultra realistic simulation and to behave as such. After all, 'lives are at risk'.

The set builder was asked to reconstruct an exact replica from the satellite photos, and that's what they did.
So when the set builder saw the final results on their TV, they would have thought .. 'wow the moon looks so much like the simulations we created'. They would have been very proud.

Remember, the TV broadcast images were shot by focusing a camera on a low resolution projection screen in mission control, just in case too much detail entered the picture.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
What about the crew who shot the footage? Who built the sets? Who did the postproduction?

Most likely they were told it was an ultra realistic simulation and to behave as such. After all, 'lives are at risk'.

The set builder was asked to reconstruct an exact replica from the satellite photos, and that's what they did.
So when the set builder saw the final results on their TV, they would have thought .. 'wow the moon looks so much like the simulations we created'. They would have been very proud.

Remember, the TV broadcast images were shot by focusing a camera on a low resolution projection screen in mission control, just in case too much detail entered the picture.

You can't be that oblivious to reality. Look this would have had to have been a top notch production its not a guy with a video camera in his basement. I suggest you look in to the number of people involved in making a movie. The numbers are so large the town suporting it knows what's going on as well. Not something you can hide easily if at all so my questiuon is where was it filmed?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
What about the crew who shot the footage? Who built the sets? Who did the postproduction?

Most likely they were told it was an ultra realistic simulation and to behave as such. After all, 'lives are at risk'.

The set builder was asked to reconstruct an exact replica from the satellite photos, and that's what they did.
So when the set builder saw the final results on their TV, they would have thought .. 'wow the moon looks so much like the simulations we created'. They would have been very proud.

Remember, the TV broadcast images were shot by focusing a camera on a low resolution projection screen in mission control, just in case too much detail entered the picture.

But there are good photographs as well. And the moving image stuff isn't so bad that you wouldn't recognise your work, or at least be suspicious. And guys from the art dept who were on the shoot would recognise actions taken by the actors.

And what about the grips, sparks, gaffers, camera assistants, production assistants, caterers, editors, cutters, film development techs etc etc? They would all have to know.

I'm not saying you couldn't do it, quite the reverse. But I work in film and I know how many people it takes to create something like this. It's quite a small world. You would have absolutely zero chance of keeping it covered up.

Originally posted by dragonridr


You can't be that oblivious to reality. Look this would have had to have been a top notch production its not a guy with a video camera in his basement. I suggest you look in to the number of people involved in making a movie. The numbers are so large the town suporting it knows what's going on as well. Not something you can hide easily if at all so my questiuon is where was it filmed?

I'll expand on that question. How was it done? Take us through the process of hiring the director, DoP, camera crew, lighting unit, grips etc.

Let's say you create a sound stage out in New Mexico somewhere. You now have to go and ask a director and DoP to do this and be pretty sure that theya re going to do it because if they refuse then you've pretty much revealed what you're doing.

"I was asked to shoot this secret thing for the government in New Mexico."

"Did you do it?"

"Nah. Turned out to be the fake moon landing".

Next you're going to need to get a camera crew -maybe the DoP can swear them to silence, maybe not. And you need equipment. There weren't that many film cameras then. Who are you going to hire yours from? What about your lights? How are you going to source your gaffers and sparks and be certain you can trust them? Who is going to feed everyone?

Once you have the footage, who is editing it and where? Who develops it? Who is cutting it? There are dozens involved in that procedure. Again, how are you ensuring their silence? Then you've got to online it (or whatever they called it then) and that involves more people.

The whole thing is just impossible.

reply to post by ppk55


What about the guys in the observatories that were able to see the original high definition tapes? The video in mission control was SSTV, which had been run through a special receiver which allowed it to be viewed on tv, as the broadcast was much slower than tv normally was. The original high definition was recorded by several observatories that were monitoring the entire Apollo mission.

Originally posted by ppk55
Most likely they were told it was an ultra realistic simulation and to behave as such. After all, 'lives are at risk'.

Only in a perfect world! Apparently you have never worked in a job with other people. In every job I have ever worked, there has been at least one gossip/busy body. You know the type. The one that is always up on what is going on with everyone else and lets you know it. The one that always seems to have the scoop on what is happening before anyone else does. It is inevitable when you have 10 or more people in a work group there will be at least one of these people. Never fails.

So what did NASA et al do with these people? How did they screen them out? Did they kill them or threaten them with death (what a fiasco that would be)? Did they just fire them (that would make them 100 times more curious)? How did they silence them?

Originally posted by ppk55
The set builder was asked to reconstruct an exact replica from the satellite photos, and that's what they did.
So when the set builder saw the final results on their TV, they would have thought .. 'wow the moon looks so much like the simulations we created'. They would have been very proud.

Ah, but the simulations they built did not look just like the Moon. At least not the ones I have seen. And the idea that they would be "very proud" maybe for about the first five minutes. Then they would notice their own handy work and and begin to point out, "Hey look, there's that rock that took three of us to get placed the way the set designer wanted. Man, that guy was a real bite in the buns."

You don't think a craftsman can recognize their own work. I can!

Originally posted by ppk55
Remember, the TV broadcast images were shot by focusing a camera on a low resolution projection screen in mission control, just in case too much detail entered the picture.

And as Zaphod58 pointed out, those people at the communication relay posts saw the raw, clear images that were broadcast from the Moon in real time. They were experts at communication and have verified that what they were receiving was coming from the Moon.

Just the shear number of people that would have to be involved, even if you were able to work with a skeleton crew, would be enormous. The chances that someone, the gossip/busy body, would squeal would be almost 100 percent.

No, you couldn't hide a hoax Moon landing. The probabilities of discovery are just too astronomical, pun intended.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Next you're going to need to get a camera crew -maybe the DoP can swear them to silence, maybe not. And you need equipment. There weren't that many film cameras then. Who are you going to hire yours from? What about your lights? How are you going to source your gaffers and sparks and be certain you can trust them? Who is going to feed everyone?

Once you have the footage, who is editing it and where? Who develops it? Who is cutting it? There are dozens involved in that procedure. Again, how are you ensuring their silence? Then you've got to online it (or whatever they called it then) and that involves more people.

The whole thing is just impossible.

This is one aspect of a potential hoax where I have some hands on experience and these are all points I've considered myself. You would have needed professionals from the film industry to pull off something like that. And this wouldn't have been a few scenes from one movie. We're talking six missions over three years and hours and hours of material. Imagine how big an ongoing project like that would have been. The idea that you could keep people in that profession quiet for 40 years (or even a half year) is ridiculous.

And that's not even taking into account the huge question of how you would get weeks and weeks worth of acceptable, non-stop theatrical performances out of the 27 military stiffs who made flights to the moon. And were the ground crew in on the fake conversations? How many people is that? And if they weren't in on it, you would need a team of people who knew as much (or more) as the ground crew in order to fool them.

I think the point made earlier about human organizations was spot on. I've long suspected that many hoax believers must not have much real world experience in working with any kind of human organizations otherwise they would understand how implausible such a hoax would be.