The Moon Landing Hoax Theory Tested On The Science Channel

20 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
The people investigating this are a conspiracy theorist, an ex FBI forensics expert and an Astronaut who was on the space shuttle.

It will run for several episodes.

In the first part the Conspiracy theorist took the others to see a retired journalist who had de-classified documents which proved that the predecessor to NASA shipped over 1500 Nazi scientists who worked on German rockets during the war. All but one were cleared of any wrongdoing during the war and were just scientists

The exception was the main man, Wernher Von Braun who was a member of the SS. Apparently the Americans glossed over this, keen to get him, they wanted to trump Russia in the space race. He was very instrumental in getting things going.

The other two in the team were impressed at showing the NASA lot could be dishonest but it did not prove we never went to the Moon.

The second investigation was about the Astronaut's not being able to get through the Van Allen belt in such a thin walled craft without being fried. They visited the original Apollo 11 capsule and it was found to be only 3" thick. Two metal layers with insulation between.

The conspiracy theorist was taken to a lab where an experiment was done, the amount of radiation was scaled down proportionately to show that just a 3 mm sheet of metal blocked out 99 percent of it. The Conspiracy Theorist conceded defeat on that one. We can safely get through The Van Allen Belt.

Should be interesting to see what else is thrown up.
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    The conspiracy theorist was taken to a lab where an experiment was done, the amount of radiation was scaled down proportionately to show that just a 3 mm sheet of metal blocked out 99 percent of it. The Conspiracy Theorist conceded defeat on that one. We can safely get through The Van Allen Belt.

    Should be interesting to see what else is thrown up.
    Conspiracy theorist or fanatic, was taken to a lab and conceded defeat, did l hear that correctly?

    I thought that all of these nutters made up the rules as they went alone and regardless of any solid evidence presented to them where Never wrong!

    At least they are the kind of nutcases l am getting on another forum,.............

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516027].message }}
  • Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    The people investigating this are a conspiracy theorist, an ex FBI forensics expert and an Astronaut who was on the space shuttle.

    It will run for several episodes.

    In the first part the Conspiracy theorist took the others to see a retired journalist who had de-classified documents which proved that the predecessor to NASA shipped over 1500 Nazi scientists who worked on German rockets during the war. All but one were cleared of any wrongdoing during the war and were just scientists

    The exception was the main man, Wernher Von Braun who was a member of the SS. Apparently the Americans glossed over this, keen to get him, they wanted to trump Russia in the space race. He was very instrumental in getting things going.

    The other two in the team were impressed at showing the NASA lot could be dishonest but it did not prove we never went to the Moon.

    The second investigation was about the Astronaut's not being able to get through the Van Allen belt in such a thin walled craft without being fried. They visited the original Apollo 11 capsule and it was found to be only 3" thick. Two metal layers with insulation between.

    The conspiracy theorist was taken to a lab where an experiment was done, the amount of radiation was scaled down proportionately to show that just a 3 mm sheet of metal blocked out 99 percent of it. The Conspiracy Theorist conceded defeat on that one. We can safely get through The Van Allen Belt.

    Should be interesting to see what else is thrown up.
    It's this kind of programming that makes the "Science" channel look bad. Conspiracy "theories' have mass appeal, but they are science in the same way professional wrestling is a sport.

    These ideas attract the illiterate and the mentally unstable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516142].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post


      These ideas attract the illiterate and the mentally unstable.
      Obviously, you watched it then.
      Signature

      If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516154].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

      It's this kind of programming that makes the "Science" channel look bad. Conspiracy "theories' have mass appeal, but they are science in the same way professional wrestling is a sport.

      These ideas attract the illiterate and the mentally unstable.
      To be fair, the impression I get from this one is that it's going to be a total de-bunk.

      I totally believe that the moon landings were for real and we walked and rode on the moon multiple times.

      I have only a couple of issues. One was that the camera's used to film, take pictures and for the live feed was insufficiently protected to block effects from the sun's radiation. Another, the awful picture seen on our tv's for Apollo 11 was due to the fact we had to put a camera in front of the monitor at NASA, hence the degraded picture. Why did we not get a live feed?

      Due to the need to justify the costs it was essential that NASA had something to show the public. To that end, I would have not have put it past them to have built a set mock up somewhere to use in the event that the above were true. If they had to use it or not is totally debatable.

      Apollo 12 had no live footage, 13 failed. When 14, 15, 16, and 17 were shown live, the image quality was considerably better.
      Signature

      Where ever you go, there you are.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516160].message }}
      • Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        Why did we not get a live feed?

        Because one of the astronauts could have said something embarrassing, or could have died on camera.

        Even later, live feeds have a slight delay for similar reasons.

        About debunking the 'Fake landing".

        I suppose it may be a service, but it won't make any difference.

        Conspiracy theorists have one thing in common....they love their conspiracy. No amount of evidence will sway them.

        The same with religious people, people who believe in magic or witchcraft, climate change deniers , anti-vaxers and flat Earthers.

        They didn't arrive at their "theory" by using rational thinking, so they can't be talked out of it with rational arguments.

        Conspiracy theories require imagination, but they also require an ignorance of science and how reason works. It's why these "theories" seem ludicrous to anyone educated...but not involved. They also, in some cases, require some intelligence to follow. I've seen a few 9/11 conspiracy videos that looked compelling. They were well thought out and sophisticated. But they had to ignore several laws of physics, and got several facts wrong in their assessment. (like the temperature of melting steel)

        So...it was the breakdown of their argument that made it unconvincing.

        For example, saying that the Moon landing was faked, in itself, isn't ludicrous. In fact, saying that they actually landed on the Moon, but shot it here on Earth isn't ludicrous.

        But the reasoning I've heard from a conspiracy believer has always been rationally faulty. It's the reasoning itself that makes me discount the idea.

        The only argument like this that I've ever found compelling, is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. And I once read a short article that used reasoning that I couldn't find fault in. It bothers me to this day.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516177].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          Because one of the astronauts could have said something embarrassing, or could have died on camera.

          Even later, live feeds have a slight delay for similar reasons.

          About debunking the 'Fake landing".

          I suppose it may be a service, but it won't make any difference.

          Conspiracy theorists have one thing in common....they love their conspiracy. No amount of evidence will sway them.

          The same with religious people, people who believe in magic or witchcraft, climate change deniers , anti-vaxers and flat Earthers.

          They didn't arrive at their "theory" by using rational thinking, so they can't be talked out of it with rational arguments.

          Conspiracy theories require imagination, but they also require an ignorance of science and how reason works. It's why these "theories" seem ludicrous to anyone educated...but not involved. They also, in some cases, require some intelligence to follow. I've seen a few 9/11 conspiracy videos that looked compelling. They were well thought out and sophisticated. But they had to ignore several laws of physics, and got several facts wrong in their assessment. (like the temperature of melting steel)

          So...it was the breakdown of their argument that made it unconvincing.

          For example, saying that the Moon landing was faked, in itself, isn't ludicrous. In fact, saying that they actually landed on the Moon, but shot it here on Earth isn't ludicrous.

          But the reasoning I've heard from a conspiracy believer has always been rationally faulty. It's the reasoning itself that makes me discount the idea.

          The only argument like this that I've ever found compelling, is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. And I once read a short article that used reasoning that I couldn't find fault in. It bothers me to this day.
          "The only argument like this that I've ever found compelling, is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. And I once read a short article that used reasoning that I couldn't find fault in. It bothers me to this day."

          Ironic is it not, the one thing that you cannot find any fault with that goes against everything you believe and rationalize.. would..

          Totally explain the Mandela Effect (glitches in the programming or an insert), Ghosts, Life After Death, UFO sightings and Copper Bracelets for rheumatism..to name but a few. They would become mundane and inconsequential if we had to accept that the premise was true.
          Signature

          Where ever you go, there you are.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516184].message }}
          • Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            "The only argument like this that I've ever found compelling, is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. And I once read a short article that used reasoning that I couldn't find fault in. It bothers me to this day."

            Ironic is it not, the one thing that you cannot find any fault with that goes against everything you believe and rationalize.. would..

            Totally explain the Mandela Effect (glitches in the programming or an insert), Ghosts, Life After Death, UFO sightings and Copper Bracelets for rheumatism..to name but a few. They would become mundane and inconsequential if we had to accept that the premise was true.
            To be clear, it was a short article that I read years ago, that I cannot find (and I have tried).

            A mistake in logic is...If I can't find a mistake in the reasoning, then it must be true. Nope, it only means that the reasoning is faultless. It's also possible that the reasoning was faulty, but I didn't see it.

            The flaw in your reasoning is that...if this were a simulation, then the laws of physics would also be programmed in the simulation. And these laws prohibit the existence of Ghosts, Life After Death, and Copper Bracelets actually curing rheumatism.

            UFO sighting can be real, but they can also usually be explained. And every explanation that has been proven true, excludes aliens.

            It would be possible to program a computer simulation (I assume) that allowed for the existence of Ghosts, Life After Death, and Copper Bracelets actually curing rheumatism.....but for these things to be real, all reality and science would be different. Math would be different, and all the laws of physics would be different than they are here and now.

            As far as the Mandela effect. Literally every example you've shown us is instantly explained and debunked. It's your own pet theory that you refuse to let go.

            Computer simulation or not, the Mandela effect is nonsense, based on everything you've told us. Does that mean it's not true? Nope. No idea if it's true. But your examples that you post are not convincing at all. At least so far.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516193].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              To be clear, it was a short article that I read years ago, that I cannot find (and I have tried).

              A mistake in logic is...If I can't find a mistake in the reasoning, then it must be true. Nope, it only means that the reasoning is faultless. It's also possible that the reasoning was faulty, but I didn't see it.

              The flaw in your reasoning is that...if this were a simulation, then the laws of physics would also be programmed in the simulation. And these laws prohibit the existence of Ghosts, Life After Death, and Copper Bracelets actually curing rheumatism.

              UFO sighting can be real, but they can also usually be explained. And every explanation that has been proven true, excludes aliens.

              It would be possible to program a computer simulation (I assume) that allowed for the existence of Ghosts, Life After Death, and Copper Bracelets actually curing rheumatism.....but for these things to be real, all reality and science would be different. Math would be different, and all the laws of physics would be different than they are here and now.

              As far as the Mandela effect. Literally every example you've shown us is instantly explained and debunked. It's your own pet theory that you refuse to let go.

              Computer simulation or not, the Mandela effect is nonsense, based on everything you've told us. Does that mean it's not true? Nope. No idea if it's true. But your examples that you post are not convincing at all. At least so far.
              Oh Contraire Monsieur. You take onboard a theory like that and anything is possible. It's whatever the perpetrators feel like putting into the mix. First we have the good solid science side of it that the programmed occupants absorb and learn about, and then they allow us to glimpse anomalies that are largely intangible. to see the reaction from their creations and how it conflicts. Entertainment.

              If it is just a simulation, then you being ridged about it's constructs are frivolous. Arguing for it and saying that even within itself, it has to have just the rules and regulations of the physics we have observed thus far. That is narrow and flawed thinking.

              And for that, your program will be deleted.
              Signature

              Where ever you go, there you are.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516202].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Odahh
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              T

              A mistake in logic is...If I can't find a mistake in the reasoning, then it must be true. Nope, it only means that the reasoning is faultless. It's also possible that the reasoning was faulty, but I didn't see it.

              The flaw in your reasoning is that...if this were a simulation, then the laws of physics would also be programmed in the simulation. And these laws prohibit the existence of Ghosts, Life After Death, and Copper Bracelets actually curing rheumatism.

              .
              it's all a stage.. the stuff is really there .. the simulation happens inside our brains ..as our senses feed us information.. and we use multiple levels of beliefs to tell a story about what is going on around us ..

              someone deep in the belief that pretty much everything is a hoax.. will simulate everything or arrange the facts they believe are fact in ways to support their simulation ..

              i have watched enough Crystal Methodists .. arguing or having a long discusion with the thin air in front of them as if someone was their.. or hear several explain how they have been beemed up into secret government helicopter and had there brains reprogrammed.. or they see the beems comming down from the sky and controlling peoples minds ...

              to figure how easy it is to screw up the simulation capabilities of the human mind.. and have people not even question it ..

              not going into religion here.. but you don't have people from one religion who have near death experiences.. experience the event of a different religion ..the simulation or experience is pretty much based on the modern view of the sect of the religion they are raised in .

              so here is the scary part of the moon landing ..if it was a 100 percent real event ..it mean that our greatest most advanced act as a species.. having members walk on another planetary body.. happened 45 -50 years ago .. and axcept for digital or computer advancements.. hard real world advancements .. pretty much stopped .. or slowed down or have been in reverse sense ..

              for more on that peter theil ..talks about it
              Signature

              "I just wanted a good job ,but i could not find a good job, So i do it myself"-Jack Ma

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

    Obviously, you watched it then.
    A legend in his own mind?

    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    To be fair, the impression I get from this one is that it's going to be a total de-bunk.

    I totally believe that the moon landings were for real and we walked and rode on the moon multiple times.

    I have only a couple of issues. One was that the camera's used to film, take pictures and for the live feed was insufficiently protected to block effects from the sun's radiation. Another, the awful picture seen on our tv's for Apollo 11 was due to the fact we had to put a camera in front of the monitor at NASA, hence the degraded picture. Why did we not get a live feed?

    Due to the need to justify the costs it was essential that NASA had something to show the public. To that end, I would have not have put it past them to have built a set mock up somewhere to use in the event that the above were true. If they had to use it or not is totally debatable.

    Apollo 12 had no live footage, 13 failed. When 14, 15, 16, and 17 were shown live, the image quality was considerably better.
    Yep, l was involved with a similar discussion and images from the moons orbit pretty much confirms it.

    Besides why would Nixon, (sorry political, but l have to say it) write a letter outlining a speech if the astronauts couldn't leave the moon and died there, and also pull the radio and video footage during the run out of oxygen part.

    https://www.space.com/26604-apollo-1...on-speech.html

    This is an actual conspiracy that turned out to be true, later on, and was intentionally hidden from the world, for obvious reasons.

    I thought that we did get a live feed, or the signal was bounced off an Australian radar dish, then sent to you guys, (The Dish, AU movie).

    Not aware of any set, but you can be guaranteed that editing was done, which l guess covers why it wasn't a live feed.

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516174].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    I wonder...how long do you think it would take NASA to safely land people on the moon and bring them back if they absolutely had to do it as quickly as possible?

    And if I were to believe in a conspiracy, I'd be more inclined to believe we've made more landings on the moon than reported, not the other way around.
    Signature
    The very best marketing info. No spam. No email. No BS. Plus lots more!
    Warrior Special Deal: get $5 off with this coupon: wfsocialdeal5
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516223].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      I wonder...how long do you think it would take NASA to safely land people on the moon and bring them back if they absolutely had to do it as quickly as possible?
      It would need the construction of a large enough rocket to carry the payload. NASA would have to build it from scratch, or contract it out to Space X or perhaps the Russians. As to if NASA would build just the payload, I expect so.

      If there was a really valid reason of great importance and money was no object then perhaps 6 months working around the clock. (I'm Speculating)
      Signature

      Where ever you go, there you are.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516227].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        It would need the construction of a large enough rocket to carry the payload. NASA would have to build it from scratch, or contract it out to Space X or perhaps the Russians. As to if NASA would build just the payload, I expect so.

        If there was a really valid reason of great importance and money was no object then perhaps 6 months working around the clock. (I'm Speculating)
        6 months was my guess too. The moon really isn't that far away (about 3 days) and it's a lot harder to leave and land on earth than on the moon. We've landed on a comet which is much harder...it makes me wonder why we haven't returned in 50 years? And why hasn't anyone else even tried?
        Signature
        The very best marketing info. No spam. No email. No BS. Plus lots more!
        Warrior Special Deal: get $5 off with this coupon: wfsocialdeal5
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516231].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          6 months was my guess too. The moon really isn't that far away (about 3 days) and it's a lot harder to leave and land on earth than on the moon. We've landed on a comet which is much harder...it makes me wonder why we haven't returned in 50 years? And why hasn't anyone else even tried?
          You know the conspiracy, if you pay attention to You Tube, we were warned off ever going back there by the aliens. They have their bases there.
          Signature

          Where ever you go, there you are.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516233].message }}
        • Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          ..it makes me wonder why we haven't returned in 50 years? And why hasn't anyone else even tried?
          What would we learn from a new trip to the Moon?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516237].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            What would we learn from a new trip to the Moon?
            A number of things, including things we don't know.


            I think can think of a few reasons including military, scientific, economic, environmental and even tourism.

            One of the economic reasons I saw suggested was because the moon has little gravity/atmosphere it's much easier to take off and land than it is on earth. This could be helpful if we want to mine asteroids for precious materials.
            Signature
            The very best marketing info. No spam. No email. No BS. Plus lots more!
            Warrior Special Deal: get $5 off with this coupon: wfsocialdeal5
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516246].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              A number of things, including things we don't know.


              I think can think of a few reasons including military, scientific, economic, environmental and even tourism.

              One of the economic reasons I saw suggested was because the moon has little gravity/atmosphere it's much easier to take off and land than it is on earth. This could be helpful if we want to mine asteroids for precious materials.
              All those badly parked cars, lander bases and assorted trash we left there. We should go back to clean it up.
              Signature

              Where ever you go, there you are.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516247].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Odahh
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          6 months was my guess too. The moon really isn't that far away (about 3 days) and it's a lot harder to leave and land on earth than on the moon. We've landed on a comet which is much harder...it makes me wonder why we haven't returned in 50 years? And why hasn't anyone else even tried?
          well.. the reason we originally went to the moon .. was because e the Us thought Russia was winning the cold war ..the resources put in where mainly for proving our superiority over russia.. after rssia had early win in the space race ..

          so if you look at going to the moon and the videos released.. as a millitary excersize and an expensive propaganda mission ..

          if we had actually faked the whole thing.. the Ussr and now russia .. would rub our faces in it ...

          but when the ocean.. and 3rd world countries around the world became the battle ground of the cold war.. and Russian was proven not to have the ability to go to the moon or really exploit space ..

          the expense of going to the moon was really not justified anymore ..
          Signature

          "I just wanted a good job ,but i could not find a good job, So i do it myself"-Jack Ma

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516245].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WF- Enzo
    Administrator
    I actually find Moon hoax believers to be really, really ridiculous. Solid evidences have already been shown, but still.


    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    The people investigating this are a conspiracy theorist, an ex FBI forensics expert and an Astronaut who was on the space shuttle.

    It will run for several episodes.

    In the first part the Conspiracy theorist took the others to see a retired journalist who had de-classified documents which proved that the predecessor to NASA shipped over 1500 Nazi scientists who worked on German rockets during the war. All but one were cleared of any wrongdoing during the war and were just scientists

    The exception was the main man, Wernher Von Braun who was a member of the SS. Apparently the Americans glossed over this, keen to get him, they wanted to trump Russia in the space race. He was very instrumental in getting things going.

    The other two in the team were impressed at showing the NASA lot could be dishonest but it did not prove we never went to the Moon.

    The second investigation was about the Astronaut's not being able to get through the Van Allen belt in such a thin walled craft without being fried. They visited the original Apollo 11 capsule and it was found to be only 3" thick. Two metal layers with insulation between.

    The conspiracy theorist was taken to a lab where an experiment was done, the amount of radiation was scaled down proportionately to show that just a 3 mm sheet of metal blocked out 99 percent of it. The Conspiracy Theorist conceded defeat on that one. We can safely get through The Van Allen Belt.

    Should be interesting to see what else is thrown up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    All those badly parked cars, lander bases and assorted trash we left there. We should go back to clean it up.
    Only trouble is those areas will be declared national preservation areas, so future generations can see a pristine example of 20th century tech, and the moon landing bit.

    Have the Moonies Bar and Grille, near one of these monuments, and you are set for life!

    What concerns me more is all of that pollution on Mars, lol!

    M


    And they are sure that they found snoopy or the top stage of the LM, (lunar module)...

    https://news.sky.com/story/snoopy-lu...found-11738299

    But have to wait for Musk to send his rocket there.

    Or a 98% change that they have found it and will have solid evidence of the moon landing.


    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11516306].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics