# proving the facts - the great moon hoax. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 7, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898 "2005-02-07T23:40:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/41 "2005-02-08T14:49:30Z")
> [@jester21](#): > > I fall into the catagorey of Skeptical Not-Quite-Believer. > > I think it’s completely _possible_ that the gov staged the whole thing. > > Do i think it’s _impossible_ for man to land on the moon? of course not. > > I’m jest not totally convinced that we _DID_. > > However, I don’t really care that much, and havn’t looked into it. IMO skepticism is a good thing. I’ll just restate the point I made earlier. If the US government did stage the whole thing (possible), then how did the US government fool the Russians? The Russians would have had every reason to blow the whistle. > [@](#): > > anyway, the only arguement, that i havn’t seen refuted (probably cuz i havn’t bothered to look) is the theory that there is too much radiation in DEEP space (beyond the protections provided by the Earth) and that we could not put enough “armor” (can’t think of the correct word) on a craft to protect the Guinea Pigs… i mean, Astronauts. (also said argument said that the ISS and shuttle flights all stay w/in the protected zone) > > Is there any truth to that? (the more radiation theory) and how DO we protect them from it? Or is it a non-issue? The Russians sent unmanned probes to the moon. THEY would have known exactly how much radiation was out there beyond the protections provided by the Earth. If the Russians knew that there was no way the US could shield a space craft to the moon with humans on it and bring them back, THAT alone would have tipped them off the US moon landings were a hoax. At that point it would just be a matter of sending unmanned probes to where the US claimed to have landed, and find no footprints, flag, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/42 "2005-02-08T15:26:00Z")
I’m guessing that, alas, if this guy is brilliant, then he’s also uh, sanity impaired, on some level. But if you think it’s possible to have a rational conversation with him about this, I think the best tactic is not to spend too much time on the science. Instead focus on the cover-up. Just ask him how many people worked at NASA since 1965 (say) and now. How much money would the conspiracy have to pay them to keep quiet forever (especially given how much money they stand to make with such a sensational story)? I mean, a filmed movie hoax would take a LOT of scene builders, technicians, key grips, best boys, yadda yadda. And we’re supposed to believe NONE of them have ever come clean? I mean, sure, government officials can lie. And they have, many times. Often, they can get a few people to try and cover up the lie. But the more people involved, the shorter the cover up is. (“Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead”). A cast of tens of thousands keeping quiet? Not a chance. But in actuality, I suspect your time would be more productively spent in self-education trying to understand why he WANTS to believe in the hoax rather than wasting both of your time trying to use logic to move him out of a position he didn’t use logic to get into. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/43 "2005-02-08T15:41:11Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I’m guessing that, alas, if this guy is brilliant, then he’s also uh, sanity impaired, on some level. > > But if you think it’s possible to have a rational conversation with him about this, I think the best tactic is not to spend too much time on the science. Instead focus on the cover-up. Just ask him how many people worked at NASA since 1965 (say) and now. How much money would the conspiracy have to pay them to keep quiet forever (especially given how much money they stand to make with such a sensational story)? I mean, a filmed movie hoax would take a LOT of scene builders, technicians, key grips, best boys, yadda yadda. And we’re supposed to believe NONE of them have ever come clean? And in particular point out how much this “sensational story” would be worth if the person sold it to the Russians as a spy? The Russians in this time period would probably be the only ones who could actually prove absolutely it was a hoax. The money they’d have to pay to the spy would be peanuts compared to the robot probes going to the moon and finding no trace US astronauts ever were there. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/44 "2005-02-08T15:43:28Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Another point if it was all faked, why bother to create a “fake” crisis during Apollo 13? Verisimilitude. The very fact that you think this adds credibility to the Apollo program being real would be the same reason why fakers would want to include the occasional staged “mishap”. (I’m just pointing out the flaw in your argument, not siding with the conspiracy theorists.) ---
**Author:** ![hammerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/45 "2005-02-08T17:16:15Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > … At that point it would just be a matter of sending unmanned probes to where the US claimed to have landed, and find no footprints, flag, etc. I don’t have any trouble believing that the moon landings were genuine. Occam’s razor and all that. [Damning But] But that would require some amazingly precise flight, wouldn’t it? [/Damning But] ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/46 "2005-02-08T17:36:36Z")
> [@hammerbach](#): > > > [@rfgdxm](#): > > > > … At that point it would just be a matter of sending unmanned probes to where the US claimed to have landed, and find no footprints, flag, etc. > > I don’t have any trouble believing that the moon landings were genuine. Occam’s razor and all that. [Damning But] But that would require some amazingly precise flight, wouldn’t it? [/Damning But] They wouldn’t have had to hit the area exactly. They could have sent a remotely controlled rover (like [Lunokhod 1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1), which they sent in 1971) to drive its little self to the landing area. ---
**Author:** ![hammerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/47 "2005-02-08T18:12:33Z")
> [@Loopus](#): > > They wouldn’t have had to hit the area exactly. They could have sent a remotely controlled rover (like [Lunokhod 1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1), which they sent in 1971) to drive its little self to the landing area. So how close could they land, and would thier rover be able to travel that distance? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/48 "2005-02-08T18:28:26Z")
I suspect radar would be able to track the launch of the Apollo spacecraft into lunar orbit. Then there is the problem of what happened to the astronauts who were launched. (And enough people saw them enter the capsule to make it hard to hide.) Were they in orbit for a week? If so, how come the Russian radar didn’t detect them? Why not make the launches secret if there was a hoax? It would make the job much easier. Many geologists have examined the moon rocks, which I believe are distinctive enough to not be Earth rocks. Are they all in on it? I could see one flight as a hoax, but seven? I was there when Apollo 17 launched (the best reason to skip a week of college ever known) and that launch was no hoax. If this guy is brilliant he’s not sane, and if he’s sane he’s not brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_With\_a\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@Man\_With\_a\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_With_a_Cat)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/49 "2005-02-08T18:39:02Z")
everyone knows man went to the moon. once, back in the 60’s. for thirty seconds. ---
**Author:** ![jester21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jester21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jester21)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/50 "2005-02-08T18:39:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If this guy is brilliant he’s not sane, and if he’s sane he’s not brilliant. a person can be brilliant and still have some pretty stupid ideas. A person can be brilliant and still be wrong. A person can be brilliant and be bull-headed and/or arrogant to not admit he/she wis wrong. To judge a person based solely on thier opinion of a single topic is NOT brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/51 "2005-02-08T19:01:08Z")
> [@jester21](#): > > A person can be brilliant and still be wrong. Of course. But there is a difference between wrong and bull moose looney wrong. ---
**Author:** ![alphaFemale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecb155/32.png) [@alphaFemale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaFemale)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/52 "2005-02-08T19:34:52Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > So are you still over the moon about him? nice. 😉 > [@Hail Ants](#): > > Check out the [Encyclopedia Astronautica](http://www.astronautix.com/index.html) for tons of facts, figures and day by day diaries of just how hard the Soviets did try to land on the moon (and didn’t give up until 1974!) this is perfect! thanks 😃 > [@Fridgemagnet](#): > > How does he tie in the moon hoax with the grassy knoll? you read my mind. i do, however, believe in oliver stone/jim garrison’s magic bullet. 🆒 > [@NattoGuy](#): > > He’s a moon hoaxer, and “brilliant”? i really need to learn to start qualifying/prefacing my statements 😉 okay, i’ve done some research, e-mailed links (thanks again! 🙂 ) with small bullet points, etc., and we’re set to get together to seriously debate this sometime this week. my only problem with my sources is they use some form of questionable language at one point or another such as _assuming this_ and _provided that_. i work in consulting and those are gi-normous red flags. i’m hoping i can sneak them past him though. :wally i’m mostly nervous because i’m not the best debater and if i start getting angry everything gets all blurry, while he just becomes more consice and clear. :smack: i don’t know if this means something is wrong with **me** , but even if i can’t reason with the man, i’ll still be over the moon for him. heh. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/53 "2005-02-08T20:01:35Z")
(I’d like to caveat my post by saying that it doesn’t really answer the OP’s request, i.e., how to prove the moon landings were real). Some people who claim to believe outlandish things are in a _third_ category: defiant as all hell, wanting attention and needing to feel superior. Example: my late mother used to claim that nuclear weapons were a hoax. She had no scientific training, and had never heard this theory espoused by anyone who had. She was, however, a member of Mensa, and considered herself smarter than everybody. I don’t think she _really_ believed this – i.e., she wouldn’t have accepted a bet that involved standing next to a nuclear weapon as it was set off. But she knew that such a scenario was very unlikely to ever be put to her. And of course, since none of her kids had ever personally seen a nuclear weapon go off, she could challenge every item of ‘proof’ we provided her. It provided her one more smug thing to shake her head about and say, “Ah, you young people are _so_ naive – and I’m so much smarter than you all”. I’m not saying this made Mom insane. But it was definitely a personality disorder. > [@DrDeth](#): > > There are two groups of dudes who think the “moon landing was all a hoax”. Group #1 have been flim-flammed by the Government before, and thus simply don’t accept the Moon landing on general principals. They haven’t looked into it much, but they know (with some validity) that “the Guvmint lies” and thus they simply assume that it’s another damn lie. This group- as long as they don’t attend “militia” meetings and such- are not crackpots. They are “once bitten- twice shy” or “super skeptics”. Although you can’t convince them that the Government doesn’t lie (and after all- it _does_) it is possible to convince them that the Moon Landing wasn’t one of many government lies. They can be reasoned with. Tread with caution, but it’s worth doing. > > Then there’s the guy who has looked into it carefully. If they still think “it is all a hoax” - they can \*\*NOT \*\*be reasoned with. You are wasting your time. Every proof- no matter how solid- is either “faked, planted or just another lie”. > > It seems to me that our OP’s “that guy” falls solidly into Group 2. In which case- give it up. He cannot be convinced and in fact there is something wrong “upstairs”. Sorry. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/54 "2005-02-08T20:10:38Z")
> [@alphaFemale](#): > > now for the soviets: one of his arguments is that IF we had the capability to do so and IF we actually did it, why didn’t the soviets go as well? why was the space race abandoned after the americans allegedly landed? my argument? it’s not much of a race if it’s already been won. Your arguement is exactly right. In the space race second place is the first loser. Don’t forget Russia got sputnik up first, and launched an astronaut first. The US had to come back strong, soJFK proposed putting a man on the moon. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/55 "2005-02-08T21:05:28Z")
> [@alphaFemale](#): > > my only problem with my sources is they use some form of questionable language at one point or another such as _assuming this_ and _provided that_. i work in consulting and those are gi-normous red flags. Without seeing specific quotes it’s hard to tell. But I work in science and those are perfectly normal phrases. That’s just how we talk. When a scientist says “assuming A is true, B is true” or “provided A is true, B should be true as well”, that’s usually a polite way of saying “look, it’s bloody obvious to everyone that A is true, and I’ve just proved to you that B is a logical result/extention of A, so you better accept B.” ---
**Author:** ![TJVM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@TJVM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJVM)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898/56 "2005-02-08T21:50:16Z")
> [@](#): > > my only problem with my sources is they use some form of questionable language at one point or another such as assuming this and provided that. i work in consulting and those are gi-normous red flags. i’m hoping i can sneak them past him though. In my opinion, that’s a sign of reliability, not unreliability. Real scientists tend to be humble about their knowledge and careful about what they claim, so as not to go beyond the evidence. One of the hallmarks of a quack is that he’s absolutely certain about everything, even when he’s talking about a complex subject like the physics of a lunar voyage. (Unfortunately, I think this air of certainty is what makes quacks attractive to some people.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proving-the-facts-the-great-moon-hoax/288898.md?page=2)