Implications if moon conspiracy theorists were right

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » 2006-09-11 06:46pm

Because of all the conspiracy theory bullshit flying around because its the 11th of September, a thought struck me about the moon hoax landing whack jobs and how little people trying to debunk them bring out the strategic nuclear warhead against all of their arguments, namely the Soviet Union and how they should have been the first people to scream fraud.

So anyway, this got me to think how pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people is nothing in compared to pulling the wool over the eyes, and tracking stations and scientists, of a hostile superpower competing for the same prize. Which led to the inevitable, "Not only would the cover-up be spectacularly difficult beyond the thousands of people involved State-side, but the technology required to fool the Russians would be even more impressive than actually landing on the moon".

So, supposing that the nutjobs were actually right and America never went to the moon, what would that actually mean in terms of technology required to fool the Soviet Union? The first thing I can think of would be that America would have electronic warfare techniques and systems so advanced that they could have turned Russia into a glowing wasteland before anyone knew what was happening. Might be overestimating the requirements there, but still, not an easy task to trick all the radar stations of a country wary of bombs falling from the sky into thinking there's no one on that great big ball of rock in the sky.

So any other tech requirements to be physically capable of pulling off a hoax that big that would exceed the the technology of 1969, or even today, just so that the next time some nutjob brings this up these facts can be pointed out?

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-09-11 06:49pm

Well, we'd need to be able to fool EVERY TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD.

Given that with sufficient magnification, the results of our visit our still visible to anyone with the werewithal to look, in order to fake the moon landing, we would have had to go there anyways.

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-09-11 07:34pm

The USA did not need to deceive the Soviet Union.
They simply paid them off with the wheat deal:

1964, January 2
The Soviet Union signs the first part of the wheat deal: it purchases one million tons of wheat at a price, 65 million dollars – subsidized by the US government. This price counterbalances the high cost of shipment. – The Department of Commerce gives permission for three more wheat purchases.

1971, November 5
The US sells wheat valued at 136 million dollars to the Soviet Union. The agreement was made possible by the fact that the American seamen’s union withdrew their demand to ship 50% of the wheat in American vessels.

1972, July 8
Nixon announces that the US signed a three year contract with the USSR in which the Soviets buy 750 million dollars worth of American wheat, maize and other cereals. This is the largest ever grain deal between the two states.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-09-11 07:43pm

I believe someone said that if the no Moon landing was correct, whoever made the Moon rocks ought to be given a metal as you can not form those rocks on Earth.

Something along that line.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-09-11 07:44pm

Ryushikaze wrote:Well, we'd need to be able to fool EVERY TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD.

Given that with sufficient magnification, the results of our visit our still visible to anyone with the werewithal to look, in order to fake the moon landing, we would have had to go there anyways.

As seen on this site, we don't have telescopes big enough yet. The site is too distant, too small, and therefore too difficult to resolve with equipment currently available.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-11 07:46pm

What about the doohickeys they left behind to bounce signals off?

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-09-11 08:22pm

Stark wrote:What about the doohickeys they left behind to bounce signals off?

The Soviets placed reflectors on the Moon with automatic missions.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2006-09-11 08:27pm

I'm not sure if you're just playing Devil's advocate or you're serious.

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-09-11 08:49pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote:I'm not sure if you're just playing Devil's advocate or you're serious.

I am just presenting the typical "arguments" of the Hoax Believers.

The reflectors of the Apollo missions are placed much more accurately that the Soviet reflectors, because they were placed by hand by the astronauts. And they are still used today.

As Ryushikaze pointed, the USSR were not the only one following the missions. Any radioamateur could follow the conversations between the astronauts and ground control, and it is clear they could not have been pre-recorded (unless things like football matches, weather and other news could be rigged long in advance). And the direction and Doppler effect of the signals were consistent the position and velocity of the astronauts (Earth orbit, transit between Earth and Moon, Moon orbit, Moon surface).

And let's not forget the rocks. There are hundreds of kilograms of material, in the form of carefully selected samples (soil, stones, rocks, core samples), which could not be produced on Earth and are unlike meteorites.
Automatic missions (the Soviets again) returned only a few hundreds of grams of soil samples.

If you look at the whole record, it woule have been a lot harder to fake it, than to do it for real.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-09-11 08:59pm

Il Saggiatore wrote: And let's not forget the rocks. There are hundreds of kilograms of material, in the form of carefully selected samples (soil, stones, rocks, core samples), which could not be produced on Earth and are unlike meteorites.
Automatic missions (the Soviets again) returned only a few hundreds of grams of soil samples.
If you look at the whole record, it woule have been a lot harder to fake it, than to do it for real.

Ah, but the ones assessing those samples (leave alone the ones claiming those samples actually exist in the first place) were obviously in on the conspiracy. they just took a random selection of terestrial rock and declared it to be lunar. And all the scientists who verified that are in on it, too. Besides everybody knows scientists can't be trusted. Not only do they deny Jesus, but they want WORLD DOMINATION!
Sorry 'bout that.
The only ones who believe the moon landings were fake are either stupid, delusional, willfully ignorant, extremely ill-informed or a combination of the above and as we KNOW the conspiration nuts already fulfill at least two of those...

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-12 12:35am

in terms of technology required to fake the moon landing: Not much, just the ability to send an automatic mission to the moon.
of course that doesn't count the thousands of people who would have to have been silenced, but the technology required would not have been as great as many people are suggesting.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-12 01:40am

In order to fake the moon landing, you have to do everything you would do for a real moon landing except for the part about putting real astronauts in the ship. Even though the ship was capable of carrying them. It really does beg the question of why they wouldn't just send the real people, which is the crowning stupidity of moon-hoax conspiracy theories.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2006-09-12 04:13am

Darth Wong wrote:In order to fake the moon landing, you have to do everything you would do for a real moon landing except for the part about putting real astronauts in the ship. Even though the ship was capable of carrying them. It really does beg the question of why they wouldn't just send the real people, which is the crowning stupidity of moon-hoax conspiracy theories.

If I'm remembering correctly, their answer to that is that radiation exposure on the trip would have been so high as to kill any living thing placed aboard.

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-09-12 06:14am

Batman wrote: Ah, but the ones assessing those samples (leave alone the ones claiming those samples actually exist in the first place) were obviously in on the conspiracy. they just took a random selection of terestrial rock and declared it to be lunar.

Lunar rocks contain no water, unlike terrestrial rocks.

In order to fake lunar samples, they would have needed to reproduce characteristics that withstand tests that were not even imagined thirty years ago.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote: in terms of technology required to fake the moon landing: Not much, just the ability to send an automatic mission to the moon.

And send radiosignals faster than light, otherwise you cannot reproduce the conversations between the Apollo astronauts and ground control.

And simulate unexpected behavior: for example, during the Apollo 11 descent, Armstrong had to take control and change the course to avoid landing in the planned spot, which turned out to be covered in boulders. The change in the descent was detected through Doppler effect by radiotelescopes.

Quadlok wrote: If I'm remembering correctly, their answer to that is that radiation exposure on the trip would have been so high as to kill any living thing placed aboard.

Van Allen (like in "Van Allen belts"), who was not a fan of manned spaceflight, rejected explicitly this idea.

And the information about radiation in Earth orbit is not exclusively in NASA's hands, but is available to everybody who has satellites up there, in particular private companies that have huge economic interests in having accurate information about the environment in Earth orbit so that their satellites work as advertized.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2006-09-12 07:27am

Or aside from blowing the whistle, couldn't the Soviets have made their own moon landing with a shitty TV studio also?

As what that guest in the Daily Show said, the existence of the Moon is backed up with scientific evidence :p

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-09-12 07:39am

Darth Wong wrote:In order to fake the moon landing, you have to do everything you would do for a real moon landing except for the part about putting real astronauts in the ship. Even though the ship was capable of carrying them. It really does beg the question of why they wouldn't just send the real people, which is the crowning stupidity of moon-hoax conspiracy theories.

If real astronauts were sent to the moon, they would incur the wrath of the Star Gods for desecrating the giant skull of one of their dead.

Clearly, this would be a bad thing.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-09-12 07:41am

And to answer the question THAT begs, probes are okay because robots have no Immortal Soul.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-09-12 08:51am

Maddox probably put it best. If the conspiracies these nutjobs were spouting were actually what they claim, then there's no way they'd still be alive. A government willing to kill so many people wouldn't mind one or two more under their belts after all.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-09-12 11:33am

Let's just go back to the Moon. With modern technology it would be aces. The trip wouldn't take as long and they could stay there much longer; perhaps even build a permanent installation.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-09-12 01:14pm

General Zod wrote:Maddox probably put it best. If the conspiracies these nutjobs were spouting were actually what they claim, then there's no way they'd still be alive. A government willing to kill so many people wouldn't mind one or two more under their belts after all.

As I said in the other thread that's pretty much the worst argument against a conspiracy. Abducting or killing a conspiracy theorist actually adds credence to their argument, because it's so damn suspicious. They've already said their bit, getting rid of them after the fact would hardly do anything.

The best argument against their bullshit tends to be the lack of informers. It blows credibility to assume that these things could remain contained for decades without someone (among the often vast numbers who must know about it, if true) coming out and telling the media.

Post by **Kuja** » 2006-09-12 03:49pm

I like Penn Gilette's take on things: the US government couldn't even keep breaking into a hotel room secret, how could they fake a moon landing?

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-09-12 05:06pm

SCRawl wrote:
Ryushikaze wrote:Well, we'd need to be able to fool EVERY TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD.

Given that with sufficient magnification, the results of our visit our still visible to anyone with the werewithal to look, in order to fake the moon landing, we would have had to go there anyways.
As seen on this site, we don't have telescopes big enough yet. The site is too distant, too small, and therefore too difficult to resolve with equipment currently available.

I could have sworn we'd made bigger telescopes than that... :

: However, the point that the entire world was watching/listening/tracking the flight still stands, and keeps the point that to have faked going to the moon like we did, we would have had to go there anyways.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-12 11:46pm

it would be trivially easy if you're already going to the moon.

who needs to send signals faster than light when we had a marvelous invention called "The Tape Recorder"
simply place in your 'moon landing hoax spacecraft(C)' pre-recorded with whatever conversations and whatnot you can think of and let fly!

Also, a secondary recorder can be set to recieve transmissions on a secondary frequency and then resend them on the proper frequency to simulate a conversation involving information that could not have ben recorded before taking off.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-09-13 02:38am

In which case, you must rig world events to occur as per your prerecorded tape does, over the course of an entire week, have a perfectly automated system to run all this AND the spacecraft over that period, etc. etc. etc. and hope nothing whatsoever buggers up along the way.

Sending fleshbags up, on the other hand, is a lot simpler, and a whole heck of a lot more flexible.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-18 06:12pm

Ryushikaze wrote:In which case, you must rig world events to occur as per your prerecorded tape does, over the course of an entire week, have a perfectly automated system to run all this AND the spacecraft over that period, etc. etc. etc. and hope nothing whatsoever buggers up along the way.

Sending fleshbags up, on the other hand, is a lot simpler, and a whole heck of a lot more flexible.

Also, a secondary recorder can be set to recieve transmissions on a secondary frequency and then resend them on the proper frequency to simulate a conversation involving information that could not have ben recorded before taking off.

already covered, read the whole pst before responding.