3 ms·
Does the existence of some object on the moon surface prove that the broadcast was live and that the spaceship successfully returned?
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoAlso, 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.