Moon landing deniers: why?

[Wakinyan]

@JB99

Your loss. I’m out.

/Intermission/

“Loss”, you say. Yes… yes, you put the finger on it. The sadness is overwhelming. Here’s this guy on the internet who post the link to the Youtube, and I won’t click on it. And then this guy on the internet is “out”. My goodness, I’m freaking out here. What can I do to get this internet boy to get “in” again? And what was this life changing clip I missed? I’ll never know, I’ll never know. Will I even sleep tonight?

JB, as a general tip of the day: Try words. Your own words. It is not easy to transform your thoughts and feelings into words (especially if you are not communicating in your native language as I do, but I’m working pretty hard with my posts to get my thoughts through, as intended, but I often fail), but if you want people to listen to you, to understand you, even agree with you, you will need to be able to transform what’s going on inside of you into words, otherwise nobody will listen, or understand, what the hell you’re trying to say. A YouTube clip does not compensate that lack of words. I’m here because I’m interested in your thoughts, not because of random YouTube clips. I want to share my thoughts, and I want you to share your thoughts, with words. That is, to me, the point of this message board.

/Intermission/

Anyways, in post 95, I was talking about meaning…

[Saint_Cad]

@MarvinKitFox

Actually, no. It is not.

Then explain how the Russians could send probes to the Moon but not a manned mission.
Or explain how we can send probes to Mars but not a manned mission.

See this is more NASA propaganda. You response is to say “something” is true with no “evidence” and discount what your senses tell you to be true. It is the classic Appeal to Authority that NASA has thriven on for decades.

[MEBuckner]

@MarvinKitFox

Ok, so…
You believe we DID go to the moon, just not manned missions?

@Saint_Cad

Sending men to the Moon and having them survive is very different than sending an unmanned probe.

@MarvinKitFox

Actually, no. It is not.

@Saint_Cad

Then explain how the Russians could send probes to the Moon but not a manned mission.
Or explain how we can send probes to Mars but not a manned mission.

As MarvinKitFox pointed out, a major difference between manned and unmanned probes is that mostly we don’t care about unmanned probes getting to come back home, which is not so much the case with human space explorers. The Soviets only succeeded in sending something to the Moon and then getting at least part of it back home again in September 1970, over a year after they’d “lost the Moon Race” to the Americans. At that point, going to the extra risk of sending a cosmonaut or three would have been a pointless anticlimax, with no real geopolitical upside (either you kill one or more brave Soviet space explorers, or you get to come in second place in a two-player competition).

We can send probes to Mars; we have not yet succeeded in getting anything to Mars and then having it come back home. Rockets are almost entirely made of fuel (the contrast to a ship or a car or even a jet airplane is quite stark); with a round-trip mission, you’ve got to get your ship consisting of 85%+ propellant all the way to Mars AND the payload has got to effectively include another ship (presumably also consisting of 85%+ propellant) capable of traveling from Mars to Earth. In practice, for either a manned mission to and from Mars or an unmanned sample-return mission to and from Mars, in situ resource utilization will probably have to be used to generate the fuel for the return (especially for anything like a manned mission). That’s something that’s going to take careful planning and engineering to do, and no doubt some testing missions; and (again as was already pointed out) having something go wrong with your unmanned sample-return mission is expensive and maybe a bit embarrassing. Whereas losing a manned mission is a national tragedy.

[MarvinKitFox]

@Saint_Cad

Then explain how the Russians could send probes to the Moon but not a manned mission.
Or explain how we can send probes to Mars but not a manned mission.

Two interlinked reasons

1. The Soviet Union had less money. They spent a total of between 1/4 and 1/3 as much on the manned moon mission project, compared to the US.
2. Knowing they did not have the budget in money or time to develop a huge engine, they instead made the design choice to power their superheavy launcher with multiple smaller engines. While this makes engine design much easier, it introduces a multitude of control and reliability issues, which they were not up to solving in the time available.

In short, they made one bad design choice, and did not have the time and budget to fix it before the Americans managed to win the race. As there was very little intrinsic benefit to getting to the moon with 1960’s tech, the race was all that mattered.

As for Mars manned missions, give it time. Or more accurately, give it the money needed. The primary slowdown is the cost of such a venture, as we don’t have a handy cold war to fuel extreme spending with nationalistic fervor, like we had in the 1960’s.

[dtilque]

@Rocky_from_Plano

The same was true in the 60’s and 70’s also. We young kids knew everything and big government was always trying to control our lives and keep us down.

Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists of those days turned out to be mostly right.

[StusBlues]

I agree that some of the more casual folks in this crowd are just doing it to make people mad at this point, and many others are honestly misinterpreting the evidence. That said, I think there is a darker shade to this among some of the Moon Landing denial crowd. Specifically, there is a contingent that uses this vast conspiracy to “prove” the existence of a vastly powerful conspirator. As the OP says:

@Leaffan

400,000 people working directly or indirectly for NASA would to have remained silent to this day. Other technologically advanced nations: UK, Soviet Union, Canada, Australia, etc. would have to have been in on it. In fact some of the transmissions were routed through Australia’s Parkes Observatory radio telescope when the moon was facing the southern hemisphere.

Any group powerful enough to manipulate so many people in so many nations would be powerful enough to manipulate anything. Thus, if the moon landing is demonstrated to be fake, there must be some nigh-omnipotent cabal capable of controlling anything they like - economics, labor, media, science, history, you name it. In my perusal of social media, this line of thought often takes a turn to the anti-Semitic. The Rothchilds are a common target, usually mixed in with hairier one-world-government-Zionist ideology.

I’m not saying that every Moon Landing denier is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, but many of them are. It’s more pronounced with full-on Flat-Earthers, who are a subset of Moon Landing deniers.

You may think me paranoid, but the next time you run into a Moon Landing denier, ask them if they believe the Holocaust happened. Their answer may interest you.

[Atomic_Alex]

@StusBlues

You may think me paranoid, but the next time you run into a Moon Landing denier, ask them if they believe the Holocaust happened. Their answer may interest you.

Might this not be a factor of the ‘bucket’ mentality I mentioned above? ie: that a conspiracy theorist tends to believe every possible conspiracy that comes to their attention.

Not that that makes it much better, among other things it shows how easily manipulated they are, but perhaps its a factor of the psychology quirk (is ‘illness’ going too far?) behind the CT mentality rather than a reasoned examination of the evidence.

I’ve just started working in a small and close team with a colleague who is a CT, I think your quote “I’m scared, Sir” comes to mind when I think of outright asking him this.

[Jim_Peebles]

@Atomic_Alex

Might this not be a factor of the ‘bucket’ mentality I mentioned above? ie: that a conspiracy theorist tends to believe every possible conspiracy that comes to their attention.

Not that that makes it much better, among other things it shows how easily manipulated they are, but perhaps its a factor of the psychology quirk (is ‘illness’ going too far?) behind the CT mentality rather than a reasoned examination of the evidence.

I’ve just started working in a small and close team with a colleague who is a CT, I think your quote “I’m scared, Sir” comes to mind when I think of outright asking him this.

CT vs not a CT is a false dichotomy. I find it weird that some people refuse to consider or discuss a conspiracy theory. Maybe I get bored too easily and I am too irreverant. But pondering the likelihood of a conspiracy theory can be an enjoyable way to pass the time. If I disagree with others discussing one, an easy example is Flat Earthers, I just note to myself “it is folly”, and admit they may be having fun. I might even try to get in their mindset as a fun exercise.

[Voyager]

@Jim_Peebles

CT vs not a CT is a false dichotomy. I find it weird that some people refuse to consider or discuss a conspiracy theory. Maybe I get bored too easily and I am too irreverant. But pondering the likelihood of a conspiracy theory can be an enjoyable way to pass the time. If I disagree with others discussing one, an easy example is Flat Earthers, I just note to myself “it is folly”, and admit they may be having fun. I might even try to get in their mindset as a fun exercise.

CT or not CT, that is the question
Whether ‘tis nobler on the net to suffer
The posts and YouTubes of moronic chumps,
Or to fight them in a sea of flame wars,
And by opposing shame them? To block: to read
No more; and by ignore to say we end
The trolling of a thousand Internet twits
The web is full of, ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.

[Jim_Peebles]

@Voyager

CT or not CT, that is the question
Whether ‘tis nobler on the net to suffer
The posts and YouTubes of moronic chumps,
Or to fight them in a sea of flame wars,
And by opposing shame them? To block: to read
No more; and by ignore to say we end
The trolling of a thousand Internet twits
The web is full of, ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.

Brilliant.

[Tzigone]

@Jim_Peebles

CT vs not a CT is a false dichotomy. I find it weird that some people refuse to consider or discuss a conspiracy theory. Maybe I get bored too easily and I am too irreverant. But pondering the likelihood of a conspiracy theory can be an enjoyable way to pass the time. If I disagree with others discussing one, an easy example is Flat Earthers, I just note to myself “it is folly”, and admit they may be having fun. I might even try to get in their mindset as a fun exercise.

I used to read conspiracies as a hobby. Unfortunately, besides it getting repetitive, there came a time when I perceived just how damaging some of them are. And once you think about the human cost, they aren’t as fun as thought exercises (or even arguing exercises). Sandy Hook a prime example, but hardly the only one. Even many of the ones we think of as more harmless do have costs (like the harassment of astronauts or the distrust of government/historians/scientists or the general conspiracy rabbithole or the teaching children to ignore inconvenient facts).

[Baker]

@Voyager

CT or not CT, that is the question
Whether ‘tis nobler on the net to suffer
The posts and YouTubes of moronic chumps,
Or to fight them in a sea of flame wars,
And by opposing shame them? To block: to read
No more; and by ignore to say we end
The trolling of a thousand Internet twits
The web is full of, ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.

God, I love “Shakespeare”!

[Atomic_Alex]

@Jim_Peebles

CT vs not a CT is a false dichotomy. I find it weird that some people refuse to consider or discuss a conspiracy theory. Maybe I get bored too easily and I am too irreverant. But pondering the likelihood of a conspiracy theory can be an enjoyable way to pass the time. If I disagree with others discussing one, an easy example is Flat Earthers, I just note to myself “it is folly”, and admit they may be having fun. I might even try to get in their mindset as a fun exercise.

According to a psychological study I read about recently it pretty much is a binary dichotomy, that conclusion surprised me which is why I remember it. I’ve done some googling but I can’t locate the relevant article, but if I come across it again I’ll try to remember to link it here.

And I enjoy reading about conspiracy theories as well, I have an entire folder set aside on my hard-drive just for them, but there’s a major difference between reading about them, thinking about them, and believing them.

[Saint_Cad]

@MEBuckner

As MarvinKitFox pointed out, a major difference between manned and unmanned probes is that mostly we don’t care about unmanned probes getting to come back home, which is not so much the case with human space explorers.

But his point was that it is just as “easy” to send a “manned” mission as an unmanned one as “proof” that we went to the Moon. My examples show that no it isn’t as easy so he really didn’t prove anything.

[Hurk]

@Leaffan

I subscribe to a few science threads on Facebook. I also tend to read NASA and space-related stories in the media.

Whenever there’s a discussion about the moon landings, without a doubt, within 10 posts someone will deny that the moon landings were real.

I honestly don’t get it. Some basic research, like one hour maximum, will tell you all you need to know about the Apollo missions.

400,000 people working directly or indirectly for NASA would to have remained silent to this day. Other technologically advanced nations: UK, Soviet Union, Canada, Australia, etc. would have to have been in on it. In fact some of the transmissions were routed through Australia’s Parkes Observatory radio telescope when the moon was facing the southern hemisphere.

Why? What do these uneducated, ill-informed people get out of denying what is probably the most significant technological achievement of mankind?

In other words: how fucking stupid do you need to be to dismiss this achievement?

I did not read this entire thread, so apologies if any of this has already been mentioned.

Having said that, I know THIS hasn’t been mentioned yet. I was a month short of my 19th BD when the moon landing happened. I watched it happen in a bar on the B&W TV (could drink at 18 then). It was pretty cool.

In the 49 years since then, I have never run across anyone, anywhere, who even brought up the subject that it was maybe “faked.” As for the internet, I’ve been online since 1994 and never saw any mention of it until the past few years.

So my conclusion: It’s just stupid dopes who’ve had it too easy for too long, and have nothing better to do than to throw the idea out there. Americans don’t have to worry about food, water, housing, clothing, and numerous other things necessary to life (that much of the world does NOT have) so they waste their energy on this nonsense.

Another example: The Flat Earth Society.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. :mad:

[MEBuckner]

@Saint_Cad

But his point was that it is just as “easy” to send a “manned” mission as an unmanned one as “proof” that we went to the Moon. My examples show that no it isn’t as easy so he really didn’t prove anything.

“Then explain how the Russians could send probes to the Moon but not a manned mission.”

On September 13, 1959 the Soviets demonstrated the technical capability to crash something into the lunar surface. On April 12, 1961 the Soviets demonstrated the technical capability of putting a human being into space and having him not die for a couple of hours. So, at some point after April 12, 1961, the Soviets achieved the technical capability of shooting a cosmonaut at the Moon and smashing him into the lunar surface. Of course, even the godless Commies wouldn’t actually do that, because it would have been crazy.

On February 3, 1966 the Soviets demonstrated the technical capability of landing a cosmonaut on the Moon and leaving him there to die.

It was not until September 12, 1970, that the Soviets demonstrated even the theoretical capability of landing a cosmonaut on the Moon and returning him safely to the Motherland, at which point it was “too late” as the Americans had “beaten” them over a year ago.

Of course I’m glossing over issues of payload size. (And the length of time it was possible to keep people alive in space, but the Soviets succeeded in keeping someone alive in space for nearly five days as early as 1963, and a manned lunar mission can be done in a little over eight days, so not a huge stretch. I do think that the life support and logistical issues of a human spaceflight to Mars–which would probably take years, rather than days–would be way more challenging, even if we had the capability of sending things to Mars and then bringing those things, or at least parts of those things, back to Earth, which so far we don’t.) But I do think MarvinKitFox is basically right: For lunar missions at least, the differences between manned and unmanned missions aren’t that large, boiling down to reliability (the first time the Soviets tried to crash something into the Moon, they missed the Moon entirely; Luna 16 wasn’t the first attempt at an unmanned sample return mission, either) and the added difficulty of going there and then coming back. Basically that whole pesky “…returning him safely to the Earth” part which does make manned missions more challenging.

But the point is, Conspiracy Theories to the contrary, there isn’t some kind of Instant Death Radiation Belt beyond Earth’s atmosphere (or beyond Low Earth Orbit), or any other particular factor that makes manned lunar missions impossible with 1960s technology. We (the human race: Americans and Soviets) demonstrably had the capability to keep humans alive in space for at least days at a time. We had the demonstrated capability to land things on the Moon, with increasing precision (and it didn’t take us months or years to get there either, so it was well within our demonstrated capability for keeping people alive in space). We had the demonstrated capability of landing things on the Moon, and then of bringing stuff back from the Moon. Apollo was not impossible. Q.E. fucking D.

[Jackmannii]

@Tzigone

I used to read conspiracies as a hobby. Unfortunately, besides it getting repetitive, there came a time when I perceived just how damaging some of them are. And once you think about the human cost, they aren’t as fun as thought exercises (or even arguing exercises). Sandy Hook a prime example, but hardly the only one. Even many of the ones we think of as more harmless do have costs (like the harassment of astronauts or the distrust of government/historians/scientists or the general conspiracy rabbithole or the teaching children to ignore inconvenient facts).

In addition to time-wasting and fostering distrust of government/leaders/science/valuable health interventions, conspiracy theories are a gold mine* for bigots of various kinds (mainly, but not exclusively Jew-haters).

*literally so, for those who sell believers books, lectures, survival products etc.

[Tzigone]

@Hurk

I did not read this entire thread, so apologies if any of this has already been mentioned.

Having said that, I know THIS hasn’t been mentioned yet. I was a month short of my 19th BD when the moon landing happened. I watched it happen in a bar on the B&W TV (could drink at 18 then). It was pretty cool.

In the 49 years since then, I have never run across anyone, anywhere, who even brought up the subject that it was maybe “faked.” As for the internet, I’ve been online since 1994 and never saw any mention of it until the past few years.

Just because you didn’t find out anyone thought it was faked didn’t mean no one thought it was faked. Certainly such belief isn’t as widespread as JFK assassination conspiracies, but it exists and has for a long time. Think of the old books and the books sales. Here is an article that references a Dec. 1969 NYT article that references a few people thinking it fake when it happened (can’t read actual article due to lack of account).

[Crafter_Man]

Back on July 20 I posted the following on FB: “It’s the 49th anniversary of the first Moon landing! An incredible accomplishment!”

A friend of mine, who believes in lots of conspiracy theories, made a few comments. It went like this:

---

Him: “I don’t believe it ever happened. Because when you look at the photos of the Lunar Rover, there are no tracks.”

Me: “The Lunar Rover wasn’t used for Apollo 11. It was used for Apollo 15, 16, and 17.”

Him: “O.K., well whatever. But I don’t believe we went to the Moon - the Lunar Rover didn’t make tracks.”

Me: “Here is a photo of tracks made on the surface of the Moon by the Lunar Rover. There are more photos.”

Him: “I still don’t believe we went to the Moon.”

Me: “Then why even bring up the issue of tracks?”

---

As you can see, the problem with conspiracy theorists is that none of their CTs are falsifiable. No amount of evidence will convince them their CT is hogwash. Their CT is a religion.

[EmilyG]

Climate change deniers bother me more than moon landing deniers. At least denying the moon landing isn’t as dangerous as climate change denial.