The implications
have been considered. A while back someone compiled a list of the implications:
The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:
1-The photos are all faked.
and
2-The videos are all faked.
and
3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.
and
4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.
and
5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.
and
6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.
and
7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.
and
8- Several people organized and coordinated these separate processes and they kept secret.
and
9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspiracy.
and
10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.
and
11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.
and
12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-governmental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomalies, and/or kept quiet about it
and
13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.
and
14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)
and
15- The people assigned to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.
and
16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.
and
17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.
and
18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.
and
19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.
and
20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.
The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.
Therein lies the problem.
If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.
This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.
They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:
21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.
and
22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.
and
23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.
The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/cover-up, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.
Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the [radiation environment]" is just another stone on the fail pile.
Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.
Remember, I am not claiming the reported doses are deadly. I am claiming the reported doses do not reflect expected radiation levels for cislunar operations.
Given that any hoax would be preposterously complicated and absurd to attempt, I repeat my questions:
When you found that Apollo radiation measurements did not match
your expectations for a lunar mission, why was fraud your go-to explanation?
Is it impossible that your understanding of the GCR flux vs. energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that your understanding of Apollo shielding versus the
relevant flux and energy levels could be wrong?
Is it impossible that the designed differences between the manned Apollo spacecraft and the unmanned MSL may have been so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between radiation measurements?
Is it impossible that differences between the instruments used to measure radiation on spacecraft built 40 years apart may be so great as to render invalid 1-1 comparisons between measurements?
Is it impossible that the Apollo dosimeters were not designed correctly to measure GCRs in cislunar space, thus leading to the false low readings (after all, Jack Swigert died of bone cancer and Alan Shepard died of leukemia).
Is it impossible that there is anything I haven't mentioned or you have overlooked to explain this discrepancy that you think you have discovered?
Why is the global conspiracy more attractive to you than any of these possibilities?
