I've heard every angle of this one. What's the best arguments either way? How can I be sure what's actually original video/pictures these days and what has been edited?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
In an age where anyone can cry "photoshopped" (with or without knowledge of how hard it is to fake content on the kind of physical media used for the missions), a lot of discussion on the landings ends up being a "he said, she said" dead end.
Instead, I think it would be interesting to try a new approach - what we might call Poirot over Holmes - and focus our little gray cells on matters of motivation and opportunity, rather than having the exact same "the flag sways to the wind / the flag is hanging from a horizontal pole" debate that everyone's had before. So, here goes:
Evidence for the landings: They came as a natural step in space development, after sending objects in orbit, animals and people in orbit, and two manned lunar flybys immediately before. However...
Evidence against the landings: Most of those firsts were done by the Soviets, and Americans badly needed a victory to boost their international prestige. Especially with the Vietnam War not going nearly the way they wanted - so they could use a major distraction there as well, and they certainly weren't above trying to fake the whole deal. However...
For: The Soviets had the requisite equipment to triangulate if the Apollo signals came from space or not, and would be the first to cry foul if they could. They didn't. But instead....
For: All the landings happened during the term of Richard Nixon, the go-to "evil president" media bogeyman before Trump, meaning his in-country opponents had every reason to discredit his achievements as president. Which doesn't quite explain why...
Against: The manned landings stopped with the end of Nixon's presidency, and further lunar missions have been token at best. But then again...
For: The manned missions didn't have much practical utility over robotic explorers - which were sent by the Soviets - and the samples taken by the Apollo crews, coupled with ever-advancing spectroscopic analysis, would provide ample scientific data for decades to come. And culturally, while the space program was a cornerstone of Soviet propaganda, Americans quickly lost interest after these first manned missions, making them a costly and risky endeavor with next to no return. Though still...
For: The leftover equipment from the landings is still visible by telescope, including ones that can be rented for private purposes. Meaning that serious skeptics can still pool resources and produce new images of the sites, conclusively proving them to be barren and untouched, if they were. But again, this also hasn't happened.
Overall, we certainly have motive for the crime, but not quite the opportunity - the Soviets could easily spot them for trying, and an exposed faking of the landings during the Cold War, especially the Vietnam years, would mean a massive hit on American prestige that they could not afford. However, there's plenty of motives and opportunities for the local opponents of the Nixon administration to attempt a frame-up, while his subsequent post-resignation demonization would affect all projects during his term, including the space program.
Even if this was the case this could easily be faked. NASA could have sent a probe that sent a signal just to convince the soviets that the signal was coming from space, Or even a probe that was transmitting the FAKE footage prerecorded on the studio by Kubrick.
On this I actually agree. A disposable probe with only flyby capabilities and no need for reentry navigation - well within the technology of the time. It flies off, plays its tune, burns up in atmo on the way back, and the ships "find" the splashed-down crew module at the designated location.
That said, they'd still need pinpoint script timing to pull off the impression of real-time conversation between the pre-recorded messages from the probe, and the responses of mission control. And, of course, rely on absolutely nothing happening during the inevitable signal loss when the probe is behind the Moon. The fact the Soviets sent a robotic lander the very next year, speaks highly of the remote control technology of the time, at least for tasks as simple as driving a glorified RC buggy on flat rock.
But that's the thing - with automated technology being that advanced, it would cost nothing to strap on a couple of human passengers anyway, at least for bragging rights. Life support issues are the main concern, of course, but most of the conditions would be the same as in orbit - and those were already covered ground by the time.
And of course, this still leaves the smoking gun - terrestrial telescope images of the landing sites. Either put by hand or by machine, the one thing certain is that something manmade was placed there within the past fifty years or so.
As for the Ukraine conflict, Russia has already announced it will suspend joint operations in the ISS until the sanctions are lifted... however that is supposed to work, since the hub and life support modules of the thing are Russian. Either it's a token announcement with no practical substance, or, cynical as it may be, a testament that matters of space always have and will continue to be guided by terrestrial concerns, at least for the foreseeable future. So there's that.