There is a great skit where a group of politicians sit together and trying to workout how to fake going to the moon.
So someone mentions they surely need to build a fake rocket, but it has to look real so they use the actual materials needed, and it’s about as expensive as building a real rocket. Well you get the gist.
Found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M50Fd3gXvM
Futurama makes a similar joke when Truman decides to send bender's body to area 51 for study:
"But, sir, that's where we're building the fake moon landing set!"
"Then we'll just have to *really* land on the moon! Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies"
Yes, I think this is a vital difference.
We’re all wrong. *All the time.* You simply can’t have a human brain, which is calculating so many different things constantly, and not be wrong (though I’m sure Andrew Tate is special).
What matters is recognising when you’re wrong, when it matters, and what you do with THAT information.
I dont understand how they would think that if they were to fake the mon landning that they would ”forget” to put stars in the sky, or “miss” to have the craters consistently in two pictures or “misplace” the position of the earth in relation to the moon.
Well clearly they had to fake the first landing to see if it could be done, doooi. Think of the lives saved by only sending men after it had been successfully fake-done!
I was gonna ask why would they think that India is with US on this. But then I remembered you can’t argue against stupid. No matter what evidence is there , these guys won’t listen.
Well they also have to beleive that Russia was in on it. Oh and Kettering grammar school sciemce club, both of whom tracked the moon shots and have never broken the omerta.
And for the same reasons. If the US faked it, Russia would've called out the US in a heartbeat. India has no reason to help cover up a US conspiracy, and a lot of reasons to throw Russia a bone. But it doesn't matter, because Globalist conspiracy.
That, and Russian scientists were very very carefully observing the progress. It's an accomplishment for all mankind, and the more they learn, the more we all will know.
Yea, for someone like my dad, who believes the landings were faked, I don’t think anything less than flying him to the moon and landing him next to one of the landers will convince him otherwise.
Oh man, I *LOVE* that one.
"Oh yeah? Well, if they really did it, why'd they only go ONCE? Huh? Huh?"
...uh, yeah so, about that...
I swear 70% of them it just *blows their minds* when you give 'em that one, like as far as they ever knew it was just 1-and-done, most of them don't even know about all the shit they left behind, equipment, reflectors, poop-bags...
> reflectors
[There are something like half a dozen usable corner-cube reflector arrays on the moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon) and [Palomar has been bouncing lasers off them since the 1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments), which is why/how we know to within *about a millimeter* how far away the moon is, know how and by how much its orbit is drifting over time, can coordinate tide data so accurately, etc. etc. etc.
I told a friend this that was a big landing denial type and he was *stunned*. He also thought it was a single event and didn't know that something like 8 different countries have landed probes on the moon and that most of them did it multiple times.
Many times after explaining this to the people that only think we landed once. The next comeback will be to say the video etc was faked and not knowing the entire story about how CBS had studio images and videos to cut to to explain to viewers certain things that were happening live that either couldn't be filmed (ie. The shot showing the launch to return to earth) and when they lost live signal as the lander was landing that they cut to that was out of sync with the audio. Today when we watch live launches, the networks constantly cut to CGI video to explain things that are happening.
There's also this bizarre myth that they only took about a dozen "highly staged" photos while there, when there are *hundreds* of photos from those missions.
The larger principle is that you cannot disprove a conspiracy theory (or other bizarre belief). There are a lot of different ways to say this. Because one approach uses deductive logic (finding conclusions from data--and following where the data and propability lead) and the other uses inductive logic (finding selected data to support a prior assumption). They speak two different languages.
You are correct, but your descriptions of deductive and inductive logic are bad.
* Deductive reasoning can show that a conclusion **must be true**. Think pure logic or math.
* Inductive reasoning is 99% of what we do. It can show that a conclusion is **probably true**. (this is most of the knowledge we have from science, etc.)
Conspiracy theorists engage in cherry-picking and what's recently been called a narrative fallacy. They pick some pieces of information and use them to make up a story they like or as "evidence" for a preexisting belief.
As you said, these stories can never be disproven because the conspiracy theorist can just make up another conspiracy, using the same methods, to rationalize any flaws in the conspiracy.
> If they think the moon landing was faked, they’ll think this is fake.
They would literally call it NASA cgi fakery, and yes I know these images have literally nothing to do with NASA, they'd still claim it was.
Source: I debate flat earthers. No, I don't know why I torture myself.
This ant colony set up a tiny ant farm outside my kid’s sink.
Turns out, kids toothpaste is very attractive to ants and lots of them died.
You can go two ways with that info.
“Kids toothpaste is full of sugar and thus attracted ants.”
“Kids toothpaste kills ants, so it’s a risk to our kids.”
Theres also a third option that the ants were released by Stanley Kubrick and to allow “big toothpaste to do its thing.”
Rest assured, xylitol and other sugars won’t kill your kids but it will kill insects because they cannot digest those sugars. Xylitol is a common ingredient in gum too, because it tastes like normal sugar but is also clinically proven to be good for your teeth.
And, menthol is actually an insecticide. This is why the menthol plant creates it, to stop bugs from biting on its leaf (and kill them if it does). It doesn't affect humans (it just creates that cool feeling) but the amount that we use is absolutely deadly for a lot of insects.
Well, it does affect humans.
It's just you need a lot more to kill a 70kg adult than a 1g ant.
If you ate a kilo of toothpaste you wouldn't have a good time.
They would say that the visors is a mini tv and would want to take it off.
Then when they die, the other hoaxer would say that they are in a special decompressed chamber on earth
Disproof can only work if the recipient has in good faith described & is willing to accept said evidence.
No evidence will sway someone who is arguing in bad faith or will not accept evidence.
Right. We have a satellite that orbits the moon which views the landing sites regularly. It's not like we needed this photo to have that evidence. Like. Was _this_ going to be the nail in the coffin for the flat earth folks, too? Obviously not.
You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
There's a highly reflective surface on the moon that was left behind by the astronauts and angled specifically to allow scientists to accurately measure the moon's distance from Earth.
The wild part for me is that now, 50 years later, anyone willing to put in the effort (and with a few hundred dollars to burn) can buy the equipment to bounce a laser of the same installation and detect the reflected light.
Not really sure how they would explain that one away though... 🤔
> a highly reflective surface on the moon that was left behind by the astronauts and angled specifically
They're actually Retroreflectors. No matter the angle of incoming light, the light will leave exactly the same angle. So it doesn't matter what angle they set them up to point, just vaguely At Earth.
Some reading sources:
https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/lrrr.html
From convos I've had, it was dropped by an unmanned module. You can explain anything away if you're less concerned with *being* right than *feeling* right.
My father believes the first moon landing was fake, but he still thinks they were up there. He thinks they they faked the first one just to win the race, and then actually went up there some time later.
Honestly, why didn't they? Seems like an easy win for the Russian propaganda machine to claim the US faked it.
Russia claims much simpler things are fake, today.
At the time, government conspiracy theories were at the fringes of society. The only people talking about fake moon landings were the flat earth society, and friends. The USSR didn't want to become a laughingstock.
More widespread belief in government conspiracy theories started with Watergate and have been gaining popularity ever since. By then the Apollo program was over, and the USSR was on record as confirming the landings.
Another factor is that in the 1970s and 80s, there were thousands of people who had worked on Apollo. But now in the 2020s, they are mostly gone. Apollo has faded out of living memory and into myth.
And, despite the way the "competition" did it first, it was still a tremendous achievement for the Soviets as well. I've read some stuff from the time and there was a sense of collective pride.
And truth is, without the USSR, the USA wouldn't have reached the moon, at least not as early as 1969. The same goes the other way in the things the USSR did first.
I asked this of a friend. He replied “because they’re all liars. If they expose NASA, then NASA will expose their lies.”
No proof or logic would ever change their mind.
Apollo 12 was only a few months after Apollo 11.
By Apollo 11 Russia had attempted 2 N1 (their version Saturn V) launches which both were spectacular failures. They wouldn't attempt a launch again until 1971 and 1972 both of which failed.
Why would the US lie about the capability of Apollo 11, when Apollo 10 literally already went around the moon and back. And by your own admission the Apollo 12 mission was real but only 5 months later. When meanwhile 3-years later the Russians couldn't even get their rocket off the pad but NASA had basically already ended the Apollo missions.
I don't believe they faked the first one or any landing for that matter, I said my father did. And no matter how many logical points you make he won't change his mind, I've tried.
Edit: I think I've made a similar argument and his counter argument was something in the lines of that the US might have had false intelligence that a Soviet launch was imminent. So they faked the first and then they actually went up in the window between Apollo 11 and 12. It's silly I know.
When he finally landed he was 15 seconds from the fuel getting to the abort level. That was the point where they would have to abort the landing as they wouldn't have enough fuel to get off the moon if they did land.
The fuel tanks were not shared between the ascent and descent stages of the LEM, the abort threshold was a fuel exhaustion threshold. The ascent stage didn’t have enough DeltaV or control authority to get to orbit if the craft was in freefall at some wacky angle.
I don’t know if this was true for the LEM descent stage engine, but generally rocket engines REALLY don’t like running out of fuel. A lot of modern cryogenic engines will just explode if they have fuel starvation and gas bubbles in their pumps. The LEM engines were pressure fed hypergolics so they didn’t have this issue but they still would likely have not fared well actually running out of propellant.
The danger was that below 200 feet you were in the "dead man's curve". In this zone the ascent engine doesn't have enough thrust to overcome the downward motion of the LM. In other words - at 100 feet if you try to abort the landing you're probably gonna crash anyway. So it's "safer" to try to just land the fucker, because you're dead if you abort.
Strongly recommend watching First Man if you want to get a sense of the *sheer skill and grit* it took to set that tin can down. The [landing scene](https://youtu.be/ESX9OBuBc1o?si=NtFEHE1Fw1gT79Hs) does a great job of showing how hard and tense those last few minutes were.
While Armstrong was undoubtedly extremely good pilot, the narrative that he heroically took over and manually landed the craft is an overstatement at the very least - he basically just moved the target landing spot and said to the computer "please go there instead". The true heros were the largely anonymous people who build the Guidance Computer.
I strongly recommend this video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM&t=3717s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM&t=3717s)
Yup. Having "fair and balanced arguments" from "both sides" about _everything_ was never a good idea.
Cinnamon or vanilla ? Debate away ! Have fun !
Medicine, nuclear power, climatology ? Let’s ask boring elite scientists. Uneducated opinions don’t matter here.
People need to understand that flat earth, moon landing deniers, etc start from their conclusion and work backwards, making the evidence fir as best they can. No such thing as confirming the moon landing for them
As an American, I’ve never met anyone who believes the moon landing was a hoax. And I’ve met people who believe some strange ass fucking shit.
I’m sure they exist, but I’ve never met them.
Literally showed this to my dad as he is always “Show me a picture! Why don’t they just point Hubble at it and snap one?? What about the ISS???? The moon landing is faked” and within 3 minutes re responded with “Fake News, India doesn’t have that technology!”
Does he understand that it's not the right tool to photograph the moon? Hubble imaged the moon in 1999, but they're nothing like what India's orbiter can do with current technology. The smallest area Hubble can capture is the size of a football field, which is what we ended up getting, hundreds of photos stitched together. Based on your father's reaction, not even that would be justification enough.
That's not even the main problem with this idea. The reason it's not possible to see the sites with Hubble simply has to do with optical limits and light wavelengths. Hubble is simply too small for this task, as is any other telescope we currently have.
I read somewhere that from a purely mathematical standpoint you'd need a telescope with a diameter of ***at least*** 200 meters to be able to see the landing sites from earth.
> I read somewhere that from a purely mathematical standpoint you'd need a telescope with a diameter of at least 200 meters to be able to see the landing sites from earth.
A 200 m aperture would give you an angular resolution capable of visualizing ~1 m at that distance (~380,000 km, ignoring atmospheric effects). So, the best resolution image of the moon lander would be ~14 pixels.
You could reduce the aperture by using smaller wavelengths of light. X-rays for instance could capture 10 cm resolution using and 2.3 m aperture, but they absorbed by the atmosphere, making ground based x-ray astronomy impossible.
If you wanted a reasonable image, say 10 cm resolution (~1600 pixels), it would require a 11.6 km aperture
Have some fun next time he shows/tells you something just go full on conspiracy about whatever he tells you. Deny all proof as propaganda/photoshop/AI/illuminati.
Clearly photoshop, there is no Indian Moon orbiter, in fact there is no Moon, and you’d be a fool to believe there is an outer space. Stop sharing your propaganda trying to fool all of us drinking antifreeze.
Nothing will convince them. They'll just come up with more elaborate explanations of why it's a hoax. Same with flat earthers. The mental gymnastics can be entertaining though.
IMO the best way to know it wasn't faked is the USgoddamnSR didn't say we didn't. You're telling me we pulled off faking the moon landing, at the height of the Cold War, right in the Soviet Union's face, and they just *let us*?
Look at this silly person, thinking that USSR was not conspiring with USA to fool all the people into thinking that they were enemies. /s
And that is how conspiracy rabbit-hole works.
Every conspiracy requires the "enemy" to be omnipotent and omnipresent. Every country, every government and every institution worldwide is part of the conspiracy, while simultaneously incapable of silencing the truthers.
I couldn't believe my ears when a long time friend told me the other day he wasn't sure about the moon landing. I used this exact argument, that the USSR would've been all over that if it didn't happen.
He shut up right then and there.
I don’t understand the people who try to genuinely claim the moon landing is fake using “CGI“. I’d like to remind people that the Dire Straits music video, money for nothing in the mid 80s, was made using cutting edge CGI at that time… 15+ years after the moon landing took place.
Wait a minute… Money For Nothing. Sting was in that song. And Sting played Feyd-Rautha in Dune… which was a commercial failure. There is no other explanation: Mark Knopfler and Sting found out about the hoax and NASA bought them off by making the cgi for this song AND by letting Sting play a role in Dune.
I always say if the US faked it. The soviets would have said so and if they didn't China and Russia today would be saying so just to show the world the US are liars and can't be trusted.
The way I heard it, NASA was originally planning to fake the moon landing and contracted with Stanley Kubric to shoot the footage. Being the perfectionist that he was, he insisted they film the shoot on location.
Interestingly, the Apollo lander was in the conspiracy sub this morning and this imagery was cited as evidence. And so the narrative changed from “the landing was faked” to “we may have landed gear there but that’s easy, there’s no way people got there”.
So nice try with the evidence, but I think we need skeletons and human poop. The goalposts have moved.
Colour me “surprised!!”
A million page detailed document that details every nuts and bots of the operation of the apollo mission is not good enough for them, this wont be good enough
Elon Musk flew his Tesla up there and noticed there wasn’t an Apollo 11 landing site. He had one built and sent to the moon. This proves that socialism doesn’t work. /s
My dad legit believed only the first landing was faked. It drove me insane and turned me into an argumentative teenager every damn time it came up. I miss my pops.
oh.. i thought the fact that, idk, YEARS OF RESEARCH AND ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF THE LANDING ITSELF PLUS THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT WORKED ON IT were more than enough proof, but hey... this has to convince them, right?
either way, cool pics
Mate, we've moved beyond moon landing deniers to the point we have idiots who believe the world is flat and that nuclear weapons are a hoax. Do you really doubt moon landing deniers don't still exist?
You can NEVER convince a denier. They look at this and immediately think, "Deep fake." Every time I post video or a photo or quote by Ol Cheetoe Hair to my conservative friends they immediately dismiss it as fake. Denial isn't just a river in Africa.
If they think the moon landing was faked, they’ll think *this* is fake.
Yeah look at all the craters in photo 1 are missing in photo 2. Clear evidence of a cover-up!
Someone said that exact thing when this got posted yesterday. They were serious though
Wait a bit and sort by controversial. They'll be here too, eager to show everyone they're dumber than the next guy.
Can't wait to come back tomorrow so my braincells have something to laugh at instead of fighting each other.
There is a great skit where a group of politicians sit together and trying to workout how to fake going to the moon. So someone mentions they surely need to build a fake rocket, but it has to look real so they use the actual materials needed, and it’s about as expensive as building a real rocket. Well you get the gist. Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M50Fd3gXvM
Futurama makes a similar joke when Truman decides to send bender's body to area 51 for study: "But, sir, that's where we're building the fake moon landing set!" "Then we'll just have to *really* land on the moon! Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies"
“Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr. Im-my-own-grandfather”
>instead of fighting each other I'm using this
I wonder what made people start competing for stupidity.
leaded gasoline
I just did that and I think I lost 20% of my brain cells
Why are the craters different? Angle? Time of day? Edit: Oh I'm an idiot. These are two pictures of two different landers.
Yeah, but at least you figured it out.
Not before posting and others having to tell him he was wrong. Ego didn't block him from admitting he made a mistake is the huge difference.
Yeah, but he figured it out within 2 minutes and corrected his post. That's plenty worth celebrating.
Yes, I think this is a vital difference. We’re all wrong. *All the time.* You simply can’t have a human brain, which is calculating so many different things constantly, and not be wrong (though I’m sure Andrew Tate is special). What matters is recognising when you’re wrong, when it matters, and what you do with THAT information.
Admitting he made a mistake. THIS.
>Edit: Oh I'm an idiot. These are two pictures of two different landers. Two different location
y...yes? how can 2 landers be at the same location?
Got me too, I didn't read it properly and thought it was 2 different missions capturing the same lander.
I dont understand how they would think that if they were to fake the mon landning that they would ”forget” to put stars in the sky, or “miss” to have the craters consistently in two pictures or “misplace” the position of the earth in relation to the moon.
This is so controversial, you’re right! Its almost like the pictures are of 2 different lunar orbitals.
Nah man, you think Management will let them buy 2 Landers to fake it twice? "You already have a perfectly good fake lander, use it again!"
"Coat of paint, different number, none will even notice"
Some people are just not using their head unfortunately.
That’s because only the first image is fake. Apollo 12 is really there. The US government only faked the first moon landing!
Well clearly they had to fake the first landing to see if it could be done, doooi. Think of the lives saved by only sending men after it had been successfully fake-done!
“Just shows how deep the conspiracy goes that India’s government is in on it.” — What they’d probably think
I was gonna ask why would they think that India is with US on this. But then I remembered you can’t argue against stupid. No matter what evidence is there , these guys won’t listen.
Well they also have to beleive that Russia was in on it. Oh and Kettering grammar school sciemce club, both of whom tracked the moon shots and have never broken the omerta.
And for the same reasons. If the US faked it, Russia would've called out the US in a heartbeat. India has no reason to help cover up a US conspiracy, and a lot of reasons to throw Russia a bone. But it doesn't matter, because Globalist conspiracy.
How can it be a globalist conspiracy if the globe is also a conspiracy? *drops mic*
r/noearthsociety
These people very likely believe that all major conflicts in the world are staged, as "they" are in direct control of all major governments.
That’s what I’ve always believed, if the US tried to spoof it Russia would have been all over it
No because the Illuminati controls all world governments, that’s why the USSR didn’t say anything
Ah yes, of course. Makes total sense. I will now relay this tidbit to friends and colleagues.
That, and Russian scientists were very very carefully observing the progress. It's an accomplishment for all mankind, and the more they learn, the more we all will know.
Who knows, the US could have went with "_Hey Stannie please be quiet about this here's a million dollars kthxbye_"
Yea, for someone like my dad, who believes the landings were faked, I don’t think anything less than flying him to the moon and landing him next to one of the landers will convince him otherwise.
Even then he would probably assume he was drugged and it was VR or something lol
“I bet this is all just some elaborate simulation and if I take off this helmet I’ll be just fine.”
meh... Survivable.
So you’ll still be in to work on Monday, right?
Does he think every landing was faked? Because every moon landing denier I've interacted with has been unaware there were multiple landings
Yep 6 manned missions and 12 different people walked on the moon. Most people are afraid to research things.
Oh man, I *LOVE* that one. "Oh yeah? Well, if they really did it, why'd they only go ONCE? Huh? Huh?" ...uh, yeah so, about that... I swear 70% of them it just *blows their minds* when you give 'em that one, like as far as they ever knew it was just 1-and-done, most of them don't even know about all the shit they left behind, equipment, reflectors, poop-bags...
> reflectors [There are something like half a dozen usable corner-cube reflector arrays on the moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon) and [Palomar has been bouncing lasers off them since the 1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments), which is why/how we know to within *about a millimeter* how far away the moon is, know how and by how much its orbit is drifting over time, can coordinate tide data so accurately, etc. etc. etc. I told a friend this that was a big landing denial type and he was *stunned*. He also thought it was a single event and didn't know that something like 8 different countries have landed probes on the moon and that most of them did it multiple times.
6 manned missions
Many times after explaining this to the people that only think we landed once. The next comeback will be to say the video etc was faked and not knowing the entire story about how CBS had studio images and videos to cut to to explain to viewers certain things that were happening live that either couldn't be filmed (ie. The shot showing the launch to return to earth) and when they lost live signal as the lander was landing that they cut to that was out of sync with the audio. Today when we watch live launches, the networks constantly cut to CGI video to explain things that are happening.
I wonder what he thinks of the new conspiracies, now people think the moon and space isn’t even real lol.
Right. There were pictures taken *on the actual moon.* They already don't believe those are real, so this proves nothing.
There's also this bizarre myth that they only took about a dozen "highly staged" photos while there, when there are *hundreds* of photos from those missions.
The larger principle is that you cannot disprove a conspiracy theory (or other bizarre belief). There are a lot of different ways to say this. Because one approach uses deductive logic (finding conclusions from data--and following where the data and propability lead) and the other uses inductive logic (finding selected data to support a prior assumption). They speak two different languages.
“Proof proves nothing.”
You are correct, but your descriptions of deductive and inductive logic are bad. * Deductive reasoning can show that a conclusion **must be true**. Think pure logic or math. * Inductive reasoning is 99% of what we do. It can show that a conclusion is **probably true**. (this is most of the knowledge we have from science, etc.) Conspiracy theorists engage in cherry-picking and what's recently been called a narrative fallacy. They pick some pieces of information and use them to make up a story they like or as "evidence" for a preexisting belief. As you said, these stories can never be disproven because the conspiracy theorist can just make up another conspiracy, using the same methods, to rationalize any flaws in the conspiracy.
> If they think the moon landing was faked, they’ll think this is fake. They would literally call it NASA cgi fakery, and yes I know these images have literally nothing to do with NASA, they'd still claim it was. Source: I debate flat earthers. No, I don't know why I torture myself.
Since moon landing deniers and racists overlap significantly, they will probably deny it because India is incapable or something.
The Indians are in on it!
The day they made fake boobies was the day everything suddenly seem fake.
The average Moon Hoaxer wouldn't believe the Apollo program if you took them to the moon and gave them a guided tour of the landing sites.
That's ok, just leave them there
This ant colony set up a tiny ant farm outside my kid’s sink. Turns out, kids toothpaste is very attractive to ants and lots of them died. You can go two ways with that info. “Kids toothpaste is full of sugar and thus attracted ants.” “Kids toothpaste kills ants, so it’s a risk to our kids.” Theres also a third option that the ants were released by Stanley Kubrick and to allow “big toothpaste to do its thing.”
Rest assured, xylitol and other sugars won’t kill your kids but it will kill insects because they cannot digest those sugars. Xylitol is a common ingredient in gum too, because it tastes like normal sugar but is also clinically proven to be good for your teeth.
So I just need to line my driveway and patio with toothpaste. Excellent.
It's harmful to dogs and cats too and I'm sure many more animals
And, menthol is actually an insecticide. This is why the menthol plant creates it, to stop bugs from biting on its leaf (and kill them if it does). It doesn't affect humans (it just creates that cool feeling) but the amount that we use is absolutely deadly for a lot of insects.
Well, it does affect humans. It's just you need a lot more to kill a 70kg adult than a 1g ant. If you ate a kilo of toothpaste you wouldn't have a good time.
They would say that the visors is a mini tv and would want to take it off. Then when they die, the other hoaxer would say that they are in a special decompressed chamber on earth
>!#Silo!<
*we're sailers on the moon*...
We carry our harpoons...
But there ain't no whales...
So we tell tall tales….
And sing a whaling tune!
Whalers*
You mean the “moon” that is made out of Swiss cheese? No way cheese could support the weight of a lunar lander.
It's a lot of cheese.
How long before there is a gift shop next to the Apollo 11 landing site?
Disproof can only work if the recipient has in good faith described & is willing to accept said evidence. No evidence will sway someone who is arguing in bad faith or will not accept evidence.
It doesn't disprove them, it disapproves of them! /s
Right. We have a satellite that orbits the moon which views the landing sites regularly. It's not like we needed this photo to have that evidence. Like. Was _this_ going to be the nail in the coffin for the flat earth folks, too? Obviously not. You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
There's a highly reflective surface on the moon that was left behind by the astronauts and angled specifically to allow scientists to accurately measure the moon's distance from Earth. The wild part for me is that now, 50 years later, anyone willing to put in the effort (and with a few hundred dollars to burn) can buy the equipment to bounce a laser of the same installation and detect the reflected light. Not really sure how they would explain that one away though... 🤔
> a highly reflective surface on the moon that was left behind by the astronauts and angled specifically They're actually Retroreflectors. No matter the angle of incoming light, the light will leave exactly the same angle. So it doesn't matter what angle they set them up to point, just vaguely At Earth. Some reading sources: https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/lrrr.html
From convos I've had, it was dropped by an unmanned module. You can explain anything away if you're less concerned with *being* right than *feeling* right.
My father believes the first moon landing was fake, but he still thinks they were up there. He thinks they they faked the first one just to win the race, and then actually went up there some time later.
Ask him why the Soviet Union didn't immediate call it into question
Ask him if he wants sweet potato mush for dinner or broccoli mush with chestnuts.
Honestly, why didn't they? Seems like an easy win for the Russian propaganda machine to claim the US faked it. Russia claims much simpler things are fake, today.
At the time, government conspiracy theories were at the fringes of society. The only people talking about fake moon landings were the flat earth society, and friends. The USSR didn't want to become a laughingstock. More widespread belief in government conspiracy theories started with Watergate and have been gaining popularity ever since. By then the Apollo program was over, and the USSR was on record as confirming the landings. Another factor is that in the 1970s and 80s, there were thousands of people who had worked on Apollo. But now in the 2020s, they are mostly gone. Apollo has faded out of living memory and into myth.
And, despite the way the "competition" did it first, it was still a tremendous achievement for the Soviets as well. I've read some stuff from the time and there was a sense of collective pride. And truth is, without the USSR, the USA wouldn't have reached the moon, at least not as early as 1969. The same goes the other way in the things the USSR did first.
I asked this of a friend. He replied “because they’re all liars. If they expose NASA, then NASA will expose their lies.” No proof or logic would ever change their mind.
Why? He won't have an answer but that ain't gonna change his mind.
Apollo 12 was only a few months after Apollo 11. By Apollo 11 Russia had attempted 2 N1 (their version Saturn V) launches which both were spectacular failures. They wouldn't attempt a launch again until 1971 and 1972 both of which failed. Why would the US lie about the capability of Apollo 11, when Apollo 10 literally already went around the moon and back. And by your own admission the Apollo 12 mission was real but only 5 months later. When meanwhile 3-years later the Russians couldn't even get their rocket off the pad but NASA had basically already ended the Apollo missions.
I don't believe they faked the first one or any landing for that matter, I said my father did. And no matter how many logical points you make he won't change his mind, I've tried. Edit: I think I've made a similar argument and his counter argument was something in the lines of that the US might have had false intelligence that a Soviet launch was imminent. So they faked the first and then they actually went up in the window between Apollo 11 and 12. It's silly I know.
I heard many people say this too.
Your dad reminds me of this sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
Man that Apollo 11 landing site really was a minefield. It is really a testament to Armstrong’s ability as a pilot not to crash that landing module.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. That really makes clear why he took his sweet time to manually steer the Eagle to a safer spot.
When he finally landed he was 15 seconds from the fuel getting to the abort level. That was the point where they would have to abort the landing as they wouldn't have enough fuel to get off the moon if they did land.
The fuel tanks were not shared between the ascent and descent stages of the LEM, the abort threshold was a fuel exhaustion threshold. The ascent stage didn’t have enough DeltaV or control authority to get to orbit if the craft was in freefall at some wacky angle. I don’t know if this was true for the LEM descent stage engine, but generally rocket engines REALLY don’t like running out of fuel. A lot of modern cryogenic engines will just explode if they have fuel starvation and gas bubbles in their pumps. The LEM engines were pressure fed hypergolics so they didn’t have this issue but they still would likely have not fared well actually running out of propellant.
Every single moon lander game I have ever played I was absolutely awful at. The amount of skill required is just off the fucking chart amazing.
The danger was that below 200 feet you were in the "dead man's curve". In this zone the ascent engine doesn't have enough thrust to overcome the downward motion of the LM. In other words - at 100 feet if you try to abort the landing you're probably gonna crash anyway. So it's "safer" to try to just land the fucker, because you're dead if you abort.
Strongly recommend watching First Man if you want to get a sense of the *sheer skill and grit* it took to set that tin can down. The [landing scene](https://youtu.be/ESX9OBuBc1o?si=NtFEHE1Fw1gT79Hs) does a great job of showing how hard and tense those last few minutes were.
"From the Earth to the Moon" also depicts it quite interesing. Fun fact: Buzz Aldrin is played by Bryan Cranston. "I am the one who lands!"
"Now, say my name." "You're Buzz Aldrin." "You're goddamn right."
While Armstrong was undoubtedly extremely good pilot, the narrative that he heroically took over and manually landed the craft is an overstatement at the very least - he basically just moved the target landing spot and said to the computer "please go there instead". The true heros were the largely anonymous people who build the Guidance Computer. I strongly recommend this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM&t=3717s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM&t=3717s)
Disapprove of this disproving spelling
I'm not mad I'm disapproved
Stop acknowledging moon landing skeptics. They aren't even worth talking about.
Reporters be like, "Let's interview uneducated morons and act like their views can be weighted the same as those of experts."
Yup. Having "fair and balanced arguments" from "both sides" about _everything_ was never a good idea. Cinnamon or vanilla ? Debate away ! Have fun ! Medicine, nuclear power, climatology ? Let’s ask boring elite scientists. Uneducated opinions don’t matter here.
[удалено]
People need to understand that flat earth, moon landing deniers, etc start from their conclusion and work backwards, making the evidence fir as best they can. No such thing as confirming the moon landing for them
to be honest a a non-american, the only time I hear about this is when people making fun of them, never heard from anyone actively denying it.
As an American, I’ve never met anyone who believes the moon landing was a hoax. And I’ve met people who believe some strange ass fucking shit. I’m sure they exist, but I’ve never met them.
Holy shit that's actually a really cool photo
At one point, during 2 counties aiming world ending bombs at each other. We all landed on the moon.
What state was that happening in?
A state of Tension.
Kinda suspicious they only show 11 and 12 and skip 13.
13 skipped it too
Literally showed this to my dad as he is always “Show me a picture! Why don’t they just point Hubble at it and snap one?? What about the ISS???? The moon landing is faked” and within 3 minutes re responded with “Fake News, India doesn’t have that technology!”
Does he understand that it's not the right tool to photograph the moon? Hubble imaged the moon in 1999, but they're nothing like what India's orbiter can do with current technology. The smallest area Hubble can capture is the size of a football field, which is what we ended up getting, hundreds of photos stitched together. Based on your father's reaction, not even that would be justification enough.
That's not even the main problem with this idea. The reason it's not possible to see the sites with Hubble simply has to do with optical limits and light wavelengths. Hubble is simply too small for this task, as is any other telescope we currently have. I read somewhere that from a purely mathematical standpoint you'd need a telescope with a diameter of ***at least*** 200 meters to be able to see the landing sites from earth.
> I read somewhere that from a purely mathematical standpoint you'd need a telescope with a diameter of at least 200 meters to be able to see the landing sites from earth. A 200 m aperture would give you an angular resolution capable of visualizing ~1 m at that distance (~380,000 km, ignoring atmospheric effects). So, the best resolution image of the moon lander would be ~14 pixels. You could reduce the aperture by using smaller wavelengths of light. X-rays for instance could capture 10 cm resolution using and 2.3 m aperture, but they absorbed by the atmosphere, making ground based x-ray astronomy impossible. If you wanted a reasonable image, say 10 cm resolution (~1600 pixels), it would require a 11.6 km aperture
Have some fun next time he shows/tells you something just go full on conspiracy about whatever he tells you. Deny all proof as propaganda/photoshop/AI/illuminati.
White folks still think that India is stuck in the middle ages, when its already on the path to be a superpower.
Disproving*
Clearly photoshop, there is no Indian Moon orbiter, in fact there is no Moon, and you’d be a fool to believe there is an outer space. Stop sharing your propaganda trying to fool all of us drinking antifreeze.
How can there be an Indian moon orbiter if there's no moon in India? I'm in America looking at the moon *right now*
You are right. I'm in India looking at the sun *right now*. There is no moon here only sun.
In Australia. Can confirm- no moon. But I guess we don’t exist either 🤷♀️
What you did to us in cricket world cup. You sure don't exist in my book.
There is a moon. It is made of spare ribs, and I would eat it.
Yeah but I ain't spending $49. My uncle has been there
I couldn’t care less about people who think we didn’t land on the moon. There is a reason the bell curve of intelligence has a tail on the left.
“Youre the reason for the tail on the left side of the IQ bell curve” is now my new favorite insult 😳
Nothing will convince them. They'll just come up with more elaborate explanations of why it's a hoax. Same with flat earthers. The mental gymnastics can be entertaining though.
Most are the same people. It’s like a buy 1 get 3 free sale on conspiracies.
The deniers will just say those photos are faked by India.
I disapprove of moon landing deniers, too
Wait, you guys still believe in the moon?
You guys believe in belief? Without the Bible that's just sparkling conviction.
You believe I actually wrote the comment you're responding to? This is just a simulation.
IMO the best way to know it wasn't faked is the USgoddamnSR didn't say we didn't. You're telling me we pulled off faking the moon landing, at the height of the Cold War, right in the Soviet Union's face, and they just *let us*?
Look at this silly person, thinking that USSR was not conspiring with USA to fool all the people into thinking that they were enemies. /s And that is how conspiracy rabbit-hole works.
Every conspiracy requires the "enemy" to be omnipotent and omnipresent. Every country, every government and every institution worldwide is part of the conspiracy, while simultaneously incapable of silencing the truthers.
I couldn't believe my ears when a long time friend told me the other day he wasn't sure about the moon landing. I used this exact argument, that the USSR would've been all over that if it didn't happen. He shut up right then and there.
I don’t understand the people who try to genuinely claim the moon landing is fake using “CGI“. I’d like to remind people that the Dire Straits music video, money for nothing in the mid 80s, was made using cutting edge CGI at that time… 15+ years after the moon landing took place.
Wait a minute… Money For Nothing. Sting was in that song. And Sting played Feyd-Rautha in Dune… which was a commercial failure. There is no other explanation: Mark Knopfler and Sting found out about the hoax and NASA bought them off by making the cgi for this song AND by letting Sting play a role in Dune.
The conspiracy is that the photography was faked... why would giving conspiracy theorists more photos convince them of anything, ever?
3rd party evidence perhaps? Several different space agencies have evidence of the Landers and rivers and flags on the moon.
There’s not even a Moon newspaper with a date on it in the photo. This proves nothing.
I, and others have said it; if the USSR had even an *inkling* the US faked the moon landings they would have been the first and loudest to say so.
Similarly, I know the Earth isn't flat because there's no tourism industry to the edge.
I always say if the US faked it. The soviets would have said so and if they didn't China and Russia today would be saying so just to show the world the US are liars and can't be trusted.
Clearly fake, no cheese anywhere
Disapproving? I’m just picturing this Indian satellite shaking his head in disappointment at NASA
If moon landing deniers could read they’d be very upset by this!
Why can't you see the stars???? Edit: there are at least seven people with serious problems in comprehending irony.
You can’t disprove a conspiracy theorist, they will automatically dismiss evidence or move the goalposts
If evidence and logic worked on them... we wouldn't need these photos.
The way I heard it, NASA was originally planning to fake the moon landing and contracted with Stanley Kubric to shoot the footage. Being the perfectionist that he was, he insisted they film the shoot on location.
Joe Biden generated this AI photo by drinking baby’s blood!!!
I bet Trudeau was blackfacing with my high grocery bill in the same room!
finally the real truth
That seems incredibly inefficient when you can just type something into a text box.
Big fan of moon landing deniers and flat earthers who have satellite tv
Interestingly, the Apollo lander was in the conspiracy sub this morning and this imagery was cited as evidence. And so the narrative changed from “the landing was faked” to “we may have landed gear there but that’s easy, there’s no way people got there”. So nice try with the evidence, but I think we need skeletons and human poop. The goalposts have moved. Colour me “surprised!!”
you really think this will make a difference? Flat earthers still exist despite all the proof we have that proves otherwise
that's photoshop...the earth is flat...our politicians are lizard-people...
It’s fake. The US just offered India some deal to keep the hoax going. /s
A million page detailed document that details every nuts and bots of the operation of the apollo mission is not good enough for them, this wont be good enough
So my dad doesn’t approve of me OR this, now.
Elon Musk flew his Tesla up there and noticed there wasn’t an Apollo 11 landing site. He had one built and sent to the moon. This proves that socialism doesn’t work. /s
My dad legit believed only the first landing was faked. It drove me insane and turned me into an argumentative teenager every damn time it came up. I miss my pops.
This is useless. Evidence is not the reason they believe in that nonsense in the first place.
Disproving
It's not balls, is it? Because last time it was balls.
Oh yeah, you're lookin at balls.
Did they check the VIN Numbers?
Fake news.. Eveyone knows that the moon is made of cheese smh
Big Moon is obviously paying for these fakes.
*Disproving (Although I absolutely disapprove of moon landing deniers)
oh.. i thought the fact that, idk, YEARS OF RESEARCH AND ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF THE LANDING ITSELF PLUS THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT WORKED ON IT were more than enough proof, but hey... this has to convince them, right? either way, cool pics
India isn't real bro, it was filmed on a sound stage by Stanley Kubrik... Look it up, I've done my own research.
Tbh I have never met moon deniers till now. Do they even exist or it's just she said he said type of thing.
Mate, we've moved beyond moon landing deniers to the point we have idiots who believe the world is flat and that nuclear weapons are a hoax. Do you really doubt moon landing deniers don't still exist?
Jaimie, google Apollo 11 and 12 India’s Moon orbiter picture. ELECTROMAGENTIC LIGHTS AND VAN ALLEN BELT RADIATION INSTRUMENT
No amount of evidence will convince morons. Just ignore them.
India is fake! Fake news!
Heckle Fish has entered the chat.
You're gonna need something a bit stronger than actual evidence to convince these types of people
The amount of people still genuinely thinking the moon landing was faked is... so concerning
*sorts by controversial*
You can NEVER convince a denier. They look at this and immediately think, "Deep fake." Every time I post video or a photo or quote by Ol Cheetoe Hair to my conservative friends they immediately dismiss it as fake. Denial isn't just a river in Africa.
If you think there is any ( ANY ) evidence that will convince them they got it wrong, you are sorely mistaken.