• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

Rappinghood said:
he always brought apple turnovers into work
Click to expand...
Indeed the sweet treats ploy can make you forgive a person for almost anything.
OJ Simpson brought in a tray of Salted Caramel Muffins to his court appearance.
 
Rappinghood said:
I once met someone - very educated - who firmly believed the moon was an artificial satellite. I'd never heard of that and ended up going down a "Where'd this idea come from?" rabbit hole.

It's deep, connected to everything from Hollow Earth ideas to Soviet propaganda that sought to undermine western religious beliefs to David Icke.

I didn't disdain the fellow who talked about it though as he always brought apple turnovers into work.
Click to expand...
To be fair to the fellow, the Moon is in what seems to be an 'artificial' orbit. It is also the largest moon in close proximity to a planet that we know of. The combination of size and distance almost perfectly masks out the Sun during an eclipse. Also, there have been plenty of reports of 'weirdness' and 'stuff happening on the Moon'.
There might be a bit of confirmation bias and a bit of wish fulfilment at play in this man's beliefs.
 
Mythopoeika said:
To be fair to the fellow, the Moon is in what seems to be an 'artificial' orbit. It is also the largest moon in close proximity to a planet that we know of. The combination of size and distance almost perfectly masks out the Sun during an eclipse. Also, there have been plenty of reports of 'weirdness' and 'stuff happening on the Moon'.
There might be a bit of confirmation bias and a bit of wish fulfilment at play in this man's beliefs.
Click to expand...
Doubtless, there's always some kind of kindling for the flame of an idea.
 
I'm reading this nice book. It's rather postmodernist and the theories are not very strong but it has several good observations. This is one:

A national call went out to retired Goddard and WNRC employees, asking for any clues about what might have happened to the tapes. Although NASA and many archivists continue searching for clues as to what happened, it seems that the missing footage was not archived as carefully as it should have been. Shipped off to a government warehouse, they may have been marked incorrectly or mismanaged through sloppy record-keeping. While NASA officially remains hopeful that the data will eventually be found, the Apollo 11 tapes remain missing.

For many of us, the story of the missing Apollo 11 tapes is a lesson on the importance of proper archival and records management. Like so many other artifacts that get lost through mismanagement, the high-quality moon landing footage is a loss for the nation’s historical reservation. But, for others, the missing footage tells another story about archives. Bart Sibrel is one of those who consider the Apollo 11 tapes’ “missing” status as abundantly content-full. Sibrel has long been an outspoken conspiracy theorist who believes the moon landing was a hoax. Although Sibrel is far from a familiar figure, he gained notoriety as the man who got punched by none other than Buzz Aldrin. In 2002, Aldrin was leaving a Los Angeles hotel when Sibrel cornered him and demanded that the astronaut “swear on a Bible” that he had actually landed on the moon. After Sibrel repeatedly taunted Aldrin, the astronaut decided he had had enough and punched Sibrel squarely on the jaw. Video of the incident has repeatedly been circulated (and celebrated) online in the years since.

Sibrel’s 2001 documentary, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, claims that the original Apollo 11 tapes were deliberately destroyed because the footage would show, in high resolution, the Hollywood production of the “moon landing” as it was actually staged in some terrestrial movie set. Other moon hoax believers have also joined in. For example, Aron Ranen’s 2005 documentary, Did We Go?, similarly argues that the moon landing was a hoax. In a TV interview with Glenn Beck, Ranen exclaimed, “Glenn, to me it’s incredible that we can keep track of Egyptian pots from 2,000 years ago, but we lose tapes made only forty years ago?” Like Sibrel, Ranen clearly does not buy NASA’s story.

The missing Apollo 11 tapes are what we might call empty archives. They are archives that (possibly) exist, but the content is unavailable, missing, unobtainable. For people like Sibrel and Ranen, the missing content does not equate to missing meaning. On the contrary, the missing content is bursting with significance. This paradox drives my curiosity about the object of reference in moments when evidence is cited while simultaneously absent.

How does evidence work when it is simply not there? If archives of evidence are either not available or are simply nonexistent, how is it that they still function as part of a claim? In particular instances where empty archives are cited, what is the referent of those claims? In this chapter, I examine archives whose contents are missing, absent, or false. Specifically, I discuss several cases of archival hoaxes, forgeries, and what we might simply call empty archives. Although the cases I discuss are vastly different, what they have in common is that the archive in each of these instances is either not real or else they are not available. Nevertheless, the fictional or missing archives continue to serve as reference for very serious claims.

AWFUL ARCHIVES
CONSPIRACY THEORY, RHETORIC, AND ACTS OF EVIDENCE
JENNY RICE
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...arch=true&from_srp=true&qid=JNCnCYRNzG&rank=1
 
uair01 said:
I'm reading this nice book. It's rather postmodernist and the theories are not very strong but it has several good observations. This is one:

A national call went out to retired Goddard and WNRC employees, asking for any clues about what might have happened to the tapes. Although NASA and many archivists continue searching for clues as to what happened, it seems that the missing footage was not archived as carefully as it should have been. Shipped off to a government warehouse, they may have been marked incorrectly or mismanaged through sloppy record-keeping. While NASA officially remains hopeful that the data will eventually be found, the Apollo 11 tapes remain missing.

For many of us, the story of the missing Apollo 11 tapes is a lesson on the importance of proper archival and records management. Like so many other artifacts that get lost through mismanagement, the high-quality moon landing footage is a loss for the nation’s historical reservation. But, for others, the missing footage tells another story about archives. Bart Sibrel is one of those who consider the Apollo 11 tapes’ “missing” status as abundantly content-full. Sibrel has long been an outspoken conspiracy theorist who believes the moon landing was a hoax. Although Sibrel is far from a familiar figure, he gained notoriety as the man who got punched by none other than Buzz Aldrin. In 2002, Aldrin was leaving a Los Angeles hotel when Sibrel cornered him and demanded that the astronaut “swear on a Bible” that he had actually landed on the moon. After Sibrel repeatedly taunted Aldrin, the astronaut decided he had had enough and punched Sibrel squarely on the jaw. Video of the incident has repeatedly been circulated (and celebrated) online in the years since.

Sibrel’s 2001 documentary, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, claims that the original Apollo 11 tapes were deliberately destroyed because the footage would show, in high resolution, the Hollywood production of the “moon landing” as it was actually staged in some terrestrial movie set. Other moon hoax believers have also joined in. For example, Aron Ranen’s 2005 documentary, Did We Go?, similarly argues that the moon landing was a hoax. In a TV interview with Glenn Beck, Ranen exclaimed, “Glenn, to me it’s incredible that we can keep track of Egyptian pots from 2,000 years ago, but we lose tapes made only forty years ago?” Like Sibrel, Ranen clearly does not buy NASA’s story.

The missing Apollo 11 tapes are what we might call empty archives. They are archives that (possibly) exist, but the content is unavailable, missing, unobtainable. For people like Sibrel and Ranen, the missing content does not equate to missing meaning. On the contrary, the missing content is bursting with significance. This paradox drives my curiosity about the object of reference in moments when evidence is cited while simultaneously absent.

How does evidence work when it is simply not there? If archives of evidence are either not available or are simply nonexistent, how is it that they still function as part of a claim? In particular instances where empty archives are cited, what is the referent of those claims? In this chapter, I examine archives whose contents are missing, absent, or false. Specifically, I discuss several cases of archival hoaxes, forgeries, and what we might simply call empty archives. Although the cases I discuss are vastly different, what they have in common is that the archive in each of these instances is either not real or else they are not available. Nevertheless, the fictional or missing archives continue to serve as reference for very serious claims.

AWFUL ARCHIVES
CONSPIRACY THEORY, RHETORIC, AND ACTS OF EVIDENCE
JENNY RICE
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...arch=true&from_srp=true&qid=JNCnCYRNzG&rank=1
Click to expand...
I've known several instances of things going into storage being missing. The two huge London County Hall original Edwardian white marble fireplaces from the entrance hall were removed to storage in the basement in about 1965. In about 1990, when tastes changed once agian, it was decided to reinstate them, except they couldn't be found. The iconic 1930's department store Peter Jones in London's Sloane Square was renovated in about 2000, this involved taking down about 20 ft of the innovative (and Listed) curtain wall to gain access to the interior - it went into commercial storage. 2 years later, when it was to be replaced, it couldn't be found.

In the first case it was simple theft for resale, in the second theft for scrap value. I don't think we have to postulate anything exotic, someone down the storage chain (probably very near the bottom) realised the tapes were valuable, and snaffled them. The confusion of re-location is a classic opportunity. By the time someone realises all the original people involved are dead. They will re-emerge in 50 or 100 years time (when they won't be readable)
 
There are plenty of useless archivists.

(I made an enquiry recently, to be told they didnt have it...of course they must have had it, the blighters, they owned the land...)
 
Shrouded in mystery and secrecy for years, before Buzz Aldrin left the lunar module being a Catholic he preformed communion with wine, bread, and a cup he brought to the moon.

Neil Armstrong did not.

If Buzz went through all that trouble, then the moon landing was real !
 
Jim said:
I worked with the red eye and Hawk missile electronics controls (troubleshoot - repair sugest design issues etc. Point being the vacuum tube circuitry of the 70's was absolutely gigantic for a truck with 4 missiles tubes, the convoy of control electronics and radar electronics was staggering, 4 vehicles filled with electrons and controls were required..
Click to expand...
This is a very different situation though. Electronics for defence systems has historically retained bulky but robust robust vacuum tube technology over more compact transistorised circuitry wherever possible, to be resistant to electromagnetic pulse damage during a nuclear attack. For an example of an Apollo-era computer, see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

Surprisingly compact, with transistors and integrated circuits.
 
Last edited:
Amergin said:
This is a very different situation though. Electronics for defence systems has historically retained bulky but robust robust vacuum tube technology over more compact transistorised circuitry wherever possible, to be resistant to electromagnetic pulse damage during a nuclear attack. For an example of an Apollo-era computer, see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

Surprisingly compact, with transistors and integrated circuits.
Click to expand...
to me this is background common sense. Yes tubes are rad hardened by there very nature not being sensitive to blow out due to emf or static but so are rad hardened IC's which cost a bloody fortune.
 
Mythopoeika said:
To be fair to the fellow, the Moon is in what seems to be an 'artificial' orbit. It is also the largest moon in close proximity to a planet that we know of. The combination of size and distance almost perfectly masks out the Sun during an eclipse.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point and I can see how it would feed into the theories of anyone who wanted to believe that the moon is artificial.

Earth is the only planet we know of that has life on it. Perhaps more importantly, it is the only one in our solar system capable of supporting our sort of life. It is already pretty special.

Now, add to this that Earth has a moon that closely fits the "apparent size" of the Sun: so close that it fits almost perfectly over the Sun when there is an eclipse.

Also, add that the moon always keeps the same side facing the Earth. That in itself is a remarkable coincidence, but it also means that there is a side of the moon we cannot see, and which we can therefore populate from our imaginations.

Now add the size and regularity of the tides: just slightly off 2 tidal cycles a day, with tides that form an important part of the life cycles or feeding strategies of many marine animals, and which also serve to assist sensible mariners who choose to work with them rather than against them.

Yes, the moon is very convenient in many ways. That doesn't mean it's artificial, any more than it proves the existence of a benevolent creator, but I can see how easy it would be for someone who wished to to contrive a case in favour of either.


uair01 said:
But, for others, the missing footage tells another story about archives. Bart Sibrel is one of those who consider the Apollo 11 tapes’ “missing” status as abundantly content-full. Sibrel has long been an outspoken conspiracy theorist who believes the moon landing was a hoax.
Click to expand...
This interests me as a former insurance fraud specialist.

The interesting thing in the context of missing moon landing is the principle that "The unexplained absence of evidence that would normally be expected to be available is a form of evidence."

If a customer told me that he had no receipt, valuation, certificate of authenticity, manual, service records, or photos in support of his claim for a £20,000 watch, and no reasonable explanation for why all of this evidence was unavailable, I would have a strong case for potential fraud.

However, there is abundant other evidence of the moon landings, and we are therefore talking about the absence of a small part of the evidence, and an absence that can reasonably be explained by dishonesty or incompetence in a large organisation.
 
I would have though the first thing NASA would have done the the astronauts returned was to make loads of copies of the footage, surely?

Also, with Buzz Aldrin, seeing as he is religious, why wouldn't he swear on the bible that he'd been to the moon? Again I would have thought he'd have been more than happy to oblige and that would have cleared up the thing with Bart Sibrel.
 
kesavaross said:
Also, with Buzz Aldrin, seeing as he is religious, why wouldn't he swear on the bible that he'd been to the moon? Again I would have thought he'd have been more than happy to oblige and that would have cleared up the thing with Bart Sibrel.
Click to expand...
Religion is not that simple.

It is not uncommon for religious-minded people to have very strong views about specific aspects of their religion, and to gloss over others that are less convenient. He was religious enough to be an elder of his church, and to take communion on the moon. However, the bible says turn the other cheek, but Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel. The wedding vows made in the sight of God are "until death do us part" but Aldrin divorced 3 times. That's not to judge him, but just to say he was just an ordinary bloke who happened to be religious but sinned like everyone else.

Aldrin may well have thought that swearing on the bible was the wrong thing to do. Many religious people believe that it is, if not blasphemous, at least inappropriate. A very quick search turned up this article on the subject and you could no doubt find others.

There is also the practical point of view that once you have conceded the point and agreed to swear on the bible on one specific question, you must either agree to do so for every other question, forever, or risk your opponents citing your refusal to do so as a tacit admission that you have something to hide.

If I were religious, which I am not, the only time I would ever swear something on the bible would be in a formal context like an oath of allegiance, or when giving testimony in a court of law. I would certainly not do so just to "prove" to a stranger that I was not lying.
 
Mikefule said:
Religion is not that simple.

It is not uncommon for religious-minded people to have very strong views about specific aspects of their religion, and to gloss over others that are less convenient. He was religious enough to be an elder of his church, and to take communion on the moon. However, the bible says turn the other cheek, but Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel. The wedding vows made in the sight of God are "until death do us part" but Aldrin divorced 3 times. That's not to judge him, but just to say he was just an ordinary bloke who happened to be religious but sinned like everyone else.

Aldrin may well have thought that swearing on the bible was the wrong thing to do. Many religious people believe that it is, if not blasphemous, at least inappropriate. A very quick search turned up this article on the subject and you could no doubt find others.

There is also the practical point of view that once you have conceded the point and agreed to swear on the bible on one specific question, you must either agree to do so for every other question, forever, or risk your opponents citing your refusal to do so as a tacit admission that you have something to hide.

If I were religious, which I am not, the only time I would ever swear something on the bible would be in a formal context like an oath of allegiance, or when giving testimony in a court of law. I would certainly not do so just to "prove" to a stranger that I was not lying.
Click to expand...
You make good valid points.

It would have been a good idea for Buzz Aldrin to explain why he wouldn't swear on the Bible. Unless he did explain himself and it just that I've never read it.
 
Mikefule said:
However, the bible says turn the other cheek, but Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel.
Click to expand...
He did give that fellow the opportunity to go away. But the stupid man kept pestering Aldrin, getting in his way, calling him a coward.
Buzz defended his honour!
 
stu neville said:
Aw hell, I was gonna sit back with a margarita and await further developments. But, now you've brought it up, the one that no-one has mentioned yet: yes it's the
RADIATION SHIELD EFFECTIVENESS QUESTION , ie that the Apollos had a skin not a great deal thicker than bacofoil, and that out past the Van Allen belts our chiselled heroes would have been dead from rad sickness before they reached the moon, let alone strolled about on it.

I don't know the answer to this, or even if any of it's true, but I've seen is used as Exhibit A in one or two things before now.

Anyone know?
Click to expand...
I passed my driving test in 1997 but booked extra lessons with my instructor (country lanes, motorway driving etc) in my own car. Whilst waiting for him to arrive I had the radio on and there was a debate in the studio between a NASA spokesman and some-one claiming the Moon landings were hoaxed. I only had time to listen to one topic:
Passing through the Van Allen radiation belt would have fried the Apollo circuitry, if not the astronauts. The amount of protective lead shielding required would have made the craft too heavy to lift off.
Well, said Mr NASA spokesman - why don't we ask Prof James Van Allen about that ?
He's still alive ? Yep, 83 years old and still on the Lecture circuit - and still being asked about that shielding question.
Answer : the Van Allen belt was simply not that powerful, cetainly not requiring shielding.

I had not heard the topic raised since - (until I waded through the last 43 pages of this thread).
 
Bad Bungle said:
... Answer : the Van Allen belt was simply not that powerful, cetainly not requiring shielding. ...
Click to expand...

Here's the summary NASA report on radiation preparations, evaluations, etc., during the Apollo missions:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Average radiation doses were computed for each mission (table 2). Individual readings varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of differences in the shielding effectiveness of various parts of the Apollo spacecraft as well as differences in duties, movements, and locations of crewmen. Doses to blood-forming organs were approximately 40 percent lower than the values measured at the body surface. In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.

Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem*** set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use [112] radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.
Click to expand...

Here is the table listing the average skin doses incurred by the Apollo missions. The maximal / limiting dosage was set at 400 rads (on a par with getting a medical X-ray at the time).

ApolloRadiationDoses.jpg
 
Concerning the missing tapes; I found out yesterday the common practice of wiping television tapes in those days was done for sound commercial reasons, particularly to do with performing rights. Tapes were wiped because actors and musicians were concerned that they would not be paid for repeats; this is why there are no recordings of the Beatles when they appeared on Top of the Pops (except for a short clip which was inserted into a Christmas episode of Doctor Who, which is itself a rare survival from those days).

Few TV companies thought about the historical impact of all this data loss - TV was seen as something ephemeral, and videotape was a valuable, reusable resource.
 
eburacum said:
Concerning the missing tapes; I found out yesterday that it was common practice for television tapes to be wiped in those days, which explains why Doctor Who is mostly missing. Tapes were wiped because actors and musicians were concerned that they would not be paid for repeats; this is why there are no recordings of the Beatles when they appeared on Top of the Pops (except for a short clip which was inserted into a Christmas episode of Doctor Who, which is itself a rare survival from those days).

Few TV companies thought about the historical impact of all this data loss - TV was seen as something ephemeral, and videotape was a valuable, reusable resource.
Click to expand...
Videotape was expensive so was reused.

Repeats were not a big thing at the time.

Dr Who has 97 missing episodes, all from Hartnell (44 of Hartnell's 134) and Troughton (53 of 119).

16mm film versions of many programmes were sold abroad, once finished with they were either passed on to another station, returned to the BBC or destroyed. At least that is what is supposed to have happened. Some were just left in stores, some found their way to private hands, and these are the main sources for returns of missing episodes.
 
Last edited:
Trevp666 said:
I can imagine time travellers making a buck or two from going back and getting missing Dr Who recordings to flog on.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the idea! I just need a flux capacitor, but there's a chip shortage right now.
 
Fly Me to the Moon: A Romantic Comedy/Drama which deals with the filming of a fake moon landing as a beta option in case things go wrong. Kelly Jones (Scarlett Johansson) is an ace marketing executive but she has a skeleton in her closet and Deep State operative Moe Berkus uses this to blackmail her into fixing NASA;s public image. This causes tension with Apollo 11 Mission Director Cole Davis (Channing Tatum). Her tactics sometimes alienate him but there is a chemistry developing between them. A bit like the Rock Hudson and Doris Day movies. The dark shadow of the deaths of the Apollo 1 astronauts hangs over this film though. When problems develop regarding the mission, Moe comes up with the idea of faking the moon landing. He again applies pressure on Kelly and she hires a flamboyant temperamental commercial director to make the fake. Johansson is wonderful as Kelly, conning politicians into continuing support for the project, adopting any accent which is necessary, hiring actors to stand in for Davis and other engineers when they refuse to be intervieweSX.d. Tatum projects a more serious Davis, he tends a memorial to the Apollo 1 astronauts, the Apollo 11 is his life and a fitting tribute to the dead astronauts. There is a crucial scene where he clashes with a TV interviewer over the fatal mission. He does have his comic moments though. Woody Harrelson plays Berkus as the consummate Man In Black, indeed he supplies Kelly with a small army of Men In Black as actors, guards and gophers. He is comical yet threatening, you really believe that he would have people killed to keep a secret. Jim Rash excels himself as Lance Vespertine, the camp temperamental director who fills in for the role conspiracy theorists allege was played by Stanley Kubrick. And he is just as demanding as Stan, take after take. It would be a spoiler to tell any more about how the plot develops but I'm sure you will enjoy this serious comedy. Directed by Greg Berlanti from a screenplay by Rose Gilroy. 8/10.

In cinemas, though this was likely a preview. Fly Me to the Moon is scheduled to be released theatrically in the United States and Canada by Columbia Pictures through Sony Pictures. Releasing on July 12, 2024, before streaming on Apple TV+ at a later date.
 
Last edited:
I always get into big, big trouble with the Apollo missions.

I'm old enough to have been alive and sentient during the late 1960s (and to be in approximately the same state right now).

Something I say (too often) about the US space programme is that we must differentiate between three seperate datasets: what has actually been done, what is claimed to have been done, and what has been depicted as evidence. These are three totally-distinct strands, and anyone who thinks there is a perfect concordance between them is either fooling themselves, or (more likely) not genuinely applied a proper level of analysis.

It saddens & puzzles me that many self-identifying Forteans immediately put up their shields the instant any suggestion of falsity regarding Apollo is raised. For them, it is one of the unassailable totemic certainties of our modern era.

But for me: we must look at the imagery that's presented to us (and set aside the physicalities of the seven missions, or any other evidential data).

Lots of Apollo images just do not properly stand-up to scrutiny: one of my deepest puzzles is all footage of the Lunar Rover.

Anyone in 2024 who watches this footage and is certain that they're viewing a historical depiction of life-size reality taking place on the Moon, and not a large-
scale remote-control model being 'driven' by a skilled operator over a massive diorama screen-set needs to tell us why they believe that to be the case.

Just the Rover footage (not just the Russian SFX expert analysis below)...with it's numerous jump-cut edits, insertions of real-world hand closeups (in a Gerry Anderson, stiff miniature astro-mannequin model and setpiece swerving course taken across the lunar(like) surface).

Tell me I'm wrong, that it doesn't look as false as hell, and utterly nuts. I long for orthodoxy, logic and calm certainty. But unfortunately no: this is just crazy.


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top