# Debunking Nonsense



## Zipper730 (Jan 20, 2018)

I'm not sure exactly what the rules are on discussions of this sort, but I'm not a person who believes we never made it to the moon.

However, I do find claims of this sort fascinating, though troubling, as I have a feeling there's some variable is either being misinterpreted, or deliberately miscalculated depending on motive (misguided or insane on one end; malevolent on the other).

I say fascinating because the analysis seems compelling, but troubling in that it seems to fundamentally stand in the face of observed facts because we've demonstrably put objects into orbit ranging from

Various small satellites like Explorer I (US)
Various manned space capsules such as Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (which were certainly put into orbit around Earth even before being sent to the Moon)
High orbital satellites such as Vela which were designed to track nuclear explosions: They reached 73,000 miles up
Put up space stations (humanity as a whole)
Done 135 space shuttle missions (US)
Put up orbital telescopes
GPS systems are dependent on satellites
as well as the fact that the Saturn V had an enormous lifting capacity, and bad ideas need to be challenged, else they'll spread like wildfire.

I figure most members here have the mathematical and physics skill to determine where an error lies as I'm not a math or physics expert, and my knowledge of rocket propulsion is not the best.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 23, 2018)

> bad ideas need to be challenged, else they'll spread like wildfire.



Yep, sure thing, but that's already happened. The problem with the moon conspiracy theorists is they have based their entire argument on the flimsiest of evidence, and there is a wealth of evidence to prove that we've sent 12 men to the moon and got them back safely. Firstly, there's the effort to get them there. You have to start with the Mercury programme, then Gemini, then of course there's the development of the hardware, those big Saturn rockets, first the 1Bs, then the gigantic Vs. Why go to all that effort and _not_ try and get there?

And if you are going to fake it, at what point do you begin the ruse? After reaching orbit? They couldn't fake the rockets taking off, so did they stay in orbit, or did they head for the moon? Once you're in orbit of course, you have everything you need to get to the moon, so why not go that far? And then if you have found yourself inadvertently in lunar orbit, why not go down there? They practised it enough.

Next thing is, why fake it _six_ times? Why not only two times or even once? And what about Apollo 13? Was that faked too? If so, why? And if it wasn't faked, why not cover it up if the actual moon landings were fake? The entire reason why the conspiracy theorists choose to believe the landings were fake is because they believe we couldn't actually get there. Apollo 13 provides the evidence they need to prove their point, but instead, it was not covered up; it was televised around the world. Doesn't make sense to cover up not being able to reach the moon and not cover up Apollo 13.

Let's also involve the Russians, who did try to get to the moon, but two of their big rockets exploded. They could have faked it, but didn't. Why could they have faked it? Because they were not completely honest about Gagarin's return to earth on his first flight. Originally, it was reported that he stayed with his capsule on landing, but it turns out he parachuted out of it before it returned to earth. Although this is a minor and irrelevant issue, it illustrates that the Soviets deliberately chose to misinform the world of their achievement, whilst not taking anything away from Gagarin, of course. So, the Soviets could have faked a moon landing but didn't. They had also been preparing for some time and had developed the hardware to land on the moon, too, but didn't fake it. This then raises the question of why the Americans might have done so, when they had everything at their disposal to actually reach the moon?

I had this discussion with a theorist once - left him flummoxed - somewhat surprisingly, he didn't know a thing about the actual moon missions or the hardware, or the enormous effort that went into planning it all, so I was able to shoot him down within minutes.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 23, 2018)

It is hard to convince an unreasonable person regardless of the facts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2018)

To quote the immortal General Sir Anthony Hogmanay Melchett, "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIJ92NbW82M_

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 23, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, sure thing, but that's already happened.


Of course: I figure being able to properly analyze the data would be able to at least prove what can be done; If it can be done, then it raises a question: Why wouldn't they do it?

Debating isn't just about changing a person's mind but affecting the bystanders watching the debate.


> Let's also involve the Russians, who did try to get to the moon, but two of their big rockets exploded.


Had to do with vibrational resonances from all those little motors.


> Because they were not completely honest about Gagarin's return to earth on his first flight. Originally, it was reported that he stayed with his capsule on landing, but it turns out he parachuted out of it before it returned to earth.


Fascinating -- I never knew that.



vikingBerserker said:


> It is hard to convince an unreasonable person regardless of the facts.


Not always about directly convincing them: In debates you aren't necessarily trying to convert the person you are debating, but the bystanders.


----------



## herman1rg (Jan 24, 2018)

But fun

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 24, 2018)

I have found that for many conspiracy theories, the "proof" is the lack thereof.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 24, 2018)

We live in a world where advertising revenue is based on "clicks" and so any stupid theory that generates "clicks" is actually encouraged. Pointing out the truth increases the revenue that the theorist receives. The BS below has been published twice by the same paper.

Are NASA lying to us? Moon is only 4 MILES from Earth claims shock 'evidence'


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2018)

Interesting article on this topic from the BBC:

The enduring appeal of conspiracy theories

Notably, efforts to persuade conspiracy theorists usually fail because they perceive that (a) they're smarter or better informed than you or (b) you're in on the conspiracy. Since it's impossible to prove a negative, you can never win that argument. Thankfully people are actually studying this topic and trying to find ways to reduce the impact of fake conspiracy theories...but I fear it will be decades before we make any real progress, and even then....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 24, 2018)

My view.
Internet is to blame. Problem is idiot in moms basement believes stupid. Finds other idiot who believes stupid. So idiots can be stupid together and push stupid through.
When I was younger we kinda took TV and newspapers at face value, as genuine. But now any nitwit can have a YouTube page and just produce garbage. And if it matches idiot garbage it reinforces thier nonsense.
Can I tell ya something real which is not a conspiracy? Shall I?
Ok...the UK once had a jetliner that could fly 60,000ft and could go Mach 2! No really! That is a joke! No way. Where's the proof?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 25, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> However, I do find claims of this sort fascinating, though troubling[



His name is Anders Bjorkman and he goes on many forums by the name of *Heiwa *- and eventually banned on all of them.

Example...

So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

I'd also like to recommend to you a good book that gives some insight into why people like him exist and why they have followers...


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 25, 2018)

The Basket said:


> My view.
> Internet is to blame. Problem is idiot in moms basement believes stupid. Finds other idiot who believes stupid. So idiots can be stupid together and push stupid through.
> When I was younger we kinda took TV and newspapers at face value, as genuine. But now any nitwit can have a YouTube page and just produce garbage. And if it matches idiot garbage it reinforces thier nonsense.
> Can I tell ya something real which is not a conspiracy? Shall I?
> Ok...the UK once had a jetliner that could fly 60,000ft and could go Mach 2! No really! That is a joke! No way. Where's the proof?



I think there are two sorts of conspiracy theorists: those who disbelieve facts because of ideological reasons, _i.e._, Holocaust deniers,, climate change deniers, birthers, and the daniken-ites who think that pre-20th Century people were too stupid to do things like, oh, move large rocks (our failure to understand _how_ is not evidence of their incompetence), and people who receive comfort from believing that there's some malign, clandestine overlords that are screwing everything else instead of just us.

You won't get rid of conspiracy advocates because they want to believe everybody else is as stupid as they are, and the Internet has been making it easier for them to reach out to each other than ever before. Every conspiracy that gets uncovered, from the czarist secret police publishing anti-semitic literature (the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_) to the Boston FBI office protecting Whitey Bulger gives them proof of their conspiracy theory that gingers are alien androids intent on wiping out the Danes*.



----------------

* No doubt one of the less bright will see this in a google search and start touting it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I think there are two sorts of conspiracy theorists: those who disbelieve facts because of ideological reasons, _i.e._, Holocaust deniers,, climate change deniers, birthers, and the daniken-ites who think that pre-20th Century people were too stupid to do things like, oh, move large rocks (our failure to understand _how_ is not evidence of their incompetence), and people who receive comfort from believing that there's some malign, clandestine overlords that are screwing everything else instead of just us.
> 
> You won't get rid of conspiracy advocates because they want to believe everybody else is as stupid as they are, and the Internet has been making it easier for them to reach out to each other than ever before. Every conspiracy that gets uncovered, from the czarist secret police publishing anti-semitic literature (the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_) to the Boston FBI office protecting Whitey Bulger gives them proof of their conspiracy theory that gingers are alien androids intent on wiping out the Danes*.
> 
> ...


I remember as a child reading about the statues on Easter Island. All accounts stated that no one knew how the statues there were made and erected. Then someone went to Easter Island and asked the islanders living there, it is really quite simple. 

For my twopence worth, I don't believe Stonehenge was purely for religious rites or that what we see is any more than the base of a huge covered building. My completely non scientific theory is based on visiting in February, it was fffffing freezing with no shelter at all.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 25, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I remember as a child reading about the statues on Easter Island. All accounts stated that no one knew how the statues there were made and erected. Then someone went to Easter Island and asked the islanders living there, it is really quite simple.



I think a lot of the "they couldn't have done that...." conspiracies are, at their core, racist: we, modern European people can't figure this out (although our medieval ancestors probably could) so those black|brown|yellow people obviously couldn't.



> For my twopence worth, I don't believe Stonehenge was purely for religious rites or that what we see is any more than the base of a huge covered building. My completely non scientific theory is based on visiting in February, it was fffffing freezing with no shelter at all.



My exposure to Stonehenge was marginally; it was closed that day. Boy, though, one doesn't expect quite that much empty in England as there is on the Salisbury Plain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 25, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Boy, though, one doesn't expect quite that much empty in England as there is on the Salisbury Plain.



That's because The Plain is largely inhabited by Pongoes* and no civilized human being would go within several country miles of said creatures.

* Explanation: Pong = English slang meaning a bad smell. There's a saying that "where the Army goes, the pong goes"...ergo Army/Soldiers = Pongoes.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I think a lot of the "they couldn't have done that...." conspiracies are, at their core, racist: we, modern European people can't figure this out (although our medieval ancestors probably could) so those black|brown|yellow people obviously couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> My exposure to Stonehenge was marginally; it was closed that day. Boy, though, one doesn't expect quite that much empty in England as there is on the Salisbury Plain.


I don't think it is racist because they still say the same about Stonehenge. Not the erecting of the stones but their transportation. The archaelogists find it very hard to admit that the people who did it were very clever and organised. I have visited many such places and everything unknown is explained as a "religious rite", They never consider that buildings and burials were orientated North South or East West because it looks tidy or makes best use of the light and space. To me " a primitive religious rite" means "I don't know, and cant think of anything except religion".

Salisbury plain is wild in winter, the present day "druids" have a bit of a party on 21 December then get into their heated cars and go home, they don't spend a few weeks there getting soaked and dying of exposure.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 25, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I don't think it is racist because they still say the same about Stonehenge. Not the erecting of the stones but their transportation. The archaelogists find it very hard to admit that the people who did it were very clever and organised. I have visited many such places and everything unknown is explained as a "religious rite", They never consider that buildings and burials were orientated North South or East West because it looks tidy or makes best use of the light and space. To me " a primitive religious rite" means "I don't know, and cant think of anything except religion".
> 
> Salisbury plain is wild in winter, the present day "druids" have a bit of a party on 21 December then get into their heated cars and go home, they don't spend a few weeks there getting soaked and dying of exposure.




Well, I did say "a lot," not "all." I won't get into modern druids. One of the Roman Empire's less-well publicized bits of genocide is the extermination of the Druid priests. Since the Druids didn't write down their equivalent of scripture -- it was passed down by the priests -- modern druidism is based on Roman writings and modern invention.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Well, I did say "a lot," not "all."


I think a lot of it is envy, despite what is achieved in the modern age, no one could think of constructing something like the Pyramids, terracotta army or Taj Mahal, just for one persons burial, no one is that powerful any more.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 25, 2018)

The Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick but he was such a perfectionist he filmed it on location

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 25, 2018)

I also think it does a great disservice to the people who conceived, designed, built and flew the Mercury - Gemini - Apollo programs when the theorists start spinning their bullsh!t.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 25, 2018)

It matched a certain individuals prejudice to accept conspiracy theories. Either to show they're right or to prove that whitey is keeping them down.
It isn't nonsense if you believe it.
I love the idea of some agency reading my emails and my internet history. That guy has a boring job and as he is reading this I hope he has a good night.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

One thing I noticed with "theorists" about 911 is they get hold of a fact from people they trust and it trumps all other facts, even ones they know to be true. 
Steel melts at 1400C and so the towers must have been brought down by explosives because the fires were never hotter than 1100C says the "theorist" completely disregarding what everyone knows about a blacksmith making a horse shoe, steel does not have to melt to have no strength at all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jimbob (Jan 25, 2018)

Just think of the numbers of people involved in a fake moon landing. That many people couldn't keep a secret that big for so long.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

Jimbob said:


> Just think of the numbers of people involved in a fake moon landing. That many people couldn't keep a secret that big for so long.


They could, because they were all involved in the da Vinci code, just a test run before world domination is achieved.


----------



## Jimbob (Jan 25, 2018)

I stand corrected. Though I am reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said about people and secrets.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 25, 2018)

One has to ask, in an age where people over-share to an AMAZING extent - "Here's what I'm having for breakfast....This is what I look like the morning after...Here's a pic of my new "private" tattoo...Here's a pic of the cup of coffee I'm drinking" etc...etc....etc (ad nauseam) - how is it even possible that ANY conspiracies could be maintained when the vast majority of the population just can't wait to post something on social media or leak it to the press?

Ontop of that, we have all these "geniuses" out there "discovering" the conspiracies and blaring them all over the interwebby-thingy. Frankly, it's amazing there are ANY secrets left ANYWHERE!


----------



## The Basket (Jan 25, 2018)

I fall for it. When someone says the SMLE suffered rimlock or don't do mud I'm like you lie!!! How dare you insult my national rifle! I don't care! Having a bee in your bonnet is certainly a hobby.
Facts are downright inconvenient if they don't match so invent new facts.
It was said that once technology becomes so sophisticated it then becomes magic. And our brains are only built to find bananas and which tree to find bananas. We cannot comprehend the world around us so we make stuff up. Stuff that comforts us.


----------



## Jimbob (Jan 25, 2018)

Popcorn is magic if you don't know how it works.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

Jimbob said:


> I stand corrected. Though I am reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said about people and secrets.


Bletchley Park was kept secret for decades despite 5,000 people working there and possibly more in USA, however there weren't masses of people discussing German encryption machines at the time.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 25, 2018)

But even that comes out eventually.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 25, 2018)

Graeme said:


> His name is Anders Bjorkman and he goes on many forums by the name of *Heiwa *- and eventually banned on all of them.


Why would this guy go through all this effort to deceive so many people? It doesn't seem to serve any goal of his, unless he just likes seeing what he can get people to believe?


> So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?


This is an interesting website because it involves various types of individuals with physics knowledge and engineering knowledge to effectively illustrate why the moon landings were not hoaxes: Effectively debunking the nonsense I was talking about.


> I'd also like to recommend to you a good book that gives some insight into why people like him exist and why they have followers...


When it comes to conspiracy theories, I've never really subscribed to the notion that people like a "simple world where everything can be easily explained" as opposed to a series of seemingly random events.

Honestly, when it comes to certain types of corruption by high finance (which admittedly is not really a theory anymore): It'd be more comforting for one to believe much of the problems in the world are caused by chaotic interactions between various groups of people with a whole shitload of different ideologies and viewpoints, than a few hundred well connected people able to adroitly manipulate with stunning effectiveness, the bulk of humanity.

I generally assume that there are some actions that are the result of conspiracies, others that are just the result of unfortunate circumstances.



swampyankee said:


> I think there are two sorts of conspiracy theorists: those who disbelieve facts because of ideological reasons, _i.e._, Holocaust deniers


Yeah, they basically believe that if only they could get the whole world to forget about that whole holocaust thing, they could bring Nazism back...


> climate change deniers


That's based on both ideology (status quo), or fear over groups aimed at asserting global governance through the fear of climate change.


> birthers


Largely racism, but it has also been used to fear-monger people who don't know any better. 

Honestly, it's kind of amazing the stuff that's spread about Obama

He's a socialist
He's a Communist
He's a white-hating Christian
He's a secret Muslim
There's all sorts of contradictions here: While a person can hate white people or black people regardless of religious or political affiliation, and one can be a socialist and a Communist; one cannot be a Christian and Muslim simultaneously, as the beliefs as to the role of Jesus Christ are mutually exclusive; It is not possible to be a Communist and a Muslim or Christian because Communists do not believe in a god (they believe it's the opiate of the masses); While a person could theoretically be a Communist, pretending to be a Muslim, who then pretends to be a Christian, it requires a bit of mental gymnastics that verge on a person being a sort of double-reverse quadruple-agent (which might also be a sex position and wrestling move): It seems easier to just be a Socialist & Communist, pretending to be a Christian to some, and a Muslim to others (which is a triple agent -- loyal to one side, plays for three teams).


> daniken-ites


I never heard of these people before, but that's more ignorance than ideology...


> Every conspiracy that gets uncovered, from the czarist secret police publishing anti-semitic literature (the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_) to the Boston FBI office protecting Whitey Bulger gives them proof of their conspiracy theory that gingers are alien androids intent on wiping out the Danes*.


Well...

Firstly: Most red-heads *are* Scandinavian, so it would be ridiculous that red-headed people are alien-androids aimed at wiping out Danish people (who are Scandinavian).
Secondly: With genuine conspiracies being uncovered, it's vital to be able to distinguish the actual ones from those that are nonsense.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 25, 2018)

My middle son is a red head. When he emerges from his room first thing in the morning, he looks like an alien.

Does that count? I guess I'm now part of the conspiracy!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I never heard of these people before, but that's more ignorance than ideology...



*Erich von Däniken 
*
and to some people it is an ideology  

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like _Chariots of the Gods?_ in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.[18]

— Carl Sagan, Foreword to _The Space Gods Revealed_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I love the idea of some agency reading my emails and my internet history. That guy has a boring job and as he is reading this I hope he has a good night.



Nope, not happening. No intelligence agency has enough personnel to examine everyone's emails, phone messages etc. Yes, our web transactions are monitored, but it's all done with algorithms that match individual words and phrases, which will cause alarm bells to ring if the right/wrong combination is produced. Only then do people get involved. Sorry, you're just not that special, that is, unless you are a terrorist or paedophile.



> we have all these "geniuses" out there "discovering" the conspiracies and blaring them all over the interwebby-thingy.



Thing is, conspiracy theories have been around for a lot longer than the internet has. What has changed is the means of conveying information, just like the invention of the printing press, telephone, TV etc; the internet is just another form of broadcasting and people will always take advantage of each new media to spread misinformation.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2018)

thought this was interesting

https://nerdist.com/still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked-heres-more-proof-they-werent/



The rubbish arguments supposedly supporting the hoax supporters....

Reasons why man has never gone to the moon


Satellite photo of the Apollo 16 landing site....taken by the Russians I believe.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 26, 2018)

Some top BS in that attachment Parsival. Starting with, Apollo didn't land on the moon because Nixon was President and descending down hill from there. 

Often forgotten or not even known by the younger generation is that the Russians also landed unmanned explorers on the moon.
Lunokhod 1 - Wikipedia


The final location of _Lunokhod 1_ was uncertain until 2010, as lunar laser ranging experiments had failed to detect a return signal from it since 1971. On March 17, 2010, Albert Abdrakhimov found both the lander and the rover[3] in Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter image M114185541RC.[4] In April 2010, the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) team from the University of California at San Diego used the LRO images to locate the orbiter closely enough for laser range (distance) measurements. On April 22, 2010 and days following, the team successfully measured the distance several times. The intersection of the spheres described by the measured distances then pinpoint the current location of Lunokhod 1 to within 1 meter.[5][6] APOLLO is now using _Lunokhod 1_'s reflector for experiments, as they discovered, to their surprise, that it was returning much more light than other reflectors on the Moon. According to a NASA press release, APOLLO researcher Tom Murphy said, "We got about 2,000 photons from Lunokhod 1 on our first try. After almost 40 years of silence, this rover still has a lot to say."[7]

By November 2010, the location of the rover had been determined to within about a centimeter. The location near the limb of the Moon, combined with the ability to range the rover even when it is in sunlight, promises to be particularly useful for determining aspects of the Earth-Moon system.[8]

In a report released in May 2013, French scientists at the Cote d'Azur Observatory led by Jean-Marie Torre reported replicating the 2010 laser ranging experiments by American scientists after research using images from the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. In both cases, laser pulses were returned from the _Lunokhod 1_ retroreflector.[9]


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> *Erich von Däniken*


He's an idiot: We appear smarter because we have all the knowledge that has been accumulated.



nuuumannn said:


> Nope, not happening. No intelligence agency has enough personnel to examine everyone's emails, phone messages etc.


But they have been archiving all our e-mails, phone-calls and internet activity.

The purpose is both to identify present threats, as well as data-mining, which is ultimately aimed at creating something not entirely dissimilar to Minority Report.


> Sorry, you're just not that special


The problem is that it's ubiquitous surveillance without any suspicion of wrongdoing.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 26, 2018)

One rather obvious sanity check on the Moon Landing conspiracies: the USSR would have _so _much fun exposing it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 26, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One rather obvious sanity check on the Moon Landing conspiracies: the USSR would have _so _much fun exposing it.



Very true.
From a scrapbook dedicated to APOLLO 11 which my older brother and I made in 1969.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 26, 2018)

Note how the "spaceman" continues to move *slowly* in his attempt to catch Bond....I like that kind of dedication to the role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 27, 2018)

Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope in the UK and Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia tracked the Apollo 11 mission and recorded all the telemetry, I can guarantee there was a Radio Telescope in the Soviet Union doing the same. To fake the Moon Landing you not only keep all the US scientists quiet but you also need to keep British, Australian, Soviet and multiple other nations scientists quiet. Theres only one thing scientists love more than talking about themselves and that is talking about their work.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope in the UK and Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia tracked the Apollo 11 mission and recorded all the telemetry, I can guarantee there was a Radio Telescope in the Soviet Union doing the same. To fake the Moon Landing you not only keep all the US scientists quiet but you also need to keep British, Australian, Soviet and multiple other nations scientists quiet. Theres only one thing scientists love more than talking about themselves and that is talking about their work.


Scientists love discrediting other scientists most of all.

By the time of Apollo 11 there were many amateur "hams" with equipment capable of receiving transmissions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

