The moon landing & calculated risk.
1 2014-12-19 by BluEyeDevill
Before you try to troll and discredit me, listen to what I'm actually saying. I'm NOT saying the U.S never landed on the moon: thats absurd, there is verifiable proof that we did many times. I want to explore the possibility that it didn't happen in July of 69', solely via a massive discrepancy between form and content. It makes zero sense that the footage of the most crucial stage of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind was simply lost or overwritten. Regardless of the size of NASA's archives, this footage would never be lost. Even if your bookshelf has 50,000 books on it, you'll never lose your first edition Charles Dickens novel, its far too special.
There were four possible outcomes to the situation in the 1960's: 1. Everything goes according to plan, huge win for US nationalism. 2. The USSR wins the race, bad for US nationalism. 3. The lunar module explodes on live tv, devastating to US nationalism. 4. Temporarily fake the mission, ensuring outcome #1 while preventing #2 and #3 with absolute certainty.
Like others have pointed out many times, there is a strong likelihood a maiden voyage of this type would have a catastrophic outcome; far too strong to broadcast it on live television. What it really comes down to is a matter of calculated risk. Its the very same reason the Red Hot Chili Peppers didn't actually play instruments at the Superbowl: why take a chance of malfunction? By forcing a U.S victory NASA could take the extra time they needed to not risk lives and still maintain the image of the USA. In a purely economic sense, its the thing to do. I don't want to talk about moon rocks with stuff painted on them, I don't want to talk about reflections in spacesuit helmets, I don't want to talk about grainy old photographs. I want to focus on this massive difference in form and content, the strongest piece of evidence that the story may not be how it seems.
28 comments
6 thc1967 2014-12-19
If you're going to put forth a claim that the US did not land men on the moon in '69, you are going to have to provide a plausible explanation why the Soviet Union, given the political climate of the time, did not call them out on the ruse.
That is the first, most necessary step to support that particular conspiracy. The Soviet Union's silence (begrudging congratulation?) is the strongest piece of evidence that it actually happened.
4 BluEyeDevill 2014-12-19
I don't see how this changes anything. Silence doesn't admit defeat. The USSR would have only had a weaker version of what we have today: circumstantial evidence. I think it would have been both damaging to Soviet nationalism and boosting to US nationalism to have them make a public statement like that without hard evidence. The people of the USSR would say "our government is crazy" if they deny and "our government truly is weaker" if they congratulate. the people of the US would say "the russian government is crazier than we thought" if they deny and "we really are superior" if they congratulate. Silence is the best course of action when speech of any kind would be a lose-lose.
3 thc1967 2014-12-19
You're aware the USSR was working to do the same thing, right? Land on the moon...
Which means they had all the same tracking technology. They knew where the US craft was the whole trip, just as certainly as the Americans did.
The Soviets absolutely had hard evidence. Because they said nothing, that hard evidence must have been that the Americans actually did it.
2 uschiffer 2014-12-19
The US could've sent a probe to land but with no actual humans. The USSR could've seen the probe land and could not have disputed it. Now I don't know the extent of the USSR's camera tech to actually see humans from orbit at that point in time. Just a possibility that maybe the USSR's tracking capabilities were limited.
2 thc1967 2014-12-19
The Soviets could and would have also intercepted the transmissions - the voice over the airwaves. They would have known if the communication was faked.
Or maybe the Americans beamed voices from an LA sound stage to the moon probe and back...
Oh. Wait. The Soviets would have caught that, too.
No. They were equal with the Americans in the endeavor. But for bad luck, they might have made it first.
-1 putin_hates_cats 2014-12-19
Not necessarily. I could destroy your whole premise with just one sentence. What if....
The USSR also faked their entire space race and didn't land robots on the moon.
What if nobody has ever left the planet and both the USSR and US faked everything. Resulting in a check-mate. Call out your enemy on their lies and they call you out back on your lies. Especially if both had solid proof they could present to prove the other faked it.
2 Crytape 2014-12-19
Russia is the kind of country that would absolutely expose their failures if it meant exposing the bigger failures of the US.
-1 putin_hates_cats 2014-12-19
That's an assumption. And you could be right.
But the bigger point is that the "USSR didn't call out the US so man walked on the moon" argument is not very strong.
2 PersonMcName 2014-12-19
Impossible. The Robots sent signals back, and had retroreflectors that we can still use to verify they were there.
0 putin_hates_cats 2014-12-19
First off, I am not really believing this, just brainstorming to show the issue is bigger than we will even know.
That being said, if the entire concept of human entering space is a myth, then it is possible that the moon is inhabited, just not by us.
So either we could be relying on them to send back signals, or the entire concept of us receiving signals and reflections could be an elaborate hoax.
2 PersonMcName 2014-12-19
...But it's not though.
But this is becoming so convoluted and implausible, that it's basically irrelevant. It's also immediately disproven by the many, many ventures into space we've done, and the space stations such as the ISS that we can see from the ground.
Which of these situations is more likely: that the US went to the moon, and the Russians sent robots there, but not people, or that the entirety of space exploration is an elaborate lie by every single government and scientist on earth not to mention the moon now has natural retroreflectors somehow, and they are also conveniently in the same place as the planted retroreflectors supposedly are. And to top it off, most of physics now does not work, since light does not work properly anymore.
Fact is, there is pretty much 0 likelyhood of the second possibility being true, because a) it does kinda violate physics, b) it would have to be at such a massive scale it would be impossible to hide, and c) most of these things can easily be disproven.
1 thc1967 2014-12-19
There is proof positive that humans did, indeed land something on the moon so that fantasy is not plausible.
0 putin_hates_cats 2014-12-19
Unless the reflectors have been there for 1000's of years.
1 shadowofashadow 2014-12-19
Don't take this as a challenge to your stance because honestly I go back on forth on the whole moon thing. But do you think there is any chance that the Soviets did try to call the US out on it but either no one was having any of it or the US actively stopped that info from getting over here?
It's the one thing I've always wondered about when people say that.
And of course the rabbit hole goes even deeper for some. Some would say that the Soviets didn't call the US' bluff because they were in on it too ;)
1 thc1967 2014-12-19
If the Soviet Union had evidence the US didn't make it to the moon in '69 and shared it with anyone, there would still be evidence of it.
If the Soviets were in on it, and the plan was for the US to get there first, why did they waste so much money and so many lives on it, at a time when their economy was horrifyingly bad?
Hell, as pissy as Putin is now with the USA, he'd pull that shit right back out and publish it if he had it.
2 shadowofashadow 2014-12-19
Yeah this is my opinion as well. I would think that would have gotten out by now if it was the case.
1 NonThinkingPeeOn 2014-12-19
An important question to ask is why didn't the USSR go to the moon. they were trying as hard as the U.S. was to get there. what happened they just gave up? they just said fuck it?
the answer is the U.S and USSR both were involved together a campaign of some kind. Now what they were up to is any one's guess.
2 thc1967 2014-12-19
You've spent untold millions of rubles to get to the moon first. Your rocket blows up and while you're building the next, someone else beats you there.
Now the only reasons to go are:
Your economy is faltering. Your military could use some investment because the nation that just beat you to the moon is building theirs like a mother-f'er.
What do you do? Invest more untold millions?
Not at that time. It's going to take something substantial to make that plausible.
1 NonThinkingPeeOn 2014-12-19
It wasn't about getting to the moon first. It's not a childish game they were playing. "Whaaaa! We didn't get to the moon first. Now I don't want to go anymore! I hate you!" Please. Were talking about going to the moon for God's sake. Traveling into space for the advancement of humankind to advance our knowledge of the universe.
Let's get real here. they found something up there. Way before they broadcast their fake footage they traveled in their real ships that had the real technology to get there. That primitive explosion tech they show on tv is a farce. They used implosion technologies to travel into space and other planets. Yes planets. Not just the moon. They don't want the public to know about it for some reason. You can guess why I'm sure if you think about it.
1 ct_warlock 2014-12-19
They weren't in as much as a rush as the US, and weren't prepared to fling such over-the-top amounts of resources at it in such a wastrel manner. They learned plenty from their earlier space probes and were treating it in a more reasonable manner, not a way to score political points.
3 JustaDudeinaSuit 2014-12-19
Is this some new, softer angle for people trying to discredit "conspiracy theorists",? This is pathetic. It always looks as fake as it is.
1 Crytape 2014-12-19
Well it's pretty obvious there have been humans on the Moon, so this hypothesis just addresses the first Moon landing.
-1 JustaDudeinaSuit 2014-12-19
Obvious how?
1 Crytape 2014-12-19
Video footage, physical evidence viewable from Earth, etc.
0 oblivioustoobvious 2014-12-19
I don't know.
1 uschiffer 2014-12-19
Another theory I've read in this sub is that they did land in '69, but that it wasn't the first time. Ie - that they had a few attempts before until they got it right, so as to not have any incidents in the '69 landing.
1 ct_warlock 2014-12-19
There's only so many places you can plausible launch a rocket from, in order to minimise the amount of fuel you'd need (there's a reason why all the launching sites are built where they are), and people anywhere nearby would have see such launches surely?
1 ct_warlock 2014-12-19
It wasn't lost. Tape was really expensive back then and some idiotic manager told the guys to tape over it to save money.
Classic incompetent management as usual.
-1 putin_hates_cats 2014-12-19
Not necessarily. I could destroy your whole premise with just one sentence. What if....
The USSR also faked their entire space race and didn't land robots on the moon.
What if nobody has ever left the planet and both the USSR and US faked everything. Resulting in a check-mate. Call out your enemy on their lies and they call you out back on your lies. Especially if both had solid proof they could present to prove the other faked it.
-1 JustaDudeinaSuit 2014-12-19
Obvious how?
2 uschiffer 2014-12-19
The US could've sent a probe to land but with no actual humans. The USSR could've seen the probe land and could not have disputed it. Now I don't know the extent of the USSR's camera tech to actually see humans from orbit at that point in time. Just a possibility that maybe the USSR's tracking capabilities were limited.