why waste time with tin foil hat theories?

Don't creationists have similar views in regards to saying the whole "astronauts on the moon" is a hoax?

Dominus wrote:

why waste time with tin foil hat theories?

This.

Sure I find it worrying people consider stuff like this. Not sure they are trolling or not but in the end I'd rather spend my time in a more meaningful way 😀
Lets just hope things like this don't get out of control.

Dominus wrote:

why waste time with tin foil hat theories?

It can be quite educational to spend some time understanding why certain things don't seem to make sense, while in truth that's how things work afterall.

Plus i would not put the moon hoax theory into the category of tin foil hat theories, i can understand perfectly some people can have doubts about whether some guys landed on the moon or not. The main point is the stupidity of people who explore people's doubts and even try to lead them in order to help their cause, which ultimately can reveal itself to be nothing but personal glory, pride and even profit. I believe people like Bart Sibrel or Jarrah White fall into this category. In the mean time they proclaim to be in search of the truth.

Some of the tin foil hat theories can be really wacky though...

DracoNihil wrote:

Don't creationists have similar views in regards to saying the whole "astronauts on the moon" is a hoax?

I have no idea about creationists, but surely any scientific achievement that in any way raises doubt about creationism won't be accepted by them.

Do not worry, astronauts know how to deal with morons 🤣 .

Now the AGC, that's a retrocomp! 😀 You can play with it (virtually) here: http://svtsim.com/moonjs/agc.html

TELVM wrote:

Do not worry, astronauts know how to deal with morons 🤣 .

One of my favorite space-related videos of all time! 🤣

---

I have met one or two hoax believers in my life and where I tend to catch them up is in the history of the US space program. Because they tend not to know it.

Because why should you arbitrarily draw the line at landing on the moon?

Apollo 8 orbited the moon. Apollo 9 stayed in Earth orbit. Apollo 10 orbited the moon and included undocking procedures but never landed - it was basically a "dry run". After Apollo 11, there were five other landings (Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17). Apollo 13 (as we know) ended up only orbiting instead of landing. The last manned moon mission was Apollo 17. All in all, 24 astronauts visited the moon, with twelve actually walking on it. Apollo 1 was a tragic disaster, killing its crew on the launchpad. Apollo 2 through 7, and many other test launches/flights, were all unmanned.

The whole of the Apollo program was designed with lunar landings in mind. It wasn't a sure thing until perhaps the first year of its operation, but its goals were definitely clarified by mid-1961.

Prototypes of the Lunar module were created, and tested in space, several times before sending them to the moon. If Apollo 11 was faked, then were these faked as well?

The scale of the coverup would have to be immense. Thousands of men and women worked for NASA and its contractors to make the rockets, modules, etc. Two new space centers and all associated systems and hardware were built. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and involved over 20,000 businesses, colleges, and universities. I can't even begin to imagine the billions of dollars wasted, the billions that a coverup would cost.

Maybe it's my fault for not knowing what hoaxers believe because they seem to all believe different stories. Are you telling me NASA flew out, orbited the moon, but never landed? Or did NASA shoot up a manned rocket, and then they just orbited Earth a few times, and then splashed down? Or did NASA never launch the rocket, and was that too Hollywood special effects?

If you believe that it was faked, then where do you stop? A few other manned moon landings were scratched due to budgetary concerns, but in 1973 NASA repurposed Apollo hardware for Skylab, the first American space station orbiting Earth. And then the first shuttles in 1981? What about before, with NASA's Project Gemini (2-man space capsules) also faked? What about NASA's Project Mercury? The Russians? The past and future history of human spaceflight?

Hoaxers tend to be extremely ill-educated about history.

Just for the sake of argument explain then, why in all the moon walk footage you can't see any stars in the sky? The moon has no atmosphere to interfere with the transmission of starlight, so the stars should be even more clearly visible than they are here on Earth so where are they?

sliderider wrote:

Just for the sake of argument explain then, why in all the moon walk footage you can't see any stars in the sky? The moon has no atmosphere to interfere with the transmission of starlight, so the stars should be even more clearly visible than they are here on Earth so where are they?

dude the lunar eva's were early morning on the moon, the sun is very very bright and the lunar rigolith is very reflective. Not to mention that astronauts had the darkest sunglasses in the world. The camera exposure was set to daylight and if it was set to see the stars you would see nothing but light ln yhe ground.

carlostex wrote:

sliderider wrote:

Just for the sake of argument explain then, why in all the moon walk footage you can't see any stars in the sky? The moon has no atmosphere to interfere with the transmission of starlight, so the stars should be even more clearly visible than they are here on Earth so where are they?

dude the lunar eva's were early morning on the moon, the sun is very very bright and the lunar rigolith is very reflective. Not to mention that astronauts had the darkest sunglasses in the world. The camera exposure was set to daylight and if it was set to see the stars you would see nothing but light ln yhe ground.

What carlostex said. Wikipedia (for all that you can trust it) has a lightweight debunk of "stars should be visible" in #4 here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_co … d_film_oddities

Mythbusters debunked all these except maybe the Van Allen Belt one.
I don't know the explanation for that but I'm sure it is something logical.
Maybe they sent them during a period of weak radiation or had extra shielding
or both. Or maybe there is some other explanation. What gets me is nothing would
ever be good enough for these jokers, you could actually land them on the
damn moon and they'd claim it was virtual reality or hypnotism.

TELVM wrote:

Do not worry, astronauts know how to deal with morons 🤣 .

Now the AGC, that's a retrocomp! 😀 You can play with it (virtually) here: http://svtsim.com/moonjs/agc.html

That punch was well deserved. Bart Sibrel was an idiot, frequently ambushed astronauts using dirty tactics to make them believe they were going to an interview. Plus, his knowledge of astrophysics and photography is not higher than a 3 year old.

snorg wrote:

Mythbusters debunked all these except maybe the Van Allen Belt one. I don't know the explanation for that but I'm sure it is som […]
Show full quote

Mythbusters debunked all these except maybe the Van Allen Belt one.
I don't know the explanation for that but I'm sure it is something logical.
Maybe they sent them during a period of weak radiation or had extra shielding
or both. Or maybe there is some other explanation. What gets me is nothing would
ever be good enough for these jokers, you could actually land them on the
damn moon and they'd claim it was virtual reality or hypnotism.

Mythbusters did experiment and debunk some stuff and then enters some aussie punk kid named Jarrah White who calls himself "the grandson of the moon hoax conspiracy theory". This kid is freakin' obnoxious, developed a habit of filing DMCA attacks against people who released videos debunking him and his arguments are based in pure speculation, probability and in what if scenarios... He himself claims to have debunked and "bust" the mythbusters.

About the Van Allen belts:

NASA was well aware of the radiation belts. The radiation exposure of the astronauts when they crossed the belts was very low, not only they avoided the more intense radiation areas they were also only there for 2 hours or so plus 2 hours more when they returned. That total exposure is less than someone working in a nuclear plant is allowed to received by the health authorities. The main problem was solar flares, and on that NASA kinda had to "roll the dice" and make a best guess about when should be the right time to send guys to the moon. That's why smart people work in NASA. Like what Stiletto said, the scale of this project was simply too big, and some of the best nerds of the world at that time worked on the Apollo project.

People don't seem to understand that it was actually easier to go to the moon and back than faking the whole thing.

That's what pisses me off about this kind of thing, along with the ancient aliens
folks, they completely dismiss human ingenuity.

What is more likely, to me, than aliens building the pyramids or other
ancient monuments that they can't explain using stone-age technology,
is that we aren't the first high-tech human civilization on the planet.
Although I'd think if that were the case, we'd find more ruins or something,
but thousand foot high glaciers would have a pretty good chance at wiping
most evidence away, except for these megalithic structures that are at or
near the equator.

carlostex wrote:

Mythbusters did experiment and debunk some stuff and then enters some aussie punk kid named Jarrah White who calls himself "the […]
Show full quote

snorg wrote:

Mythbusters debunked all these except maybe the Van Allen Belt one. I don't know the explanation for that but I'm sure it is som […]
Show full quote

Mythbusters debunked all these except maybe the Van Allen Belt one.
I don't know the explanation for that but I'm sure it is something logical.
Maybe they sent them during a period of weak radiation or had extra shielding
or both. Or maybe there is some other explanation. What gets me is nothing would
ever be good enough for these jokers, you could actually land them on the
damn moon and they'd claim it was virtual reality or hypnotism.

Mythbusters did experiment and debunk some stuff and then enters some aussie punk kid named Jarrah White who calls himself "the grandson of the moon hoax conspiracy theory". This kid is freakin' obnoxious, developed a habit of filing DMCA attacks against people who released videos debunking him and his arguments are based in pure speculation, probability and in what if scenarios... He himself claims to have debunked and "bust" the mythbusters.

About the Van Allen belts:

NASA was well aware of the radiation belts. The radiation exposure of the astronauts when they crossed the belts was very low, not only they avoided the more intense radiation areas they were also only there for 2 hours or so plus 2 hours more when they returned. That total exposure is less than someone working in a nuclear plant is allowed to received by the health authorities. The main problem was solar flares, and on that NASA kinda had to "roll the dice" and make a best guess about when should be the right time to send guys to the moon. That's why smart people work in NASA. Like what Stiletto said, the scale of this project was simply too big, and some of the best nerds of the world at that time worked on the Apollo project.

People don't seem to understand that it was actually easier to go to the moon and back than faking the whole thing.

Really? Easier than getting a few people in spacesuits together on a soundstage in front of a black backdrop? The Flash Gordon films of the 1930's were more technically complex than the moon walk footage.

sliderider wrote:

Really? Easier than getting a few people in spacesuits together on a soundstage in front of a black backdrop? The Flash Gordon films of the 1930's were more technically complex than the moon walk footage.

Yes really!!! Why is it so hard to believe? How the heck were they gonna simulate vacuum and 1/6th gravity at the same time in a soundstage? Did Kubrick achieve that? Have people take a look how dust behaves when astronauts kick it in the air? And why do the flags only move when astronauts touch them? And why when they move they look nothing like on earth? You need a vacuum for that. And how would they make the astronauts look they were on 1/6th gravity? Shoot them on wires and use high speed cameras? Were high speed cameras available for NASA to use them in 1969?

The Flash Gordon movies from 1930 were more technically complex? Come on, let's be reasonable. How does 2001 look then? Watch the moon shots on 2001 and then watch the lunar EVA's and tell me what is real and what is not.

EDIT: I just remembered something. One can complain that the Apollo EVA videos look crappy, but how were they supposed to take normal cameras to the moon that were to large, heavy and cumbersome just to film in better quality and then expect them to work? Landing on the moon was a big thing, technology had to be adapted for stuff to work properly on the moon.

sliderider wrote:

... explain then, why in all the moon walk footage you can't see any stars in the sky? ...

Look, the ISS is a hoax too!!! 🤣 🤣 🤣

At least good ole Earth looks great in the moon pics 😀 :

Those pics look great. Look how sticky the lunar regolith was, a lot of dust is in the spacesuits. On the moon dust particles are not weathered so they adhere to one another. That's how footprints were so clear and defined. And the lunar dust is dry, very dry.

Soviets would have made it earlier if they didn't have rocket problems 😀
Sergei Korolev was an amazing man.