One giant ... lie? Why so many people still think the moon landings were faked

The Guardian ^ | 07-10-2019 | Richard Godwin

[Campion]

When you achieve something stupendous then immediately turn away from it because - as a nation - you feel guilt over those unable to do it

We "turned away from it" because it cost $4 billion per trip in 1973 dollars. Technology that doesn't pay for itself goes away when someone stops signing the checks, see the Concorde for an example.

[dufus]

We’ve been back 5 times! We landed on the moon on July 20th, 1969 and went back to it 5 more times. The last time being December 14th, 1972, more than 3 years after the first landing. People that say we never went back are a little slow in my opinion.

[dp0622]

THAT was funny :)

[pfflier]

There are a few people that I know that have “Never met a conspiracy theory they didn’t like”. Frankly they scare me .

[Ezekiel]

Isn’t that the guy that Buzz Aldrin punched out for relentlessly harassing him?

That was Bart Sibrel, a man of the same material.<<<

It's not too late! Go Buzz!

[kosciusko51]

I’ve seen some FReepers, who appear to be serious, post that it is a hoax.

[C210N]

How anyone thinks that could be faked even halfway convincingly is just insane.

Like liberals, those that doubt the moon landings just are spouting something about which they know nothing. There is SO much data, so many transcripts, so many pictures, so much film, so many problems found, dealt with, solved, so much history (apollo 13, gemini/mercury/x1/x15)... it's just easier for the small-brained to just slough it off to being fake.

Liberals are like this in everything they do, ignoring all the data on the pre-born, ignoring what we know about capitalism, Constitutions, islam, and on and on

[Sybeck1]

So Grissom, White, and Chaffee died preparing for a hoax? I know they didn’t

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks NRx.

[Campion]

How anyone thinks that could be faked even halfway convincingly is just insane. It isn’t possible.

There's an interesting youtube video by a professional movie cameraman. He makes the argument that the moonfake people have it exactly wrong: we didn't have the cinematographic technology in 1969 to make a convincing *fake* moon landing.

[Ezekiel]

My wife just told me that they are going to be projecting the Saturn V rocket on the Washington Monument every evening next week to celebrate the “hoax.”

So excellent! Thanks for dropping that info in here. I didn't know about that.

***

Apollo 11 Anniversary: The Washington Monument Will 'Blast off' on July 16

To commemorate the moon landing, a 363-foot projection will make it look like the Washington Monument is taking off into space.

>>>

'Liftoff' schedule

The virtual rocket is set to first appear on July 16, the anniversary of Apollo 11's launch in 1969. For two hours, over the next two nights, the Saturn V projection will appear on the side of the Washington Monument.

https://interestingengineering.com/apollo-11-anniversary-the-washington-monument-will-blast-off-on-july-16

[Responsibility2nd]

I find conspiracy theories fascinating. The wilder and weirder - the better.

And the conspiracy theories put forth by our own US government?

Some of the best ever!

[equaviator]

Some people don’t want to believe that something so great, so cool and so American could’ve happened without their having been born yet.

[al_c]

Just took a vacation to Florida that included a day at Kennedy Space Center. So much nerd fun! Walking along the Saturn V display was amazing. And the Atlantis shuttle ... absolutely breath-taking.

[pepsi_junkie]

We haven’t demonstrated the ability to go back because we don’t have that ability. NASA said once that if we wanted to we’d have to start from scratch and it would take something like 25 years. To which many, myself included, asked “wait, why did it only take like 8 years in the 60? And why not just use the plans from the one that worked and make one of them?” On the surface it sounds suspicious but probably the answer is “well, with current environmental rules we’d have to invent brand new materials that are eco-friendly and have the unique properties of the ones we can no longer legally use.” And like most eco-friendly substitutes, they’d be far inferior and probably more than a little dangerous.

[bantam]

I always wondered where the ground based telescope pics of the landing site were/are??
Are there any?

[cyclotic]

I haven’t been there in years. My son, the space geek went a couple years ago with some buddies.

They were jealous since his NASA credentials allowed him full access to the entire base. He said he drove up to the launch pad and walked around.

Super cool.

He’s on the flight operations team for a satellite array.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I remember 1968, or 1969. The magazine SCIENCE AND MECHANICS had several articles about how the Soviet space program was a fake, and Gargarin never went into space.

The magazine should have been called FABRICATIONS AND MECHANICS.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Maybe the saw CAPRICORN ONE (1977).

[Campion]

NASA said once that if we wanted to we’d have to start from scratch and it would take something like 25 years. To which many, myself included, asked “wait, why did it only take like 8 years in the 60?

I don't know where the 25 year number came from, but it depends heavily on how much money you're willing to spend and how fast you're willing to spend it.

It took longer than 8 years the first time, BTW. The Saturn V was in the planning phase in the late 1950's. It was easily 12 years from the beginning of the R&D to the first landing.

Why can't we build one again? Well, in part because the Saturn V is very old technology which was mostly hand-assembled by skilled craftsmen. We don't build stuff that way anymore, and we could build a much better rocket for much less money by using modern technology, computer-aided design, etc.

I said "less money," though, not "for free".