Talk:Moon landing hoax

From RationalWiki

I don't have a link for this at the moment, but I once saw a documentary about it, they investigated this case very thoroughly and even interviewed ex-cia agents and ex-Presidential advisers and senators. It turned out there really was a movie, directed by Stanley Kubrick, which was made in case the Apollo 11 mission would fail (which it didn't.) Some pictures that ended up in Nasa's archives and, over the years, in the media, were actually from the movie, explaining why some pictures really do look fake. MiddleMan 10:14, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

That's hilarious, and would make a great addition. The "accidental" hoax, due to a possible planned hoax in case reality didn't work! human^{be in} 13:13, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I would like a source on this. Interesting. It would show that such hoaxes are not only possible, but actually planned in advance. Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:51, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, a popular movie who's name escapes me now, was built on this premise...it may be what youre referring to.162.82.215.199 14:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Capricorn One, I think. Of course, "many" diversions of one kind or another are planned in advance. Spin control always works best when thought out before the crisis. human^{be in} 14:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, Carpricorn One, starring OJ Simpson. It was about faking a Mars landing but pretty much the same premise. olliegrind 15:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

NASA did that, too, in another attempt to discredit god. Only they used robots instead of actors for Mars. human^{be in} 15:08, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I could prove to you that there are hidden tapes showing a faked moon landing...they called it a "simulation", but we all know the truth. I can't cite it right now, because it's still classified and the government won't let us print it.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:09, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

What's that movie that ends with all the "data" on what happened in the movie being stored in a some giant, anonymous warehouse somewhere? human^{be in} 15:15, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Raiders of the Lost Ark--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:16, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Good point PalMD, but you should read about the Northwoods document and McCollum memo for counterpoints.Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:17, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, well, part of he game is to let some stuff out (whether real or made up) so we think we're getting the whole truth. There's always the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" idea, too... human^{be in} 15:39, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] HEY!

This is all true. According to my brother's doctor's wife's dog groomer's son, (who plays Frisbee golf with a guy whose sister used to do porn films where she met a technician who worked with Francis Ford Coppala's second assistant director's administrative assistant's "husband" who told her it was ALL TRUE. ~~ CЯacke® 10:30, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

The caricature you use here is a model for dismissing any questioning of events that goes against the mainstream. (I do not personally object to it being applied to the Moon Landing, but in other cases, it is a diversionary tactic.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:41, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

It's more a caricature of "evidence" that is no better than an urban legend. As opposed, say, to "I have two anonymous (but identified in my notes) sources from the White House on record that Dick Cheney eats live chickens" from a real reporter. human^{be in}

I'd like to see a real world example. Nevermind, I am sure they exist, but people don't take them seriously. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:59, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

A real world example of what? My "cite" pretty much tracks the Woodward/Bernstein Watergate investigations. The "my sister's ex-brother-in-law worked with a guy who knew..." sort of thing is really just Lulz, in this venue (RW). Not meant to make fun of your articles. Just the Moon loonies, in this case. Relax :) human^{be in} 23:49, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Plus the "fact" that some of these conspiracy theories (the "moon hoax") require 30,000 people (hyperbole) to be "in on it". But people still lend more weight to the theory than they rightfully ought to; the computers in the late 1960's didn't have half the computational power of, say, your cellphone but they got the job done. Okay it took a three acre building to house them but hey, when we do flea markets we take some old payphones we have laying around the joint...I tell 13yo's that "these are what cell phones used to look like". ~~ CЯacke® 23:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Watergate actually happened, right? I wonder how many people had to be in on the faux polish attack on Germany. Big secrets can be kept (at least from citizens of the U.S., e.g., see Manhatan Project....oh, wait, the Russians new more about that program than our vice president at the time.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 08:47, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, WG happened. Of course, the "scandal" that drove RMN form office was not the break-in, it was the cover up that tied the top of the executive branch to it. A good example would be Tonkin. You've got a bunch of navy guys, most of whom aren't sure what happened, and one or two who do know. They can be ordered to keep quiet and they will, at least while they are enlisted (they are not told why to keep quiet). Then you have a handful of exec branch people and brass, all of whom desire the result. And, of course, all they had to do was "misinterpret" events, not make them happen. Things like the MLH require lots of people to keep it secret, from long before it is even faked. And, of course, long after. It would be easier for me to "believe" that the first one or two were faked, but then we got there - requiring far fewer people "in on it" and since we get there in the end, not much to really reveal. Oh, we need to add that one (didn't really get there 'til '75, or something). human^{be in} 12:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Closed Minded confusion

I love rationalwiki, but I am confused why it is so closed minded (or at least appears to be) I mean, the odds of anyone (including the minds of rocket scientists) pulling off such a hoax with thousands of people and no one smuggling some evidence whatsoever is staggering. However, as the probability is still there, we as rational people should do our very best to find more conclusive proof that humans landed on the moon in 1969. If we don't, conservapedia wins (cp is neutral on this topic, but you know what i mean). P.S. eventually, space travel will be so popular, everyone will be able to see the flag and crater they left firsthand.^{— Unsigned, by: 144.92.44.153 / talk / contribs}

What exactly would be "more conclusive proof" than what we already have? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:39, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we have the rock, the video, the people, the technology, the capsules. What more do we need?--Bob^{bing up} 17:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention the budgets. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

And the fact that the Russians (The Soviet Union!) confirmed it.--Bob^{bing up} 17:47, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

True, but they could be in on it, too! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:49, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah. A conspiracy!--Bob^{bing up} 17:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

When you think about it: About the entire American government apparatus would have had to work together to pull off this alleged hoax. By comparison, a conspiracy with the Soviets seems practically reasonable. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:04, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

"I am confused why it is so closed minded"

To paraphrase Orac, it is possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out uselessly onto the sidewalk.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 18:16, 9 July 2008 (EDT)