sbird

How to I prove to someone that the U.S. moon landing wasn't staged?

https://sopuli.xyz/post/42150922

How to I prove to someone that the U.S. moon landing wasn't staged? - Sopuli

For reference, I have already told them why the sky has no stars (it’s because of camera exposure, the moon surface is very reflective so lower exposure is used to not overexpose the image) and why the flag wasn’t drooping down (there was an extending arm in the stand to hold it upright, as a flag drooping down is a sad flag). I have also explained that the videos of the moon landing were upscaled/remastered when they asked why the video quality of the clips were so good. Currently, their main argument is the fact that the U.S. were able to do the moon landing in the mid 20th century while are experiencing delays for the current moon mission. They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon. They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon. I have argued that NASA’s budget is a fraction of what is used to be, and that the addition of new modern technologies introduces additional parts that could break and thus need to be tested. I have also mentioned that the Soviet Union would immediately call out the US if they faked the moon landing, and that samples of moon rocks were sent to Soviet scientists to study and verify. They insist that the Soviets were scared of what the US would do if they spoke out against a fake moon landing, which I didn’t agree with (given they were both nuclear superpowers) They then argued that it’s impossible to tell whether the moon rocks are actually from the moon landing, they could be samples collected by rovers. I responded that no rovers had successfully collected moon rocks at the time, and then they switched to arguing that it’s impossible to verify the rocks are from the moon. I followed up by saying there are methods of doing that (through the composition of the rocks and such). They then asked how anybody knows what moon rocks look like if nobody else has been to the moon, and I got kind of stumped. I tried to explain that there are models to how the moon formed, how we know the rocks aren’t from Earth, satellites that map out the surface, etc., but they reiterated that no one can “prove” that they were from the moon without going there in the first place. One interesting thing they also mentioned is that, if the US really did do a moon landing, why the Soviets (during cold war era) or Chinese (in modern era) didn’t do what they do best and copied their designs to land on the moon. Given that the US and China are having a new space race with the goal of being the first to establish a lunar base, they argue that China could just copy the Apollo program designs if the US really did do a moon landing. To summarise, their main points/questions right now are: a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn’t given them a good impression…) b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like? c) Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese) They say that there isn’t strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that “we will see” once someone else lands on the moon) And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn’t faked? edit: Another thing, they also can’t believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!

Mar 6 at 4:55amWeb
Show threadinfinitevalenceMar 6
You cannot argue with stupid, dont bother.
Show threadJännätMar 6

This’d be my answer. A friend (former at this point) of mine fell down a conspiracist rabbit hole, and at one point started insisting the moon landings were faked. Now, I happen to know a lot (or more than most, anyhow) about the Apollo program, and absolutely nothing I could say helped. Either they pivoted to some new bullshit argument they’d heard on some YouTube video, or just dismissed things as lies when convenient.

You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

Show threadcynarMar 7

I lost a good friend a similar way. He insisted there was a global conspiracy to suppress “free energy” (over unity generators), among other things.

My background allowed me to personally prove some of his arguments wrong from almost first principles. He then accused me of personally being part of the conspiracy. At that point I concluded he was a lost cause and parted ways.

Most of his “evidence” was in YouTube videos. I went through a couple. It mostly had the build-up, explanation, consequences, and conclusions. It missed any actual evidence. It’s amazing how someone can fill 2 hours with nothing of substance.

Show threadJännätMar 7
At least my friend didn’t accuse me of personally being in on any conspiracy, but every time I saw them it turned into them trying to “gotcha” me with their latest conspiracy. Eventually they went off the deep end into flat Earther bullshit and at that point I just gave up and we lost touch because I haven’t had any interest in hanging out.
Show threadcynarMar 7

It perplexed me quite a lot. I think it was the only way he could mentally maintain his worldview.

Dealing with that mindset is exhausting. I try and keep an open mind. Unfortunately it’s possible to have it so open your brain falls out.

Show threadJännätMar 7

“Exhausting” is exactly how I would describe it.

But yeah, I try to keep an open mind too, and I didn’t mind (har har) my former friend’s previous witchcraft woo woo at all because it was harmless, but once they (and their partner, gah) started getting into conspiracy stuff they got weirdly belligerent about it, and it just got worse and worse the deeper they went. The last time I saw both of them, I was grilled for 2h about basic fucking geometry (turns out flat Earthers don’t understand perspective at all) and after that I just decided that I’ve had enough

Show threadArcherMar 6
Even better, one up them. “You think the Moon is real?!?”
Show threadttyybbMar 6
You believe in the concept of a moon?
Show threadTotally Human Emdash UserMar 6
I like my moons like I like my plans: in concept form only.
Show threadaffenlehrerMar 6
The flat earth people often say it’s a hologram
Show threadSaveTheTuaHawkMar 6

The flat earth people

Use GPS navigation to drive around.

Show threadDamienGramatacusMar 6
To add to that: You can’t reason someone out of an argument they didn’t reason themselves into.
Show thread「黃家駒 Wong Ka Kui」 | (aka: 鳳凰院 凶真 Hououin Kyouma)Mar 6
Wait, y’all believe in the moon?
Show threadJännätMar 6
I don’t even believe in y’all
Show threadChaosMonkeyMar 6
I don’t even believe in myself.
Show threadRhynoplazMar 6

It sounds like you’d literally have to take your friend to the moon in order for them to believe anything, but there are reflective sensors (I don’t know exactly what they are called or what they do) that scientists shoot lasers at for science.

Maybe you can find a video that explains them and shows a scientist interacting with them? Although, I suspect they’d just claim that was all faked too.

Show threadDudewitbowMar 6

theres retroreflectors on the moon that were intentionally. imstalled so that precise aiming of a laser would signify someone installed it on the moon if you saw the reflection back

theyre used to measure the moon earth distance but the fact that installation is there in that time period shows man was on the moon

Show threadsbirdMar 6
Okay that is actually kind of cool. I never knew this was done! I am anticipating that they would ask whether they were placed by humans or rovers/landers/non-human methods, so was it possible (at the time) to put these retroreflectors on the moon without human intervention? I’m assuming, like the collection of moon rocks, it was not (otherwise why would they bother with having humans doing it with all that human error?)
Show threadRed_OctoberMar 6

Without the ability of a private person to verify that, though, it’s no more persuasive than explaining all the other things we did up there.

And if the person is capable enough to actually use a laser to accurately target and measure the reflection of these retroreflectors, they’re not a moon landing denier.

Show threadDudewitbowMar 6
you cant win everyone. similar to flat earthers who refuse to go on a paid trip to see 24 hour sun is up day, they will believe the shit till the end
Show threadOnomatopoeiaMar 6
Arguing with a fool is like wrestling a pig - all that happens is you both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Show threadBurgerBaronMar 6
You cannot successfully argue with a pigeon.
Show threadTryingSomethingNewMar 6
The Russians admitted it.
Show threadUpperBroccoliMar 6
That would be my main argument as well - if it had been faked, the Soviets would have known and cried foul.
Show threadDomeGuyMar 6

a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?

Going to the moon is expensive and has essentially no direct revenue. There are no resources to be had on the moon that provide worthwhile efficiency over what we already have on earth, and most of the basic science was done by the Apollo missions.

How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like?

Getting moon rocks, which have a unique microscopic texture due to no water erosion, was one of those “basic science” bits I mentioned before. They don’t really prove the moon landing except that “they’re from the moon” is the simplest answer for why these rocks have that unique texture.

Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)

Because thre 1960s were fifty years ago.

The industrial base to build an Apollo rocket isn’t there anymore than the industrial base to build a 1965 Buick skylark or an Atati 2600. You could throw money and rebuild all those factories, but it’d dramatically balloon the cost even before you start to recon with correcting the inevitable mismatch between the original spec and what your rebuilt factory can make.

(And even if we did just rebuild Apollo, we’d wind up with a rocket that didn’t have the advantage of 50 years of advancement.)

Show threadsbirdMar 6
That was really helpful, thanks! I will try bring up some of those points in the future. Makes sense that going to the moon is expensive especially given that NASA’s budget is so much smaller now.
Show threadryathalMar 6
The Saturn V rocket was also massive overkill on power. It had about 50% more thrust than a falcon heavy that is currently being used for planned moon missions.
Show threadkluczyczka (she/her)Mar 6

they do not provide proof. why should you? he could as well argue my bookshelf didn’t exist, since none of you have seen it yourself. but is this a discussion worth having?

also: the underlying idea, that modern tech could do better whatever a human has done without it, is just naïve. we do not build much rounded shapes in windows and stuff anymore bc our machines work best and most efficient for straight cuts if we want to make use of their power we have to build a certain way.

Show threadttyybbMar 6
Well do you have a bookshelf?
Show threadkluczyczka (she/her)Mar 6
i will not further discuss my bookshelf or any other interior item of mine without an attorney.
Show threadJännätMar 6
I knew it, your bookshelf was faked!
Show threadkluczyczka (she/her)Mar 6
cease your investigations.
Show threadJännätMar 6
YOU’LL NEVER SILENCE ME
Show threadAbouBenAdhemMar 6

Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?

The Apollo program took 4.5% of the US budget. NASA’s entire budget now—including space telescopes, earth satellites, and interplanetary probes—is less than half of one percent.

Show threadsbirdMar 6
Woah that is kind of insane, I did not know that the modern budget was that much lower! :0
Show threadsandayleMar 6
If traveling to the Moon is so expensive, why were six crewed missions sent? Wouldn’t one have been enough?
Show threadTrumpetXMar 6

Why build one when you can build two at twice the price!

/s Contact quote

Seriously though, the cost was largely in the preparation. At some point you want to get more out of all that work. Yes, it was expensive for each actual launch. I wonder what the cost of stopping at the first one would have been. I’m WAGing that half the cost was getting there the first time. The other half was 5 more. That would be an interesting stat to know.

Show threadCevilia (they/she/…)Mar 6
Don’t bother arguing with stupid. They’ll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Show threadFunkyCheeseMar 6
Why do you give a shit about an idiots beliefs?
Show threadTotally Human Emdash UserMar 6
In fairness, at some point we all have to learn the hard way that no amount of evidence will convince some people to change their mind about their deeply held beliefs.
Show threadstrocker89Mar 6
You cannot prove a negative. For example, if I say “prove that you are not a murderer” there is nothing you could possibly do to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have never murdered anyone. This is why you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on someone who claims it was a fraud, not the other way around.
Show threadsbirdMar 6
They don’t say that it was definitively faked, but claims that there isn’t enough evidence that it was not. They say that “we will see” once China lands on the moon.
Show threadfizzleMar 6
“Humans landed on the moon” is a positive statement.
Show threadttyybbMar 6
Yes, but it still applies because we’re talking about a conspiracy therist.
Show threadfizzleMar 6

What?

My guy said you can’t prove we did not send humans to the moon.

You can certainly prove that we did send humans to the moon.

Show threadworkgoodMar 6
no we didnt. no one gone to the moon
Show threadSwingingTheLampMar 6

As others have said, you can’t change irrational beliefs with facts. This fact will become obvious if you change tacks and start asking this person pointed questions that highlight the contradictions in their belief.

If you do it well, they get enraged by their inability to come up with good answers, and abruptly stop talking to you about it (or stop talking to you at all).

(Also, you can often tell if their belief is rational by whether they ask you sincere questions seeking to understand why you think it’s real, in case they’re wrong.)

Show threadPeppycitoMar 6
The real conspiracy is that the moon landing was just a way to get the public to be enthusiastic about devolping weapon systems.
Show threadOnomatopoeiaMar 6

Just as bad, we have Johnson on tape selling it to Kennedy as a way to get past the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Kennedy didn’t believe in it at all.

Johnson wanted the pork for his constituents.

In Johnson’s defense a little, many of his constituents were quite poor and this did bring a lot of development to the area.

It also put the Soviet Union in a tough position of having to try to keep up (though they did have a stellar space program already, but going to the moon was a waste of resources).

Hell, IIRC, they had the first lander on the moon. They were well ahead of the US in many ways.

Show threadmagiccupcakeMar 6
We’re still doing it too. Pretty much all of our modern telescopes, like JWST, are built by defense contractors who then use the expertise and technologies they develop for military applications.
Show threadRoidingOldManMar 6

Here are images of the moon’s surface where you can make out details like rover tracks.

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10818

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | New LRO Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo 12, 14, and 17 Sites

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 sites, revealing the twists and turns of the paths made when the astronauts explored these areas. ||

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio
Show threadylphMar 6

Other countries took photos of the Apollo landing sites as well, including China.

The best ones so far were taken by the Indian Chandrayaan orbiters.

Really shows how deep this conspiracy goes ! :)

Show threadxxce2AAbMar 6
wtop.com/…/the-experiment-still-running-on-the-mo…
Proof we made it to the moon: You can still bounce a laser off it today

One of the experiments taken into space on Apollo 11 was called the Lunar Laser Retro-Reflector, and it still works even today (though perhaps not as well as it did), just like it did in a 2010 episode of “The Big Bang Theory.

WTOP News
Show threadtylerMar 6

Stop trying to argue to convince them. Ask them “Why?”

Why would the moon landing be faked? What’s to gain from it? (Correct answer, nothing, and everything to be lost when someone leaks).

There’s answers to all of their questions, but I guarantee they can’t give an answer to Why?

Show threadohulancutashMar 6
That’s no moon.
Show threadTuuktuukMar 6

There was an interesting article about how the moon landings could have been faked with 1960’s technology and it turns out you’d need such obscenely expensive equipment that just going to the actual moon would be the cheaper alternative.

The impossibility of faking the landing is a good proof IMO.

Show threadClay_pidginMar 6
That sounds awesome. I’ll see if I can find it
Show threadTuuktuukMar 6
Here’s something, at least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhp-FTYSGe8
Why the Moon Landing COULDN'T Have Been Faked | Adam Ruins Everything

YouTube
Show threadMrsDoyleMar 7

I saw a guy on YouTube talking about the capability of videotape tech at the time. Upshot was that it was that the footage had to have been broadcast live, it couldn’t have been prerecorded. Didn’t convince my idiot acquaintance of course.

You could always try the Buzz Aldrin approach: m.youtube.com/shorts/hqoYiUAppmI

Flashback 2002: Buzz Aldrin Punches a Conspiracy Theorist #shorts

YouTube
Show threadzxqwasMar 6
Their arch enemy, the Soviet Union, congratulated them on the achievement. They would have loved to take the US down a peg or two.