• 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.