(Yes, of course I know that’s not the Enterprise-D and that TNG came out in 1986, but you try making a better debunking joke.)

  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    292 days ago

    Also keep in mind that the astronauts communicated with Earth by radio. Anyone with even 1920s radio technology would have figured out that the astronauts weren’t broadcasting from the Moon.

    We were in the middle of a cold war with the soviets back in the 1960s. Proving the moon landing was fake would have been the propaganda coup of the century for them. What possible reason would they have to stay quiet about that?

    • @CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that the moon landing happened but you also claim the footage is faked? Do you have any reasons to support that? You mention something about radio technology from the 1920s, but the moon landing occurred nearly 50 years later, so I hardly see how that is relevant.

      Edit: I misread your comment. Thanks to @turmacar@lemmy.world for pointing it out.

      • @turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        813 hours ago

        No, they’re saying regardless of if the signal was encrypted or whatever format it was in, anyone with a directional antenna could triangulate where the signal was coming from. If there were only a repeater on the moon that NASA was transmitting to that was then sending the signal back, that would also have been able to be determined.

        Both the Russians, who had a vested interest in embarrassing the US, and every other amateur and professional radio operator on the planet agreed that the moon landing was being transmitted from the moon.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      172 days ago

      We were in the middle of a cold war with the soviets back in the 1960s. Proving the moon landing was fake would have been the propaganda coup of the century for them. What possible reason would they have to stay quiet about that?

      That’s always been my number one reason why the moon landing was definitely not faked. The Soviets never caught wind of it between 1969 and 1992? Come on.

      • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 day ago

        Plus we left retroreflectors on the moon, that we can shoot laser beams at and get a return bean back.

        its used to measure the drift of the moon away from earth.

        the lunar reoglith is not reflective enough to bounce a signal back (and its been tested to death)

  • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    642 days ago

    Faking the moon landing would have been a massive coverup requiring the cooperation of at least one foreign nation. (Australia, because of Parkes)

    During the Nixon administration. Nixon couldn’t even cover up one little burglary.

    • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      82 days ago

      This is the one thing that kills me with one of my favorite space movies, interstellar… they have that one scene at the school saying the landings were faked to bankrupt the soviets…like how the fuck did that make it into the movie.

      • @bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        442 days ago

        It’s not there as some commentary by Christopher Nolan that the moon landings didn’t happen. It’s there to show that schools are willing to teach a lie as long as it serves the narrative of “past oppulence is what destroyed our world, so get out there and be a farmer!”

        • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          72 days ago

          O damn never thought of it that way. I went and looked it up further and you’re spot on, it seems it was put into the movie to make people become farmers and not look to space. Basically try and solve the problems on earth.

      • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That was making fun of people who believed things like that. It’s very obvious if you’ve watched the movie.

          • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Asking about that scene in Interstellar? The entire movie is a love letter to NASA and science. What do you mean?

            • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              11 day ago

              I understand it is. It’s one of my favorite sci-fi movies, but like myself and others we were confused with the scene, but others have explained it.

      • Dragon "Rider"(drag)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That guy lady is a silly and you’re supposed to think she’s wrong. She’s teaching lies in order to justify a bad worldview.

  • @Mohaim@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    94
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    My favorite debunking is an old YouTube video called “moon hoax not” where a filmmaker explains that the due to technology limits of the time, faking the multi-hour live broadcasts in slow-motion, which millions of people were watching, would be impossible without there being telltale signs of it being spliced film (the splicing, film grain, etc.). Since slow-mo video (distinct from film; TV broadcasts were video) at the time could not play back more than a few seconds of footage, at most, it would have to be high-speed film played back at normal speed. Assuming you could find or make a high-speed camera fit to task. While the first landing had awful video quality, later missions had much higher quality and the film fakery would be impossible to completely hide. People these days massively overestimate the video (and film) technology that was available in 1969. (IIRC. It’s been years since I’ve last rewatched it.)

    Edit: TL;DR: Perfectly faking the multi-hour uninterrupted video broadcasts (i.e., either inventing slow-motion video that can last hours, or perfectly passing off a multi-hour film as video) in slow-motion would have been significantly more difficult than sending humans to the moon with 1969 technology.

  • @beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    59
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Fake moon landing, aliens built the pyramids why do some conspiracy theories insist on robbing humans of their monumental achievements. My guess is that people who create and share conspiracies like those are too dumb to realize that other people have different knowledge than they do.

  • @BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    26
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Wasn’t 2001 also made at that time? As I recall, that was incredibly realistic (mostly), far more so than a cheap TV show

    (Not saying that 2001 is proof, just that ToS isn’t a great comparison)

    • @SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      2001 came out in 1968, so a year before the actual moon landing. As long as you were economical with your shots, you could definitely do some realistic-looking microgravity and spaceships with 60s tech - what you couldn’t do with 60s tech, as a commenter above pointed out, was a long flat shot of people moving convincingly on the lunar surface, which is what the Apollo films show.

      • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        52 days ago

        2001 came out in 1968, so a year before the actual moon landing

        Haha! So it was the test for how realistic they’d get it. I knew it!

    • @Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      152 days ago

      Similarly to the conspiracy that inspires this meme, the meme itself also doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

  • @TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    11
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The problem with moon landings isn’t that they can’t be done, it’s that they are dangerous as shit, with little reward. You’d get a better deal out of being sent to a remote desert island.

    • @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      113 hours ago

      So your saying the return to the moon should not be for science but instead be a reality tv show?

      I like how you think kid.

      Temptation Moon 9pm/8central

    • @Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      112 days ago

      To orbit the moon, a space craft needs to move at about 1.5 km/s, or 3300 miles per hour.

      So any landing starts with you going at 1.5 km/s and needs to end at the moons surface when you reach about 0 meters per second.

      If anything goes wrong with your engines while you slow down, you smack into the moon at either near orbital speeds, or at fighter jet speeds. The window for having an engine failure and being slow enough to survive is so narrow that it might as well not exist.

      That’s why Apollo used pressure fed, self igniting engines. As long as 2 valves opened, you had an engine. And Apollo landers had a totally separate ascent engine that worked exactly the same way, so if the landing engine failed, they could just drop the landing stage and return to orbit at practically any time during the descent. They even had a whole procedure of what to do if the ascent engine didn’t light when they were supposed to leave. Everything from jump starting the engine like a car with a dead battery, to physically getting access to the valves and manually opening them.

      I hate the current plan for Artemis. I hate that in 55 years, we’ve only managed to make shit more complicated. The current plan is for a vehicle with no abort capability to ignite its 3 turbo pumped, liquid methane fueled engines at least 4 times to get from low earth orbit to the moons surface, with days between ignitions.

      A capability that has never been shown to work or even exist in any capacity. Turbo pumps are finally machined pieces of engineering that need to behave exactly right, or they turn a rocket into either a bomb, or a giant tube that can’t move. And the current plan for Artemis calls for these finely crafted pieces of machinery to be subjected to the harsh environment of both space where they’ll sit for at least a week, and multiple ignitions, where they’re subjected to ridiculous temperatures and pressures.

      Absolutely ridiculous. We never left an astronaut on the moon in the 60s and 70s, but by god are they trying to open the first graveyard on the moon these days.

  • Rhaedas
    link
    fedilink
    102 days ago

    However, for its time TOS effects were often really good. People expected the typical B-movie styles but got believable visuals.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      192 days ago

      Often. On the other hand…

      Although I admit I found them fascinating when I was a little kid.

      • Davel23
        link
        fedilink
        102 days ago

        Are you kidding me? Those things were fucking creepy. And the sounds they made? Uggghh…

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Of all of my memories of watching TOS in my youth, there were two that stick by me the most.

          The first was sitting down to watch it with my brother on October 23, 1983 when I was six years old. Just after it started, there was a special news bulletin about some dumb bomb exploding in some place I’d never heard of and my brother- much older than me- kept telling me to be quiet and stop complaining so he could hear the news. Right as the bulletin ended, the credits for Star Trek started playing. It made me cry.

          The other one was seeing those aliens for the first time and thinking, “I guess aliens don’t have to look like us.” It was a profound thought for a child no more than eight years old.

  • @OpenStars
    link
    English
    92 days ago

    you try making a better debunking joke.)

    Are you kidding me? Lemmy is way too contentious to encourage me to do that - I am leaving posting to the professionals like you!

    • I believe in you. If you fill yourself with determination, you too can use comedy to challenge people and also complain about those people canceling you loudly on NBC.

      • @OpenStars
        link
        English
        11 day ago

        Hypothetically speaking… how much money would I be able to make doing this? 😇

        But to be clear I mostly was joking about being a coward, not so much “cancelled”.

        img

        More to the point, Lemmy is about Linux and… uh… GNU+Linux, and I for one don’t need to be submitting posts that are not of interest to others. A skill which I seem to very much lack, most of the time:-).

  • @Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -21 day ago

    The reason the conspiracy exists is because the video footage is staged to match the audio. Obviously there wasn’t a camera crew on the moon.

    • @CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      313 hours ago

      Yeah, I’m gonna need more than your incredulity to convince me. Like, fun that you think it is inconceivable, but your inability to imagine has no bearing on reality. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest they actually filmed and broadcasted it live. For example, the fact that a live television broadcast was a primary goal of the mission, or the fact that RCA made custom TV cameras for the Apollo program , or that the broadcast lasted for hours, or any of the analyses out there that shows the video is likely real. Also, no one suggested that the Apollo astronauts had a camera crew with them - what a bizarre thing to mention.

  • Davel23
    link
    fedilink
    82 days ago

    TNG came out in 1987. I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.

  • @sundray@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 days ago

    On the other hand, do you know one of the companies that supposedly made the Saturn-V?

    Boeing.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      52 days ago

      At least their build quality was generally good back then. I wouldn’t trust them to build a Saturn V today.

      • @SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        32 days ago

        Arguably their quality contributed to them being allowed to effictively oversee themselves. Did it save some time and red tape at the time? Yes. Did it eventually lead to hundreds of deaths? Also yes.

  • BarqsHasBite
    link
    fedilink
    62 days ago

    I saw a rebuttal that said the special effects at the time couldn’t have faked it.