Anyway, the only way to fake a manned moon landing is to use an unmanned lunar lander, transmitting recorded voice and video. Otherwise anyone with a big enough parabolic dish would know that there were no communications coming from the Moon. And the unmanned spacecraft would have had to go all the way to the Moon and back, because several countries had radar that could track spacecraft to the moon and back.
So, presumably the plan for a fake moon landing would have been to have an unmanned lunar lander on a Saturn-V, have astronauts pretend to board it, then actually launch it and fly it to the Moon and back. What exactly would have necessitated and still allowed for this backup plan? It wouldn’t have worked if the Saturn-V development was delayed. It wouldn’t have worked if they couldn’t solve the problem of navigation, landing or the return trip.
While we may cut newbies some slack, you’ve been around more than 6 months, and should be aware that insults are not allowed outside the pit. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
So in that scenario, at what point would you switch to the fake? If you openly launch a crewed mission and it fails catastrophically midway (as Apollo 13 almost did), what do you do? It would be too late to launch a backup fake lander at that point and pretend the mission is continuing successfully. The whole world would have intercepted the telemetry drop out (if not the cries for help), and the fake lander wouldn’t be there to take its place.
5 million dollar 1970’s budget starring Elliot Gould and James Brolin is hardly a B-movie, and the quality of the film is hardly relevant.
And no, I am not saying any of the below means anything, but the below surely would be more convincing to someone that what you pick and chose to cite:
Danny is playing with toys in the hallway, he wears an Apollo 11 sweater.
After a red ball mysteriously rolls toward him, he rises.
The hexagonal pattern (symbolic of NASA’s launching pads) on the carpet changes direction, not because of a continuity error (as theorists suggest the infallible Kubrick was impervious to) but to symbolize Danny being trapped by what is about to come. He rises (his sweater rocket “launches”) and he enters room 237.
Because there’s evidence of that experiment – documents, eyewitnesses, and the relatives of the people involved.
There is no evidence that the moon landing is faked. Just interpretations that, if you squint a bit and don’t have any knowledge of human nature or organizations, can be turned into a fantasy that connects a few of the dots while ignoring many others.
The fact is that if the Soviets made a verifiable claim it was faked, it would be covered in every newspaper in the world, including the US. The Soviets would have every reason to publicize it, and it would be such a powerful charge that it would be front-page news.
It’s time to ask the same question that is asked of the moon-hoaxers.
Is there anything - short of a signed statement by the head of NASA stating that they never contemplated a fake moon landing video, I pinky swear it" - that would satisfy you as evidence?
And yes, with any theory, you are looking for corroboration- ideally someone out there had read a book ala Area 51 where someone around at the time had some insight into this being a possibility, or some strange footage found in a locker in 1991, a declassified memo, something like that. This is what I was looking for, having a real interest in the subject and finding the ‘clues’ in The Shining fascinating.
Since no one here yet is apparently aware of anything like that, then yes, I agree, the thread is pretty much pointless lacking that type of info. Fully willing to agree if its the case that there is no tangible proof or even hearsay it was even a consideration.