Enterprise-D(ebunking)
Enterprise-D(ebunking)
(Yes, of course I know that's not the Enterprise-D and that TNG came out in 1986, but you try making a better debunking joke.)
Also keep in mind that the astronauts communicated with Earth by radio. Anyone with even 1920s radio technology would have figured out that the astronauts weren't broadcasting from the Moon.
We were in the middle of a cold war with the soviets back in the 1960s. Proving the moon landing was fake would have been the propaganda coup of the century for them. What possible reason would they have to stay quiet about that?
If we could fake the moon landings, we also could have faked the Soviet Union.
We've always been at war with Eurasia
We were in the middle of a cold war with the soviets back in the 1960s. Proving the moon landing was fake would have been the propaganda coup of the century for them. What possible reason would they have to stay quiet about that?
That's always been my number one reason why the moon landing was definitely not faked. The Soviets never caught wind of it between 1969 and 1992? Come on.
Plus we left retroreflectors on the moon, that we can shoot laser beams at and get a return bean back.
its used to measure the drift of the moon away from earth.
the lunar reoglith is not reflective enough to bounce a signal back (and its been tested to death)
To be fair star trek was impressive for the time
Most of the time anyway...
In my opinion the rough edges give the show charm and character, theres a certain magic to imperfection
Faking the moon landing would have been a massive coverup requiring the cooperation of at least one foreign nation. (Australia, because of Parkes)
During the Nixon administration. Nixon couldn't even cover up one little burglary.
It would have required so much work it'd be easier just to land on the moon.
This is the one thing that kills me with one of my favorite space movies, interstellar... they have that one scene at the school saying the landings were faked to bankrupt the soviets...like how the fuck did that make it into the movie.
Fake moon landing, aliens built the pyramids why do some conspiracy theories insist on robbing humans of their monumental achievements. My guess is that people who create and share conspiracies like those are too dumb to realize that other people have different knowledge than they do.
I do like how the moon landing deniers forget about the phrase "it's not rocket science" when pretending to know what they're talking about.
It's probably because most of the people that believe these things are impossible can't even chew with their mouths closed.
They can barely walk and breathe at the same time
why do conspiracy theories insist on robbing humans of their monumental achievements
Uh, JFK and 9/11 were monumental achievements?
How does two events out of 60,000 years prove anything to you?
Would you like me to edit my comment to say "why do some conspiracy theories...."?
My favorite debunking is an old YouTube video called "moon hoax not" where a filmmaker explains that the due to technology limits of the time, faking the multi-hour live broadcasts in slow-motion, which millions of people were watching, would be impossible without there being telltale signs of it being spliced film (the splicing, film grain, etc.). Since slow-mo video (distinct from film; TV broadcasts were video) at the time could not play back more than a few seconds of footage, at most, it would have to be high-speed film played back at normal speed. Assuming you could find or make a high-speed camera fit to task. While the first landing had awful video quality, later missions had much higher quality and the film fakery would be impossible to completely hide. People these days massively overestimate the video (and film) technology that was available in 1969. (IIRC. It's been years since I've last rewatched it.)
Edit: TL;DR: Perfectly faking the multi-hour uninterrupted video broadcasts (i.e., either inventing slow-motion video that can last hours, or perfectly passing off a multi-hour film as video) in slow-motion would have been significantly more difficult than sending humans to the moon with 1969 technology.
Oh, I know this video!
I remember playing it for somebody, and you could tell they were trying so hard to disagree with it in their head. I imagine they still believe it was fake, but it was funny.
I do find it amazing that it was literally easier to send humans to the moon than faking it in 1969
Like, isn't that an astonishing fact?
isnt there something about a smart watch today ahving more computational power than what took nasa to the moon, too?
I feel like Captain Disillusion would have done a video on the moon landings if they were faked ... unless he was in on it, hmm.
Flawless 4K special effects have been available for over 100 years, but the government’s been hiding them!
Re-hoaxed :)
Now this one is really concerning!
The problem with moon landings isn't that they can't be done, it's that they are dangerous as shit, with little reward. You'd get a better deal out of being sent to a remote desert island.
To orbit the moon, a space craft needs to move at about 1.5 km/s, or 3300 miles per hour.
So any landing starts with you going at 1.5 km/s and needs to end at the moons surface when you reach about 0 meters per second.
If anything goes wrong with your engines while you slow down, you smack into the moon at either near orbital speeds, or at fighter jet speeds. The window for having an engine failure and being slow enough to survive is so narrow that it might as well not exist.
That’s why Apollo used pressure fed, self igniting engines. As long as 2 valves opened, you had an engine. And Apollo landers had a totally separate ascent engine that worked exactly the same way, so if the landing engine failed, they could just drop the landing stage and return to orbit at practically any time during the descent. They even had a whole procedure of what to do if the ascent engine didn’t light when they were supposed to leave. Everything from jump starting the engine like a car with a dead battery, to physically getting access to the valves and manually opening them.
I hate the current plan for Artemis. I hate that in 55 years, we’ve only managed to make shit more complicated. The current plan is for a vehicle with no abort capability to ignite its 3 turbo pumped, liquid methane fueled engines at least 4 times to get from low earth orbit to the moons surface, with days between ignitions.
A capability that has never been shown to work or even exist in any capacity. Turbo pumps are finally machined pieces of engineering that need to behave exactly right, or they turn a rocket into either a bomb, or a giant tube that can’t move. And the current plan for Artemis calls for these finely crafted pieces of machinery to be subjected to the harsh environment of both space where they’ll sit for at least a week, and multiple ignitions, where they’re subjected to ridiculous temperatures and pressures.
Absolutely ridiculous. We never left an astronaut on the moon in the 60s and 70s, but by god are they trying to open the first graveyard on the moon these days.
IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD
Wasn't 2001 also made at that time? As I recall, that was incredibly realistic (mostly), far more so than a cheap TV show
(Not saying that 2001 is proof, just that ToS isn't a great comparison)
2001 came out in 1968, so a year before the actual moon landing. As long as you were economical with your shots, you could definitely do some realistic-looking microgravity and spaceships with 60s tech - what you couldn't do with 60s tech, as a commenter above pointed out, was a long flat shot of people moving convincingly on the lunar surface, which is what the Apollo films show.
2001 came out in 1968, so a year before the actual moon landing
Haha! So it was the test for how realistic they'd get it. I knew it!
Similarly to the conspiracy that inspires this meme, the meme itself also doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On the other hand, do you know one of the companies that supposedly made the Saturn-V?
Boeing.
So what? SEGA made the first Saturn, and they're still... around... uh
At least their build quality was generally good back then. I wouldn't trust them to build a Saturn V today.
Arguably their quality contributed to them being allowed to effictively oversee themselves. Did it save some time and red tape at the time? Yes. Did it eventually lead to hundreds of deaths? Also yes.
you try making a better debunking joke.)
Are you kidding me? Lemmy is way too contentious to encourage me to do that - I am leaving posting to the professionals like you!
I believe in you. If you fill yourself with determination, you too can use comedy to challenge people and also complain about those people canceling you loudly on NBC.
Hypothetically speaking... how much money would I be able to make doing this? 😇
But to be clear I mostly was joking about being a coward, not so much "cancelled".
More to the point, Lemmy is about Linux and... uh... GNU+Linux, and I for one don't need to be submitting posts that are not of interest to others. A skill which I seem to very much lack, most of the time:-).
However, for its time TOS effects were often really good. People expected the typical B-movie styles but got believable visuals.
TNG came out in 1987. I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.
Yeah, but think about what the GOVERNMENT could afford! They were SUPER rich back then!
They hired Kubrik to fake the moon landing and he insisted on shooting on location.
I saw a rebuttal that said the special effects at the time couldn't have faked it.
What, Star Trek?
As a mod on both the Ten Forward and Star Trek communities, I can tell you that Star Trek TOS is 100% true and accurate.
Especially this part:
Yeah but look at how the shadow on the wall in the back isn’t in sync with the dancing. Checkmate atheists.
Ahh yes, the famous 23rd century boy band "NCC-1701-SYNC"
It looks fine on a CRT at 480i
Looks legit, what's the point here?
But that's a low-budget show. The Apollo Program had billions to invest in VFX.
It would have been cheaper if Kubrick hadn’t insisted on filming on location
I thought Kubrick filmed it in a movie studio... on Mars.
I've been to the NASA space center and they've got a very vivid recreation of the moon landing in a museum. I have no doubt you could have faked the video. But how they got a moon lander and a flag up there remains a mystery.
Also, we landed on the moon six different times. Even if you're skeptical of Neil and Buzz, it kept happening through Cernan. By Apollo 17, it was barely newsworthy.
And the old saying "three people can keep a secret, if 2 are dead" comes to mind. The number of people who would know, just in astronauts, tells me someone would've squealed.
There was a movie in the 1980's that used this premise, but the astronauts weren't supposed to know (I think), or were only told pretty late. Capricorn One (with OJ Simpson if memory serves). Not a great movie, hell, not even good, just an interesting concept.
I have no doubt you could have faked the video.
Nope. In order to fake the video with a live background and real shadows, you would have to have had a single sun-equivalent light source to make all of the shadows point in the exact same direction, while at the same time no light whatsoever coming from any other direction.
CGI wasn't a thing in 1969. Ultimately, if you wanted to fake a moon landing in 1969, you would very quickly find out that it would be far simpler and far less expensive to just go to the moon.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11354908/?ref_=ttep_ep8
I guess the VFX reference isn't widely known, nor it's direct enough.
