ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: mikejohnson on January 29, 2013, 09:06:29 PM
-
Even though we have all these technicalities with hoaxes and truths, so how many people would it take to do all these moon landings?and there was more then just one!! i think a few thousand.So all these people have kept it secret? no way,and to my knowledge nobody of any credit has come forward, people just arent built that way here.I wonder how much money one could get if they came forward with some real proof of a hoax? it would be millions. but no one has yet !!!!
-
AFAIK, It stands at roughly 400,000, all of whom must be party to the lunacy.
-
AFAIK, It stands at roughly 400,000, all of whom must be party to the lunacy.
And that's just the people who worked for NASA or it's contractors during the Apollo years. It doesn't include the people who would have had to be brought into the hoax in the years since in order to maintain it. The people responsible for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, for example, would have had to be made aware of the hoax before they discovered it on their own.
-
I still say that not all 400,000 would have had enough information to work out that it was a hoax. That number includes everyone who worked on the program, no matter what function they served. I do believe that at bare minimum tens of thousands would have had to have known, but the women who did the actual fabrication of space suits probably didn't know if they would work or not. The people who designed them, yes, but not the people who made them. All they could say for sure was that they made what they were told to exactly as they were told to, and it met the standards they were given. I don't think they knew whether that would create a working suit.
-
If the suits didn't actually work (because the program was fake) you have to hand it to NASA for adding little touches like sending the astronauts to the factories where they were made to tell the workers that their lives would depend on how well they did their jobs.
-
I still say that not all 400,000 would have had enough information to work out that it was a hoax. That number includes everyone who worked on the program, no matter what function they served. I do believe that at bare minimum tens of thousands would have had to have known, but the women who did the actual fabrication of space suits probably didn't know if they would work or not. The people who designed them, yes, but not the people who made them. All they could say for sure was that they made what they were told to exactly as they were told to, and it met the standards they were given. I don't think they knew whether that would create a working suit.
Its not just the people at the Cape and Mission Control who would have needed to be in on it (as well as the astronauts of course). Even if we assume that all the different contractors that had vital parts to play (Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed etc) were part of the fakery, there were people of all nationalities, both professional and amateur, all over the world who were involved in tracking the vehicle from launch to the Moon to splashdown.
Radio engineers at places like the CSIRO's Parkes Observatory (Australia) and the DSN Stations in California, Madrid (Spain) and Canberra (Australia) could not have helped but notice if the transmission delays were off (which they would have been).
Furthermore, the scientists at Jodrell Bank tracked the Apollo 11 descent stage all the way to the lunar surface; in fact....
It is interesting to note just how precise the measurements by Jodrell Bank were. Not only was the observatory able to receive data from the spacecraft, it was also able to pinpoint the region of the moon they were located in and to measure their speed and trajectory using measurements of the Doppler shift, combined with highly accurate signal vector and other measurements. They were even able to detect when the LM abruptly stopped descending to the lunar surface and began to climb in altitude. This was the result of Neil Armstrong taking manual control of the Lunar Module to find a suitable landing site, after noting that the site that the automated system was headed for was strewn with large boulders
http://depletedcranium.com/fascinating-recording-of-apollo-11-at-jodrell-bank-released/
-
If the suits didn't actually work (because the program was fake) you have to hand it to NASA for adding little touches like sending the astronauts to the factories where they were made to tell the workers that their lives would depend on how well they did their jobs.
Sure. It's a nice PR touch, certainly. However, it doesn't indicate that the people doing the manufacturing knew anything more than they did before the astronauts got there. What's more, there were also people involved in Apollo according to official calculations that didn't have anything to do with direct safety in any way. Does the 400,000 figure include the people who made the food? What about the patches? The other bits of astronaut wear? I've always assumed it does, since that figure is given as everyone who worked on Apollo. Remember, I've never argued that Apollo wasn't real, because of course it was. But I think claiming that everyone who worked on Apollo would have known if it was fake simply isn't true. I think a substantial percentage--fifty percent, even?--would have known, and that alone makes the conspiracy impossible, even before you get the people who can verify and didn't work on the project. But not everyone could have called hoax.
-
The trouble is if they didn't know it was fake, they'd do their best to make real things that would actually do the real job of getting people to the moon. These weren't drones putting together predetermined blue-prints. Many were among the smartest people in the world at the time.
-
The trouble is if they didn't know it was fake, they'd do their best to make real things that would actually do the real job of getting people to the moon. These weren't drones putting together predetermined blue-prints. Many were among the smartest people in the world at the time.
That's exactly what Jason and I said once when we were discussing the minimum number of people who would have to know, if it was a hoax. You end up with either thousands of people knowing and never saying anything, or engineers building equipment that would actually go to the moon...
-
The trouble is if they didn't know it was fake, they'd do their best to make real things that would actually do the real job of getting people to the moon. These weren't drones putting together predetermined blue-prints. Many were among the smartest people in the world at the time.
I don't think Gillianren is referring to the engineers building the hardware, but the other people not so intimately involved with the nuts and bolts of the program. Yes, if you tell Grumman to build you a lunar module and don't tell them it doesn't have to work, they will build you a working one because that's what engineers do, and if you have a working lunar module there seems no sensible reason not to use it. If you tell people to work on making food packages for manned space flight and don't tell them they don't have to go into space after all, then yes, they give you suitable food packages, but does that matter? They still don't need to know if those packages they make are actually going into space. If you get a subcontractor to give you a working gyroscopic navigation platform they don't need to know its never going into space to build you one, and it could find its way onto something like an unmanned spacecraft and they wouldn't have to know because the platform would be the same in either case.
So it's not a case of everyone having to be in on it, just of so many having to be in on it to render it absurd.
-
Many of them were among the smartest people in the world, and doubtless those are people who would have known it was a fake. As I said, I absolutely agree that huge numbers of people would have known. I just also think that a lot of people working on Apollo wouldn't have known or had to have known. But does some random guy working a food dehydrator count in the 400,000? How about the person who made the packaging the food went into? The person who sewed the suits the astronauts wore while in the capsules? The people who built the launch tower? Not designed, mind you, but built. They knew how to do their jobs, and they did their jobs right, but that doesn't mean they knew that doing their jobs right was required in order to send men to the Moon. In several cases, it arguably wasn't. I still don't think they did a bad job. I think they did the best they could. But I also think that there were plenty of people who had no idea how "the best they could" tied into landing men on the Moon.
-
That's exactly what Jason and I said once when we were discussing the minimum number of people who would have to know, if it was a hoax. You end up with either thousands of people knowing and never saying anything, or engineers building equipment that would actually go to the moon...
I think even some conspiracy theorists have figured this out, which is why they cling so hard to alleged show-stoppers, like radiation.
-
It makes me think of the Futurama episode where Fry becomes his own Grandfather.
There's a bit where the set for "faking the Moon landing" gets destroyed, so President Truman tells the officials nearby that they'll just have to "invent" NASA and go to the Moon for real.
The mind boggling effort of designing and making all the stuff to fake going to the Moon is so great (especially when no one at the time or later can be allowed to see through the fakery by determining something wouldn't really function properly), why not just go there?
-
The mind boggling effort of designing and making all the stuff to fake going to the Moon is so great (especially when no one at the time or later can be allowed to see through the fakery by determining something wouldn't really function properly), why not just go there?
-
The mind boggling effort of designing and making all the stuff to fake going to the Moon is so great (especially when no one at the time or later can be allowed to see through the fakery by determining something wouldn't really function properly), why not just go there?
A favorite crack theory of mine about Apollo is that it was originally intended to be a hoax but in the process of doing a realistic build up to it they ended up building actual working hardware to do it so going through with the missions for real became a better idea.
-
I still say that not all 400,000 would have had enough information to work out that it was a hoax. That number includes everyone who worked on the program, no matter what function they served. I do believe that at bare minimum tens of thousands would have had to have known, but the women who did the actual fabrication of space suits probably didn't know if they would work or not. The people who designed them, yes, but not the people who made them. All they could say for sure was that they made what they were told to exactly as they were told to, and it met the standards they were given. I don't think they knew whether that would create a working suit.
Depend, too, on which scenario an HB subscribes to. Some of them claim the Apollo crews were in low earth orbit the whole time, so they would have wanted to have working suits. Not that the Playtex ladies would have known their final destination in either case.
The thing that always gets me, though, is that AFAIK no HB has ever put together a complete account of how the missions could have been faked, start to finish. (I think Jay alluded to this the other day.) All they ever seem to do is try to poke holes in the historical account, either by trumpeting complete nonsense - "Deadly VABs" - or picking at the little anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in any venture involving human beings.
-
Right. And the people who made the jumpsuits wouldn't even have had to know that much.
-
The thing that always gets me, though, is that AFAIK no HB has ever put together a complete account of how the missions could have been faked, start to finish. (I think Jay alluded to this the other day.) All they ever seem to do is try to poke holes in the historical account, either by trumpeting complete nonsense - "Deadly VABs" - or picking at the little anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in any venture involving human beings.
I think that's because the HBs all subscribe to the "house of cards" theory. They falsely think that finding one piece of fake evidence means everything comes crashing down. In their minds they don't have to come up with a complete account; they just have to find the one piece of damning evidence.
-
I think that's because the HBs all subscribe to the "house of cards" theory. They falsely think that finding one piece of fake evidence means everything comes crashing down. In their minds they don't have to come up with a complete account; they just have to find the one piece of damning evidence.
This is the same approach taken by "truthers" and "birthers" and JFK CT's, and Pearl harbour CTs and.......
I wonder why that is?
-
I think that's because the HBs all subscribe to the "house of cards" theory. They falsely think that finding one piece of fake evidence means everything comes crashing down. In their minds they don't have to come up with a complete account; they just have to find the one piece of damning evidence.
This is the same approach taken by "truthers" and "birthers" and JFK CT's, and Pearl harbour CTs and.......
I wonder why that is?
I dunno, but at least those folks do actually accept that JFK was shot and Paerl Harbor was attacked. Unless there are fringe groups which deny the whole thing - which wouldn't surprise me, sadly.
-
The mind boggling effort of designing and making all the stuff to fake going to the Moon is so great (especially when no one at the time or later can be allowed to see through the fakery by determining something wouldn't really function properly), why not just go there?
Because that would mean having to accept the standard "gubmint" story. I don't think the hoaxers know or even care what really happened, provided it's something other than the official story. That's why we never get a complete alternate narrative. It also explains the strange subgroup of hoaxers who believe we went but that (at least some of) the photos were faked.
Creationists do much the same thing. In every case the goal is to simply to delegitimize some recognized authority (the government, the scientific and engineering professions, mainstream historians, etc) whose influence they resent and crave for themselves.
-
Creationists do much the same thing. In every case the goal is to simply to delegitimize some recognized authority (the government, the scientific and engineering professions, mainstream historians, etc) whose influence they resent and crave for themselves.
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. At least creationists present a coherent, complete alternative scenario. OK, it requires that you stipulate (literally) supernatural intervention, but at least they have a version. Growing up in the rural southern US, everyone you meet is by default a creationist. They see the teaching of "evolution" as an attack on their religion, but are otherwise sane, normal individuals.
-
At least creationists present a coherent, complete alternative scenario.
I understand the differentiation you are intending, but at the fundamental level, "God did it," does not qualify as significantly different that saying, "The government faked it." Creationism has a long history of being just as equally a reflexive antiestablishmentarianist idea as any other form of denialism.
-
Exactly.
One difference is that creationism used to be the establishment. Then it got brushed aside by one of the main products of the Enlightenment -- modern science -- and they've been trying to recover their past glory and authority ever since.
-
Exactly.
One difference is that creationism used to be the establishment. Then it got brushed aside by one of the main products of the Enlightenment -- modern science -- and they've been trying to recover their past glory and authority ever since.
I think the characterization as recovering past glory is simplistic. Enlightenment thought also produced "Social Darwinism" which led to the eugenics movements . Eugenics embodied establishment prejudices to "enlighten" the oppression of poor rural southern people. Much of our anti-scientific problems today stem from a reaction to pseudo-scientific oppression that told people science had declared them unfit.
-
Much of our anti-scientific problems today stem from a reaction to pseudo-scientific oppression that told people science had declared them unfit.
Perhaps you could offer some evidence for this claim. A new thread (or using the old one) in a suitable section or even a PM would probably be right course of action; it's just that in the several years that I've spent following the science vs. religion debates, I've honestly never before seen this argument. And from what I know about the situation in the US, at least the more vocal parties wanting to introduce creationism into biology classes seem to be rather of the "better" demographic as judged by eugenics.
-
The main point is that creationism has a long and multifaceted social history as both a positive assertion and a reaction to social situations. Per my earlier post at 09:13:21 AM, that doesn't make it intellectually defensible.
ETA many people have not heard that the Scopes trial was a publicity stunt and John Scopes had not taught evolution. But that is true also.
-
The main point is that creationism has a long and multifaceted social history as both a positive assertion and a reaction to social situations. Per my earlier post at 09:13:21 AM, that doesn't make it intellectually defensible.
There are, I guess, militants within any belief system.
But what I'm saying is that almost everyone I know personally would qualify as a creationist. And that's simply because that is what they are taught literally from the cradle. If you spend the first several years of your life with the (usually) King James Bible treated as simple fact -- and I'm not talking about Santa-Claus-Easter-Bunny seasonal myths, but about church services a minimum of three times a week and hearing adults seriously discuss religious trivia for hours on end -- well, that kind of indoctrination is extremely hard for even an intelligent, reasoning adult to shake off. I can testify to this personally.
-
The main point is that creationism has a long and multifaceted social history as both a positive assertion and a reaction to social situations. Per my earlier post at 09:13:21 AM, that doesn't make it intellectually defensible.
There are, I guess, militants within any belief system.
But what I'm saying is that almost everyone I know personally would qualify as a creationist. And that's simply because that is what they are taught literally from the cradle. If you spend the first several years of your life with the (usually) King James Bible treated as simple fact -- and I'm not talking about Santa-Claus-Easter-Bunny seasonal myths, but about church services a minimum of three times a week and hearing adults seriously discuss religious trivia for hours on end -- well, that kind of indoctrination is extremely hard for even an intelligent, reasoning adult to shake off. I can testify to this personally.
I understand. The narrative we have developed over the years to support the Bible has a great deal of appeal thanks to the unquestioned embedded assumptions and cultural reinforcement. For many people it becomes a significant part of their identity that is not easily cast off. It took me a long time also.
-
You know, the Bible and the Big Bang theory both agree on at least one fundamental. The first 'thing' in the universe was light. Science is silent on the cause, while the Bible posits it was an extrauniversal being.
I still believe this being exists, and call Them God, but do not believe you can prove Their existence through rational means. I like to call this position 'believing agnostic'.
-
You know, the Bible and the Big Bang theory both agree on at least one fundamental. The first 'thing' in the universe was light.
For the latter, the first "thing" would probably be quark-gluon plasma (though in the inflationary models, the plasma is preceded by the inflaton field and an existing space/space-time).
-
You know, the Bible and the Big Bang theory both agree on at least one fundamental. The first 'thing' in the universe was light.
Uh, no. The first thing God created was the heavens and the Earth. We know there was light 9 billion years before the Earth was formed so Genesis got the order wrong. The Earth was created complete with liquid water. How the water remained liquid without heat from the Sun is not explained.
-
Eh, my bad. Sorry about that.
-
I recently encountered an astronomer who equated Genesis to the Krakatoa explosion. The rationale was that Krakatoa caused the population to dwindle and in turn forced interbreeding with Neanderthal's which gave humans larger heads at birth thus causing the painful childbearing as mentioned in the Bible. Such comparisons are fraught with forced fitting problems.
BTW, is there a more descriptive word or commonly used phrase for the trait of trying to force one idea into another. Other than the square peg round hole analogy.
-
Krakatoa? Perhaps he meant Toba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory)? At any rate, the Toba population-bottleneck theory is not accepted by everyone in that field.
And why would a population reduction force interbreeding with Neanderthals? He may be an astronomer, but he's not a geologist or a biologist.
Fred
-
Krakatoa? Perhaps he meant Toba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory)? At any rate, the Toba population-bottleneck theory is not accepted by everyone in that field.
And why would a population reduction force interbreeding with Neanderthals? He may be an astronomer, but he's not a geologist or a biologist.
Fred
It was a rambling expatiation of her faith given during a discussion on the intersection of science and religion. She worked very hard to force fit many events into a confused understanding of Genesis. It is possible that I mis-remembered which volcano she mentioned.