4 ms·

> But sadly, NASA was afraid that the site would be disturbed and declared no fight [flight?] zone over it. Moon landing deniers would eat that one up.

api 3y ago
I’m surprised how many people still believe this in spite of photos having been taken of the sites from Lunar orbit by other space programs. It seems to be an article of faith for some though. We could have a space tourism industry with a package to visit the Apollo landing site museum on the Moon and a ton of people still would not believe.
- hinkley 3y ago
  There are retroreflectors on the moon you can use to prove we were there.
  - MarcoZavala 3y ago
    [dead]
  - funnymony 3y ago
    For such proof to be effective, one has to trust lot of formulas from physics books. (Source of flat-earthery is extreme distrust in everything that is not a first-hand experience. You can’t prove much if your limited exclusively to first hand experience)
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      The thing about the whole flat-earth rabbit hole that's always logically confused me is the epistemology problem. If you deny X, and then you carefully deny anything that could prove X... what do you replace it with? F.ex., I get how someone could disbelieve the current physics of motion. But then how do things move? It can't all just be dice rolls and unexplained magic. If you toss out the way we understand things work... there still has to be a way things work!
      - hinkley 3y ago
        That's why even in conversations where we're talking abstractly about this stuff, I just pull out my phone and wave it around. If science doesn't work then what the fuck is this thing?
- klntsky 3y ago
  Does the existence of some object on the moon surface prove that the broadcast was live and that the spaceship successfully returned?
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    No, but your probability heuristic is catastrophically flawed if, from that, you conclude the landing was faked despite material having been placed up there.
    - klntsky 3y ago
      > from that, you conclude I don't.
  - api 3y ago
    The presence of the expected artifacts such as the LEM descent stage, rovers, foot and rover tracks, and science packages all left just where the mission logs said they would be are certainly pretty suggestive. The alternate explanation would be a hoax so elaborate it involved robotic missions to leave props on the moon on top of a giant disposable rocket launch, satellites to fake the signals, and a huge cutting edge filming effort to fake the broadcasts. At some point it starts to get as hard as just going to the damn moon.
    - mjevans 3y ago
      I believe in the evidence that the moon landings happened. However, as you suggest, even if that evidence were faked to such an elaborate degree could be an even higher technical feat that would be worthy of even greater recognition.
      - ethbr0 3y ago
        Also, there's the side effect that if you faked a moon landing in the 1960s, you'd be damned sure the other superpower on the planet would have their best and brightest laser-focused on your product. Convincing fakes usually have misdirection as a big component, because faking something under close expert scrutiny is orders of magnitude more difficult.
Maursault 3y ago
Most don't make the distinction, but that the Apollo missions succeeded in landing on the Moon is far less doubted as whether the footage was faked.[1] [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/

api 3y ago

I’m surprised how many people still believe this in spite of photos having been taken of the sites from Lunar orbit by other space programs. It seems to be an article of faith for some though. We could have a space tourism industry with a package to visit the Apollo landing site museum on the Moon and a ton of people still would not believe.

hinkley 3y ago
There are retroreflectors on the moon you can use to prove we were there.
- MarcoZavala 3y ago
  [dead]
- funnymony 3y ago
  For such proof to be effective, one has to trust lot of formulas from physics books. (Source of flat-earthery is extreme distrust in everything that is not a first-hand experience. You can’t prove much if your limited exclusively to first hand experience)
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    The thing about the whole flat-earth rabbit hole that's always logically confused me is the epistemology problem. If you deny X, and then you carefully deny anything that could prove X... what do you replace it with? F.ex., I get how someone could disbelieve the current physics of motion. But then how do things move? It can't all just be dice rolls and unexplained magic. If you toss out the way we understand things work... there still has to be a way things work!
    - hinkley 3y ago
      That's why even in conversations where we're talking abstractly about this stuff, I just pull out my phone and wave it around. If science doesn't work then what the fuck is this thing?
klntsky 3y ago
Does the existence of some object on the moon surface prove that the broadcast was live and that the spaceship successfully returned?
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  No, but your probability heuristic is catastrophically flawed if, from that, you conclude the landing was faked despite material having been placed up there.
  - klntsky 3y ago
    > from that, you conclude I don't.
- api 3y ago
  The presence of the expected artifacts such as the LEM descent stage, rovers, foot and rover tracks, and science packages all left just where the mission logs said they would be are certainly pretty suggestive. The alternate explanation would be a hoax so elaborate it involved robotic missions to leave props on the moon on top of a giant disposable rocket launch, satellites to fake the signals, and a huge cutting edge filming effort to fake the broadcasts. At some point it starts to get as hard as just going to the damn moon.
  - mjevans 3y ago
    I believe in the evidence that the moon landings happened. However, as you suggest, even if that evidence were faked to such an elaborate degree could be an even higher technical feat that would be worthy of even greater recognition.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      Also, there's the side effect that if you faked a moon landing in the 1960s, you'd be damned sure the other superpower on the planet would have their best and brightest laser-focused on your product. Convincing fakes usually have misdirection as a big component, because faking something under close expert scrutiny is orders of magnitude more difficult.

Maursault 3y ago

Most don't make the distinction, but that the Apollo missions succeeded in landing on the Moon is far less doubted as whether the footage was faked.[1] [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/