• SteveHasBunker [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    There were other, non-governmental science organizations that picked up the signal. Also the whole mission was a very public, open to the media operation that involved a lot of people, most of whom were civilians. It really would have been hard to keep all those mouths shut, for this long, there would have been a whistle blower by now if it was fake. This is opposed to an assassination which may only need a handful of people to organize and so is easier to keep under wraps.

    • DeepPoliSci [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Also the whole mission was a very public, open to the media operation that involved a lot of people, most of whom were civilians. It really would have been hard to keep all those mouths shut.

      Not that many people need to be in on the conspiracy. There was widely publicized criticisms of the Apollo program throughout the 60's claiming it was impossible. That's why it was called a "moonshot." Even the mainstream news outlets were reporting on the fact that it had a 0.0017% chance of succeeding. The conspiracy only requires that the astronauts were not in the rocket.

      It really would have been hard to keep all those mouths shut, for this long, there would have been a whistle blower by now if it was fake.

      There have been whistleblowers. Bill Kaysing, Brian Todd O'Leary to name a couple. Also, Gus Grissom - the Apollo astronaut who burned to the death in the Apollo 1 tests - was openly critical of the impossibility of the Apollo program. His wife and son are under the impression that he was murdered for these criticisms.

      This is opposed to an assassination which may only need a handful of people to organize and so is easier to keep under wraps.

      The coverup of the JFK assassination was a massive operation with a ton of holes in it. That's why a sizable portion of the US does not believe the official story. The same is true for the moon landings.

      This page is the best collection of sources on this topic. Feel free to give it a read over. Again, I'm only claiming that there's more to the criticisms of the moon landing than most people realize. This theory won't be put to rest until a moon landing happens outside the Apollo program.

      • SteveHasBunker [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Not that many people need to be in on the conspiracy. There was widely publicized criticisms of the Apollo program throughout the 60’s claiming it was impossible. That’s why it was called a “moonshot.” Even the mainstream news outlets were reporting on the fact that it had a 0.0017% chance of succeeding. The conspiracy only requires that the astronauts were not in the rocket.

        Seems weird that the government would pay out such big bucks to have a bunch of engineers work on a fake rocket, have a bunch of dudes sit in a fake control room, and make it all convincing enough that they believed they were all actually sending a guy to the moon. Must have been a lot of effort to make all those computers print out fake data that was enough to convince the scientists "yup we landed that dude".

        I'll have to investigate the whistle blower thing.

        • DeepPoliSci [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Seems weird that the government would pay out such big bucks to have a bunch of engineers work on a fake rocket, have a bunch of dudes sit in a fake control room, and make it all convincing enough that they believed they were all actually sending a guy to the moon. Must have been a lot of effort to make all those computers print out fake data that was enough to convince the scientists “yup we landed that dude”.

          Not any more effort than was required for the coverup of biological war crimes on Korean peninsula, the OPCW lie about Bashar Al-Assad using chemical weapons on his own population, or the OPCW lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

          Faking the moon landing seems like a much easier lie to maintain than the other lies of the US empire.

          Here's probably the best effort-post on the hoax side of the discussion [1] It mostly discusses the circumstantial evidence that hoaxers and debunkers focus on.