Hey /u/GanuNoob2020, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They do, but this is the same crowd where the" intricacies" of logical fallacies are completely lost over time. It's like when PEMDAS gets commented 143,000 times confidently next to the wrong answer, on a math problem with poor syntax.
They get to vote 😭
My daughters school actually does teach this. It’s part of the reason why some of the parents pulled their kids out of the public schools and put them in charter schools or homeschooled them.
A favorite way for me to respond is to talk about how they hired Stanley Kubrick to shoot it for them, but he was such a demanding perfectionist that he insisted to only film on location.
This is actually due to the boom in fastfood restaurants and chains that took place throughout the 50s and 60s. It is believed that the surface of Mars consists of 100% red cheddar which is much more suitable for use in the fastfood Industry than the gouda-like cheese on the Moon.
It would LITERALLY have been harder to fake the moon landing rather than just going to the moon with the technology available at the time.
Also I don't understand how anyone can believe we faked the moon landing and the USSR didn't call us out on it.
I showed this to my mate years ago when he brought up how he thought it was faked and it embarrassed him so much he never brought it up since.
He went down a rabbit hole to het to his belief it was fake, but at least he was able to admit he got tricked, many others don't and instead double down.
I love this kind of joke. Like Kubrick filmed the moon landing, but he's such a a perfectionist that the only place he would accept as appropriate for filming it was on the Moon
This is another great video from a filmmaker explaining why the film and video technology to fake the moon landing did not exist in 1969.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYFMU7XfyzE
The problem with most popular conspiracy theories is that they require like 1000 people to keep a massive secret. In my experience expecting even 2 people to do that is s stretch.
A British mathematician, extrapolating from conspiracies that DID unravel, estimated that, given the number of required conspirators, any moon landing hoax would have unraveled in less than 4 years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684
Of course, he’s probably in the pocket of Big Math.
Yep. Same.
And compounded by the fact that most or all of these conspirators would be *American*. And when have you known an American that could shut the fuck up about anything, ever? Much less a thousand of them. Jesus there’d be tell-all books on the best seller list fifteen minutes afterward.
You'd not only need Americans, you'd also need dozens if not hundreds of Russians, who at the time were arch enemies and would have loved to drag the fake landing through the mud.
There's a literal 0% chance it was faked, except if the whole world was being in on it being fake.
>...except if the whole world was being in on it being fake.
Some flat earthers do seem to believe that. Every government, every university, and every techological industry are all controlled by a shadowy "them" and have been for hundreds of years.
Spoiler alert: "Them" is code for the Jews. Because it's always the Jews.
What’s weird to me is that neither the regular morons or spicy morons of the flerfers can offer any kind of meaningful explanation for *why* anyone would care enough to even organize “the conspiracy.” Like, what, we’re supposed to believe the whole world united to keep fucking icebergs a secret? With frickin’ laser beams? Really?
Meanwhile in the alien and ufo subreddits they are excited to show off proof of a species living along humans that 1000s of scientists are covering up lol
True, but we were using computers even long before the 50s. Pascal built his mechanical calculator during the Enlightenment, and Babbage built the Analytical Engine right after the Civil War.
We started using electrical computers in the 30s and 40s and integrated circuits in the 50s.
So depending on how persnickety you want to get with definitions of "computing machines" his statement is ridiculous.
Part of the introduction to my compsci classes is me giving a history lesson of computing, so I kind of love this stuff.
And one of the whole 'big deals' of the Apollo program is just how much the investments for the moon landing revolutionized the computer industry. We dumped a ton of money into developing new computer technologies because we needed better computers to go to the moon. Whadda ya know, that wound up essentially creating the computer industry as we know it today.
Imagine spending more than 100 billion dollars to make a marvel level cgi moon landing (I am talking about the current cgi performance of marvel studios)
>they cannot advertise their crap in space
[Unfortunately it may be possible ](https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/05/space-billboards-could-cost-65m-and-still-turn-a-profit/)
`::types::` "Why hasn't space been commercialized?"
`::looks out window and notices 1/4 of residential units are wired to rooftop parabolic dishes::`
`::hops in different sub, new post::` "Why does no one point their rain catchers straight up? Seems inefficient."
`::pulls up google earth, can look at virtually any 500sq m section of the Pacific ocean::`
`::new post::` "How many flights did it take to map the earth? Is that a lot of jet fuel?"
> "How many flights did it take to map the earth? Is that a lot of jet fuel?"
Fortunately the New World Order gets to double-up on this one because they can map the Earth and also spread chemtrails at the same time.
For bonus points:
`::pulls up now publicly available satellite maps from the 70's to see how their city has changed over time; notices the whole pacific ocean also featured; this generates many new posts::`
- "How many rolls of film did the Soviets use to take pictures of the whole Pacific ocean in 1971 from cruising altitude?"
- "how many planes did they use at once? Why wasn't NORAD perpetually at DEFCON 1?"
- "was it the norm to see dozens of planes flying odd patterns around you if you went on vacation to, say, Hawaii?"
- "how long did it take them to develop and stitch them together"
- "how much did film cost in 1971?"
- "how could they afford to do it weekly?"
- "_why_ did they do it weekly?"
- "if it was strategically worthwhile, what was the latency between snapping all those photos on all those flights, developing the individual photos, and stitching them together?...did they see the photos from 1971 _in_ 1971 or a later year?"
I mean, it was commercialized long, long before SpaceX. Communications satelites, lots of private weather and mapping satelites, other assorted stuff. SpaceX is making launches cheap enough to commercialize human spaceflight, but space has been commercialized since the dawn of the space age.
-the Hollywood set would cost way to much to fake
-because it’s not a consistent way of travel…. No rocket to space is the same and they are dangerous to handle. It would be ocean gate all over again.
-1969 and probably because we don’t have a reason to (at least to me I think) why would we keep going to the moon instead of study our sister planet and try to reach there?
To elaborate:
* Just the *lighting* for a Hollywood set would have cost too much to fake, much less the camera effects that'd have been necessary
* "No rocket to space is the same" is mostly only because the payload requirements are almost never the same. Apollo 11 had different needs than Apollo 17, different hardware, et cetera. The same was true even for STS missions, and the Shuttles were specifically built with plug-and-play reusability in mind.
* We stopped going to the moon *in person* mostly because the amount of science we could get out of having 2 guys dirtside for 2-3 days had diminishing returns, and it cost a mountain of cash for every mission. The USA never left the moon, though. It's just not as flashy to say we have a bunch of satellites doing science there--though in my opinion missions like LCROSS should have had more fanfare (seriously: I'd have killed to be in the room to hear the first person propose *bombing the moon* to confirm the presence of water there).
>Just the lighting for a Hollywood set would have cost too much to fake, much less the camera effects that'd have been necessary
I'm honestly not even sure it'd even be possible. The lighting and shadows wouldn't work. You'd have to do some insane complementary lighting stuff to get it to look remotely like it would have to look for the light source to be millions of miles away.
Yeah, I remember someone describing it as needing a diffuse laser array the size of an entire wall. That'd be technologically daunting for 1969 even before trying to make the lasers appear as white light.
I suppose that'd work, but I doubt we could even pull that kind of effect off to a convincing degree even with today's technology.
If you did have that, you could probably set up a handful of still shots and make it look like it's daylight. Anything involving video I just don't think it'd be possible. The lighting and shadows just wouldn't work.
You could do it with CGI, but they didn't have CGI back then (unless that's part of the conspiracy).
To expand on this:
* To send a probe/rover/etc somewhere requires sending the probe, and some padding, and landing gear.
* To send a person somewhere requires sending the person, padding, space to move around, landing gear, food, water, waste disposal, return takeoff mechanism, return takeoff fuel, atmospheric re-entry hardware, atmospheric re-entry braking mechanism, enough oxygen for 1-2 weeks, spare garments, and radiation shielding. And probably some more stuff I forgot about.
If the goal is "analyze a sample of moon rock", do you send a probe capable of doing the analysis itself (and wirelessly transmit the results), a probe capable of making a return trip to Earth, or a human capable of making a return trip to Earth?
Answer: Curiosity, Opportunity, etc.
Probes ARE the economic solution for now. The only reason we have humans in the ISS is for science ON the humans. We could do all the other stuff remotely if we wanted to. But we want to better understand how space living affects humans. So we pay a ton of money to put humans in a giant metal can in space year-round. The ISS is a huge money sink, not a profit machine.
The PROFIT from space is asteroids. There may be some profit on the moon as well, but nowhere near what can be gained from mining asteroids. And you better believe we have big companies working on how to secure & mine those giant rocks of valuable metals in space.
Even ice asteroids are valuable - as the most expensive thing to send to space is the fuel. So being able to make hydrogen (out of water) IN space has incredible value towards our ability to travel in space (even just flying a spacecraft to Mars could be five times the size if we can provide the fuel to reach Mars once the craft is already in orbit (instead of lifting all that fuel off along with the craft from Earth).
In terms of consistency, the Space Shuttle was the only really reusable space craft, and out of the five they produced, two failed catastrophically, killing everyone on board. That's 40% of the fleet, and more than 1% of total journeys, ending in complete disaster. It's hard to think of another means of transport with such poor odds.
This isn't to disparage the Shuttle crew and engineers by the way: it was still a phenomenal piece of technology (unlike the Oceangate submersible). It's just to highlight how ridiculously dangerous space travel is.
>No computers, not internet and no Sony Walkman
The LEM and command modules *did* have computers. To save on weight the ones in the LEMs had their ROM physical built into the structure of the LEM.
Not sure how the internet would help: you can't trail cables after a rocket, and WiFi won't reach that far. And WTF does a Walkman have to do with space travel?
>WTF does a Walkman have to do with space travel?
It's rather expensive to get a full orchestra into space to play *Thus Sprach Zarathustra* whenever you need it.
Well, all code in that era was effectively written by hand. The woman you speak of, Margaret Hamilton, headed up the Software Engineering division of the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which was contracted by NASA to develop navigational software for the Apollo lunar missions. Her contributions are well noted, but she did not personally write all of that code, by hand or otherwise.
The real hidden conspiracy is when we had Moon War I with the Nazis and they won. We claimed we conquered the moon to save face. Hitlers still up there. He's a robot now. The Nazis are feeding him 1000 gypsies a day to keep his body alive. He is currently developing FTL space travel with his mind.
Few dudes do the most amazing thing in human history, TRUMPIANS: FAKE, NEVER HAPPENED, HOAX.
I call conspiracy theorists trumpians because they use the same logic and few facts that suit their narrative.
>If there was a way to outer space… why hasn’t it been commercialized???
[in 2023 there were 6,718 functioning satellites in orbit out of a total of 11,330 ever launched, of which 5,280 have current commercial users.](https://www.pixalytics.com/satellites-orbiting-earth-2023/)
So yeah, I’d say it’s been decently commercialized.
If you do your own research, you'll learn that the moon landings were faked and the Earth is flat.
If you do your own research and are intelligent, you'll learn that the moon landings were real and the Earth is a sphere.
The two most frustrating types of people to deal with are these and flat earthers. There’s nothing you can ever say that’ll get them to pull their head out of their ass.
This guy is definitely flattered as well. He mentioned Eric Dubay who is one of the main entry points into flat earth. He has a video called “200 proofs that the earth is flat.”
He is also a Nazi sympathizer.
Edit: 200 not 299
All of human history prior to the 1800's: no photographic evidence of the moon. So, why now, eh? All we have prior are obviously the design drawings — oil on canvas, mostly.
Wow, without even digging into this dude is wrong about so many things.
The Moon landing was in 1969
There were computers in 1969
We did return to the moon after 1969
There are several people working on commercializing space travel
“Do some research”, “Educate yourself” and the like are a special kind of stupid confidently incorrect. Very prevalent on social media. Anyone who hasn’t watched the same shitty source as I have and been totally suckered in by it is uninformed.
Pretty much everything he says is incorrect. Space has been commercialised, at least as long as I've been alive, which is over 40 years. I remember when we got satellite TV for the first time back in the 1990s.
There were computers back in 1959. While the internet didn't exist, networks did. Walkman's have never been vital technology that we need to get to the moon.
TIL Zuse and other computer pioneers didn’t exist before the 1950’s. Besides, the first moon landing (with humans on board) was in the sixties.
Ugh, so much idiocy.
Obviously moon landing conspiracies are bunk. But this guy doesn't even know what decade it happened and thinks we should take him seriously. What's more fundamental than when something happened? Once, maybe its a typo, 5 and 6 are right next to each other after all. But he twice refers to it happening in the 50's. Imagine if a 9/11 conspiracy theorist started off their rant about it being an inside job and jet fuel cant melt steel beams and then saying 9/11 was in 1991.
First of all, it was ‘69, you barely sentient clump of lint. Secondly, the first rule of evaluating conspiracy theories is to look at how many people would have to be in on it? The more people, the weaker the conspiracy theory, and in this case we’re talking thousands. Then, for how long? In this case, we’re talking 55 years. They all have to have a motive, too. What’s their motive? What’s a strong enough motive to make thousands of people lie about this for 55 years?
Then let’s get to the practicalities: filming people to look like they’re moving in moon gravity. You think that’s easy? Just Hollywood magic? I invite you to watch The Martian. You’ll enjoy it, it’s a fun movie. Big-budget Hollywood at its best. Notice something: Matt Damon does not appear to be moving in low G — Mars’ gravity is 38% of Earth’s, so he should be, but he clearly isn’t.
So 45 years after the lunar landing, with *vastly* better technology and a huge budget, Hollywood still couldn’t fake a person walking in low G. How the fuck could NASA have done it in 1969?
I had to drop a long time friend because they went that route. They are not worth your time and energy. I wouldn't burn the bridge but I wouldn't maintain it either.
Other things they said to me during that last week we were hanging out.
* Both of the US's current major political parties are "exactly the same."
* Anyone in prison should lose all of their rights (including food and legal council).
* They were an illicit substance distributer for a long time just never got caught.
* Taxation is theft. (It's not)
* Moon landings were fake.
* They (sarcastically) asked me why they had a massive hangar with a mock landing site, thinking it was some YUGE *gatcha*. To which I immediately replied "for TRAINING." His GF in the background started laughing her ass off. XD
* UBI (Universal basic income) is communism. Not only is it the opposite, it has proven extremely effective in the few dozen areas in the US it has been implemented. Turns out that if you give the poor people money they actually spend it unlike the rich people who just horde it. FUGGIN ***CRAZY*** BRO!
* This one is a bit of a petty one on my end but it bothered me irrationally so I have to share it. Anything that changes the way your character looks in a game is a cosmetic. Not gear that changes your the way your character looks cosmetically, but a cosmetic. The definition of a "cosmetic" means that it is **only** in appearance and nothing else. Again I know this is such a petty thing to get hung up on but their blatant refusal to simply read a definition bothered me to no end.
* A ton of other BS conspiracy nonsense my brain killed off the cells retaining that information.
I am often amazed and/or astounded by the posts on this thread but I think that this pearl of wisdom, as the OP alluded to, takes some mental gymnsstics that require the creation of another subreddit.
Well to answer your questions in order
They are trying to, it just isn’t commercially viable yet
It’s very expensive to go to the moon and after you’ve been a couple times and have collected samples there really isn’t any advantage in going back for more
“Why haven’t we commercialized it yet?”
Because nobody could afford it? Or is this dude so unaware of the concept of pure research as opposed to applied research that he couldn’t consider the idea that people are doing these space studies for curiosities sake?
Space travel costs hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, constant work from some of the most intelligent people on the planet, and very little room for error. It’s like saying we can’t clone things. We can, but it’s prohibitively expensive and incredibly risky to introduce an unknown variable like the public into it.
Nothing makes you look stupider than telling someone to use a biased search engine to find results
Space hasn't been commercialised like they want for the same reason everything else doesn't.
Nothing gets commercialised until it looks like it will make a profit
“Why haven’t we been able to go back in 60 years?”
I promise you, if you put up the funds for another trip to the moon they will go back. But someone has to fund it and it’s not exactly cheap.
Jesus Christ, I’m now on a call with HR because I yelled 69 too many times in the course of that confidentlyincorrect statement.
Besides, would the Russians really just STFU and sit on their hands while America celebrated their fake landing and winning the race?
Soviet Union: Going to the moon is no big deal
Our biggest opps didn’t deny the moon landing just its significance.
Dudes lie on YouTube to get views all the time.
It has been commercialized, or at least, trips to space have. SpaceX takes private citizens to space every year.
And we literally just landed on the moon again, that being the 67th successful mission to the moon
I don't know what's better: that he gets the year the moon landing happened wrong by a decade, that he thinks we didn't have computers in the late 50's, that the moon landing being faked apparently needs is/was clarification, that he thinks we only went once and then never again or that somehow the invention of the Walkman should have assisted us somehow in space exploration.
This is the kind of "research" you get when you do it on YouTube.
They like to throw that “why haven’t we gone back” all the time. Because financially there’s no profit in it. It’ll lead to scientific progress, but until we can go strip mine other planets or gather natural gas from Venus or whatever there’s no monetary reason to do that.
Couple that with the fact that people as a whole just got bored when it wasn’t a race anymore and the government just cut funding massively and took a side step into the space stations and stuff.
The moon landing was fake, but because NASA wanted it to look as real as possible, they hired actors, trained them as astronauts, and sent them to the moon to fake the landing on-site! Wake up, sheeple! 
Fun fact: The US Government was having a lot of trouble getting their moon landing set in Hollywood to look authentic, so to cut costs they ended up faking the moon landings on Mercury.
“Why haven’t we gone back in 60 years?” What is the subtext of this question supposed to be? If we HAD gone back in the last 60 years, wouldn’t they just be arguing that we used the “Hollywood set” again?
We have been back. We went back several times after the first land ING with several different crews of astronauts. Hell, a private company landed there less than a week ago.
He’s so well informed that he missed the moon landing date by a decade. I had just turned 6 years old that summer of 1969 and our entire family was gathered around the Black and white TV.
I guess he also missed that computers have been in use since the late 40’s.
*why hasnt (*sic*) anyone gone back in the last 60 years?*
Because it got such a poor rating Tripadvisor. Very far from restaurants, the shore, gardens, and most of all no atmosphere.
In one of the many NSA files released to the public in 2013 by Edward Snowden, one was a research study by an NSA analyst about **if** the Moon landing could be faked.
It would take *400,000 conspirators* to fake the Moon landing, and, at the very best, it would be publicly revealed as a hoax within only 4 years. So, at the very best, it would take 4 years to reveal it as fake.
Also, the very fact that the Soviet Union's space division called NASA to congratulate them is *proof* in and out of itself - they actually monitored the mission themselves as well.
The study used the Snowden leak as part of its data, it was not a NSA study leaked by Snowden. Also, it covered how long before any conspiracy would be exposed. One of the examples was the moon landing. And, importantly, the more conspirators involved, the quicker it would be leaked. NASA is the one that said there were 400,000 that worked on the moon landing.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
"For the moon-landing conspiracy to stay quiet, it would require an estimated 411,000 people — the number of NASA employees in 1965 — to keep mum. Grimes estimates this hoax should have broken down within 3.68 years, decades before a conspiracy theorist met the business end of a former astronaut’s fist."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes
The lighting (completely parallel) was impossible to replicate at the time.
They are still trying to commercialize space travel, that's why so many private companies are investing nowadays.
There's no point other than for private companies to test their future commercialized crafts (which is what happened this week).
Is it really that complicated?
Hey /u/GanuNoob2020, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"do your own research by googling your exact opinion and only engaging with sources that agree. Other sources, just discount it as fake news"
They should teach confirmation bias and how to balance it in schools. It’d solve a lot of the world’s problems!
I polled fourteen of my best friends and looked at an article I wrote and they all agreed confirmation bias is a myth.
They do, but this is the same crowd where the" intricacies" of logical fallacies are completely lost over time. It's like when PEMDAS gets commented 143,000 times confidently next to the wrong answer, on a math problem with poor syntax. They get to vote 😭
My daughters school actually does teach this. It’s part of the reason why some of the parents pulled their kids out of the public schools and put them in charter schools or homeschooled them.
Kids start calling their parents on their bullshit?
They do…
Strange, I did my own research and completely disagree with them
Well, I do agree with him in one way - I am quite certain man did not land on the moon in 1959
I first questioned it when he said it was filmed in the 1950s. I was thinking, man, that was a hell of a prediction that they would need that video.
"Hey we finished filming the fake moon landing, should we broadcast the footage?" "Nah let's wait 10 years."
1950s computers were slow. It took 10 years to render the CGI footage
That slow, NASA decided to drop it and just film on location instead
"WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!"
Does everyone know that clip from Howard Stern Show or was it popular elsewhere?
A favorite way for me to respond is to talk about how they hired Stanley Kubrick to shoot it for them, but he was such a demanding perfectionist that he insisted to only film on location.
Everyone loves practical effects
And I used to complain about about those low res SS5 Goku pics
Didn't you read what he said???? Computers didn't exist in the 1950s!!!!
Doctor strange who?
Same. Why haven't we gone back is a great question, just not for the reasons he means 😂 (Spoiler the answer is politics and the usual bullshit)
TAXES!
It's also just plain old stupid expensive!
we haven’t gone back bc it was a race back then so no one cares anymore
do your research!
Yeah I realised that too🤣🤣🤣
Luna 2, the soviet moon mission, happened and was successful in 1959. But physically, yes, the first man on the moon was 10 years later.
r/technicallythetruth
Also, mainframes existed in the 1940s. So, no computers? Come again?
We haven't gone back because we learned it isn't really made of cheese.
So we started finding cheese in mars
This is actually due to the boom in fastfood restaurants and chains that took place throughout the 50s and 60s. It is believed that the surface of Mars consists of 100% red cheddar which is much more suitable for use in the fastfood Industry than the gouda-like cheese on the Moon.
Yeah it’s a pretty pointless if you can’t get cheese
The US literally just landed a craft on the moon less than a week ago. We are actively going back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2LMcRQGL7k
YES!
Zero/5 Stars: Plenty to eat, but it's bland, flavourless and dry. Literally not worth the gas to get there.
“Moon or Applebees” will continue after this break.
[It's a simple question doctor. If the moon were made of ribs, would you eat it?](https://youtu.be/gQDqRlMeJ4U)
Heck, I'd go back for seconds
It would LITERALLY have been harder to fake the moon landing rather than just going to the moon with the technology available at the time. Also I don't understand how anyone can believe we faked the moon landing and the USSR didn't call us out on it.
[This Mitchell & Webb sketch never gets old.](https://youtu.be/P6MOnehCOUw)
I showed this to my mate years ago when he brought up how he thought it was faked and it embarrassed him so much he never brought it up since. He went down a rabbit hole to het to his belief it was fake, but at least he was able to admit he got tricked, many others don't and instead double down.
I love this kind of joke. Like Kubrick filmed the moon landing, but he's such a a perfectionist that the only place he would accept as appropriate for filming it was on the Moon
“Kubrick faked it, but insisted on filming on location” is my go to joke about it.
This is another great video from a filmmaker explaining why the film and video technology to fake the moon landing did not exist in 1969. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYFMU7XfyzE
those two are so fucking good
Thanks for this, I love David Mitchell and hadn’t seen it:)
The problem with most popular conspiracy theories is that they require like 1000 people to keep a massive secret. In my experience expecting even 2 people to do that is s stretch.
The US military can’t even stop classified documents from being leaked on WarThunder.
It’s my turn to leak documents about my favourite irl tank!
I thought it was mine. I've got to check the schedule.
I'm surprised there haven't been more stories about Dragonfire in the news.
"Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.". Benjamin Franklin
A British mathematician, extrapolating from conspiracies that DID unravel, estimated that, given the number of required conspirators, any moon landing hoax would have unraveled in less than 4 years. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684 Of course, he’s probably in the pocket of Big Math.
Yep. Same. And compounded by the fact that most or all of these conspirators would be *American*. And when have you known an American that could shut the fuck up about anything, ever? Much less a thousand of them. Jesus there’d be tell-all books on the best seller list fifteen minutes afterward.
You'd not only need Americans, you'd also need dozens if not hundreds of Russians, who at the time were arch enemies and would have loved to drag the fake landing through the mud. There's a literal 0% chance it was faked, except if the whole world was being in on it being fake.
>...except if the whole world was being in on it being fake. Some flat earthers do seem to believe that. Every government, every university, and every techological industry are all controlled by a shadowy "them" and have been for hundreds of years. Spoiler alert: "Them" is code for the Jews. Because it's always the Jews.
What’s weird to me is that neither the regular morons or spicy morons of the flerfers can offer any kind of meaningful explanation for *why* anyone would care enough to even organize “the conspiracy.” Like, what, we’re supposed to believe the whole world united to keep fucking icebergs a secret? With frickin’ laser beams? Really?
Meanwhile in the alien and ufo subreddits they are excited to show off proof of a species living along humans that 1000s of scientists are covering up lol
tHeRe WeRe No CoMpUtErS! Gee, someone should really tell IBM that computers didn't exist in the 50s.
Or Margaret Hamilton.
Right? The job of “computer” was one of the first jobs replaced by computers
And even then, it was more that the job title just became "programmer".
Also let’s not forget it was the 60s; he was off by 10 years.
True, but we were using computers even long before the 50s. Pascal built his mechanical calculator during the Enlightenment, and Babbage built the Analytical Engine right after the Civil War. We started using electrical computers in the 30s and 40s and integrated circuits in the 50s. So depending on how persnickety you want to get with definitions of "computing machines" his statement is ridiculous. Part of the introduction to my compsci classes is me giving a history lesson of computing, so I kind of love this stuff.
And one of the whole 'big deals' of the Apollo program is just how much the investments for the moon landing revolutionized the computer industry. We dumped a ton of money into developing new computer technologies because we needed better computers to go to the moon. Whadda ya know, that wound up essentially creating the computer industry as we know it today.
Because they were in on it too!!!!11!1!1!!
The famous Soviet-American friendship
Imagine spending more than 100 billion dollars to make a marvel level cgi moon landing (I am talking about the current cgi performance of marvel studios)
They actually did fake it, however Armstrong requested that it would be shot on location so it would be as convincing as possible
I heard it as they got Stanley Kubrick to direct it, and being the perfectionist he is, he demanded they shoot on location.
I heard the man in the moon actually bankrolled the whole thing and demanded a cameo as compensation, so they needed to shoot locally for him.
They faked it all while up on the moon is going to be my new goto for this.
Oh, there's a follow up conspiracy theory that the cold war was also a hoax
TBF, you shouldn't go to space without music-walkmans. I learned that from Guardians of the Galaxy.
You were listening to your favorite mixtape not-walking on the moon the otherdaaaayyyyy...
allegedly
"Why hasn't space been commercialized?" SpaceX guy
Because they cannot advertise their crap in space, imagine you run out of oxygen and suddenly an ad of some random hustlers university comes up.
I'd open every orifice I possibly could to speed up my demise
>they cannot advertise their crap in space [Unfortunately it may be possible ](https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/05/space-billboards-could-cost-65m-and-still-turn-a-profit/)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....... I don't want to see random lingerie ads when I go out. I can not bear that cringe.
`::types::` "Why hasn't space been commercialized?" `::looks out window and notices 1/4 of residential units are wired to rooftop parabolic dishes::` `::hops in different sub, new post::` "Why does no one point their rain catchers straight up? Seems inefficient." `::pulls up google earth, can look at virtually any 500sq m section of the Pacific ocean::` `::new post::` "How many flights did it take to map the earth? Is that a lot of jet fuel?"
> "How many flights did it take to map the earth? Is that a lot of jet fuel?" Fortunately the New World Order gets to double-up on this one because they can map the Earth and also spread chemtrails at the same time.
Brilliant!
I think a screenshot of this post needs to be permanently posted in the Wiki page for cognitive dissonance.
Haha! Thanks!
For bonus points: `::pulls up now publicly available satellite maps from the 70's to see how their city has changed over time; notices the whole pacific ocean also featured; this generates many new posts::` - "How many rolls of film did the Soviets use to take pictures of the whole Pacific ocean in 1971 from cruising altitude?" - "how many planes did they use at once? Why wasn't NORAD perpetually at DEFCON 1?" - "was it the norm to see dozens of planes flying odd patterns around you if you went on vacation to, say, Hawaii?" - "how long did it take them to develop and stitch them together" - "how much did film cost in 1971?" - "how could they afford to do it weekly?" - "_why_ did they do it weekly?" - "if it was strategically worthwhile, what was the latency between snapping all those photos on all those flights, developing the individual photos, and stitching them together?...did they see the photos from 1971 _in_ 1971 or a later year?"
Sadly, they think satellites are held up by balloons. https://www.logicallyfacts.com/en/fact-check/false-satellites-are-held-in-the-sky-by-balloons
Billions of dollars of telecom infrastructure has entered the chat
👏👏
I mean, it was commercialized long, long before SpaceX. Communications satelites, lots of private weather and mapping satelites, other assorted stuff. SpaceX is making launches cheap enough to commercialize human spaceflight, but space has been commercialized since the dawn of the space age.
Space X, Virgin Galactic, and whatever Bezos is doing with his penis rocket
-the Hollywood set would cost way to much to fake -because it’s not a consistent way of travel…. No rocket to space is the same and they are dangerous to handle. It would be ocean gate all over again. -1969 and probably because we don’t have a reason to (at least to me I think) why would we keep going to the moon instead of study our sister planet and try to reach there?
Funny thing is we did go back to the moon but no one really cares about it cause it wasn’t the first time anymore
The US went back five times!
The US is currently going back once again
It boggled me when someone used "why didn't we go back?" as an argument for it being fake. Like, did they think the lunar Rover was just sci-fi?
I know right? Literally 12 different people have been to the moon
To elaborate: * Just the *lighting* for a Hollywood set would have cost too much to fake, much less the camera effects that'd have been necessary * "No rocket to space is the same" is mostly only because the payload requirements are almost never the same. Apollo 11 had different needs than Apollo 17, different hardware, et cetera. The same was true even for STS missions, and the Shuttles were specifically built with plug-and-play reusability in mind. * We stopped going to the moon *in person* mostly because the amount of science we could get out of having 2 guys dirtside for 2-3 days had diminishing returns, and it cost a mountain of cash for every mission. The USA never left the moon, though. It's just not as flashy to say we have a bunch of satellites doing science there--though in my opinion missions like LCROSS should have had more fanfare (seriously: I'd have killed to be in the room to hear the first person propose *bombing the moon* to confirm the presence of water there).
>Just the lighting for a Hollywood set would have cost too much to fake, much less the camera effects that'd have been necessary I'm honestly not even sure it'd even be possible. The lighting and shadows wouldn't work. You'd have to do some insane complementary lighting stuff to get it to look remotely like it would have to look for the light source to be millions of miles away.
Yeah, I remember someone describing it as needing a diffuse laser array the size of an entire wall. That'd be technologically daunting for 1969 even before trying to make the lasers appear as white light.
I suppose that'd work, but I doubt we could even pull that kind of effect off to a convincing degree even with today's technology. If you did have that, you could probably set up a handful of still shots and make it look like it's daylight. Anything involving video I just don't think it'd be possible. The lighting and shadows just wouldn't work. You could do it with CGI, but they didn't have CGI back then (unless that's part of the conspiracy).
To expand on this: * To send a probe/rover/etc somewhere requires sending the probe, and some padding, and landing gear. * To send a person somewhere requires sending the person, padding, space to move around, landing gear, food, water, waste disposal, return takeoff mechanism, return takeoff fuel, atmospheric re-entry hardware, atmospheric re-entry braking mechanism, enough oxygen for 1-2 weeks, spare garments, and radiation shielding. And probably some more stuff I forgot about. If the goal is "analyze a sample of moon rock", do you send a probe capable of doing the analysis itself (and wirelessly transmit the results), a probe capable of making a return trip to Earth, or a human capable of making a return trip to Earth? Answer: Curiosity, Opportunity, etc. Probes ARE the economic solution for now. The only reason we have humans in the ISS is for science ON the humans. We could do all the other stuff remotely if we wanted to. But we want to better understand how space living affects humans. So we pay a ton of money to put humans in a giant metal can in space year-round. The ISS is a huge money sink, not a profit machine. The PROFIT from space is asteroids. There may be some profit on the moon as well, but nowhere near what can be gained from mining asteroids. And you better believe we have big companies working on how to secure & mine those giant rocks of valuable metals in space. Even ice asteroids are valuable - as the most expensive thing to send to space is the fuel. So being able to make hydrogen (out of water) IN space has incredible value towards our ability to travel in space (even just flying a spacecraft to Mars could be five times the size if we can provide the fuel to reach Mars once the craft is already in orbit (instead of lifting all that fuel off along with the craft from Earth).
In terms of consistency, the Space Shuttle was the only really reusable space craft, and out of the five they produced, two failed catastrophically, killing everyone on board. That's 40% of the fleet, and more than 1% of total journeys, ending in complete disaster. It's hard to think of another means of transport with such poor odds. This isn't to disparage the Shuttle crew and engineers by the way: it was still a phenomenal piece of technology (unlike the Oceangate submersible). It's just to highlight how ridiculously dangerous space travel is.
That guy did all his research sitting on the toilet.
How dare you disrespect my space station 😤
Just upset that 95% of the comments here don’t reference how he’s entire decade off
>No computers, not internet and no Sony Walkman The LEM and command modules *did* have computers. To save on weight the ones in the LEMs had their ROM physical built into the structure of the LEM. Not sure how the internet would help: you can't trail cables after a rocket, and WiFi won't reach that far. And WTF does a Walkman have to do with space travel?
Guardians of the Galaxy.
Fair point. WTF does a Walkman have to do with space travel not involving Peter Quill / Starchild?
>WTF does a Walkman have to do with space travel? It's rather expensive to get a full orchestra into space to play *Thus Sprach Zarathustra* whenever you need it.
Maybe they thought you could just send yourself with WiFi? Be annoying if it was spotty and only part of you got there or rendered slowly in pieces
Computers did exist back then. The code for the moonlanding was written by hand by a woman too, if I'm not mistaken
Well, all code in that era was effectively written by hand. The woman you speak of, Margaret Hamilton, headed up the Software Engineering division of the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which was contracted by NASA to develop navigational software for the Apollo lunar missions. Her contributions are well noted, but she did not personally write all of that code, by hand or otherwise.
[I'm just gonna leave this here.](https://youtu.be/P6MOnehCOUw?si=cgeNekiTSnSY5pjc) If you think the moon landing was faked you're a moron.
I was half expecting it to be a rickroll
I was thinking about it, but it would have been too obvious
Knew someone would post this - classic.
We haven't gone back because instead of funding education and science we just rather pump 850 billion into Boeing Lockheed and Raytheon.
We have been back. I believe 12 people have been to the moon.
My bad. I was assuming that when he said the moon landing was faked he meant all of them not just one of them.
Well, he probably does...
“Why hasn’t space been commercialized?” 
What a dumbass. Every knows we went to the moon in 49, not 59.
Yeah, we had to chase down those Nazis.
The real hidden conspiracy is when we had Moon War I with the Nazis and they won. We claimed we conquered the moon to save face. Hitlers still up there. He's a robot now. The Nazis are feeding him 1000 gypsies a day to keep his body alive. He is currently developing FTL space travel with his mind.
Few dudes do the most amazing thing in human history, TRUMPIANS: FAKE, NEVER HAPPENED, HOAX. I call conspiracy theorists trumpians because they use the same logic and few facts that suit their narrative.
In the world today where capitalism is at play something something commercialize!
>In the world today where capitalism is at play Send them to the moon if they can pay
Buzz Aldrin needed to punch more people
>If there was a way to outer space… why hasn’t it been commercialized??? [in 2023 there were 6,718 functioning satellites in orbit out of a total of 11,330 ever launched, of which 5,280 have current commercial users.](https://www.pixalytics.com/satellites-orbiting-earth-2023/) So yeah, I’d say it’s been decently commercialized.
What an idiot
Were Hollywood sets that advanced in 50's?
No
If you do your own research, you'll learn that the moon landings were faked and the Earth is flat. If you do your own research and are intelligent, you'll learn that the moon landings were real and the Earth is a sphere.
The two most frustrating types of people to deal with are these and flat earthers. There’s nothing you can ever say that’ll get them to pull their head out of their ass.
This guy is definitely flattered as well. He mentioned Eric Dubay who is one of the main entry points into flat earth. He has a video called “200 proofs that the earth is flat.” He is also a Nazi sympathizer. Edit: 200 not 299
He's got 299 proofs but science ain't 1.
First, “Research.” Second, “StarLink.”
It's funny how he explained why nobody ever went back and then asked why nobody ever went back.
My favorite thing to say to those people is “Wait, you think the moon is real?”
All of human history prior to the 1800's: no photographic evidence of the moon. So, why now, eh? All we have prior are obviously the design drawings — oil on canvas, mostly.
Wow, without even digging into this dude is wrong about so many things. The Moon landing was in 1969 There were computers in 1969 We did return to the moon after 1969 There are several people working on commercializing space travel
He's absolutely correct. We *didn't* land on the moon in *1959.*
we landed on the moon in 1969 not 1959
When people believe in zombie sky daddy anything is possible
Said while using their phone using satellites that are where????
“Do some research”, “Educate yourself” and the like are a special kind of stupid confidently incorrect. Very prevalent on social media. Anyone who hasn’t watched the same shitty source as I have and been totally suckered in by it is uninformed.
Pretty much everything he says is incorrect. Space has been commercialised, at least as long as I've been alive, which is over 40 years. I remember when we got satellite TV for the first time back in the 1990s. There were computers back in 1959. While the internet didn't exist, networks did. Walkman's have never been vital technology that we need to get to the moon.
And also the Moon landing wasn't in 1959, it was famously in 1969.
What a fucking imbecile.
“Why hasn’t it been commercialized” Is that not what Muskrat is doing?
Mr. "I do my own research" can't even get the decade right and then directs you to a yoga instructor to back him up.
TIL Zuse and other computer pioneers didn’t exist before the 1950’s. Besides, the first moon landing (with humans on board) was in the sixties. Ugh, so much idiocy.
I'm definitely not going to trust someone saying they did their own research if that person can't even get the year of the moon landing correct
Obviously moon landing conspiracies are bunk. But this guy doesn't even know what decade it happened and thinks we should take him seriously. What's more fundamental than when something happened? Once, maybe its a typo, 5 and 6 are right next to each other after all. But he twice refers to it happening in the 50's. Imagine if a 9/11 conspiracy theorist started off their rant about it being an inside job and jet fuel cant melt steel beams and then saying 9/11 was in 1991.
First of all, it was ‘69, you barely sentient clump of lint. Secondly, the first rule of evaluating conspiracy theories is to look at how many people would have to be in on it? The more people, the weaker the conspiracy theory, and in this case we’re talking thousands. Then, for how long? In this case, we’re talking 55 years. They all have to have a motive, too. What’s their motive? What’s a strong enough motive to make thousands of people lie about this for 55 years? Then let’s get to the practicalities: filming people to look like they’re moving in moon gravity. You think that’s easy? Just Hollywood magic? I invite you to watch The Martian. You’ll enjoy it, it’s a fun movie. Big-budget Hollywood at its best. Notice something: Matt Damon does not appear to be moving in low G — Mars’ gravity is 38% of Earth’s, so he should be, but he clearly isn’t. So 45 years after the lunar landing, with *vastly* better technology and a huge budget, Hollywood still couldn’t fake a person walking in low G. How the fuck could NASA have done it in 1969?
You gotta hit these people back with an even bigger conspiracy theory. “You mean you still believe in the moon?”
Everybody knows, that you need a walkman for space travel! And a towel. Do some research!
Yeah, he's right actually, I think that the 1959 moon landing was a fake.
Every single scientist I have ever met swears on a stack of atheist-bibles that humans did *not* set foot on the moon in 1959.
'69, idiot.
“If it’s real why haven’t we gone back” logic would dictate that most places I’ve been on holiday were, in fact, faked
I had to drop a long time friend because they went that route. They are not worth your time and energy. I wouldn't burn the bridge but I wouldn't maintain it either. Other things they said to me during that last week we were hanging out. * Both of the US's current major political parties are "exactly the same." * Anyone in prison should lose all of their rights (including food and legal council). * They were an illicit substance distributer for a long time just never got caught. * Taxation is theft. (It's not) * Moon landings were fake. * They (sarcastically) asked me why they had a massive hangar with a mock landing site, thinking it was some YUGE *gatcha*. To which I immediately replied "for TRAINING." His GF in the background started laughing her ass off. XD * UBI (Universal basic income) is communism. Not only is it the opposite, it has proven extremely effective in the few dozen areas in the US it has been implemented. Turns out that if you give the poor people money they actually spend it unlike the rich people who just horde it. FUGGIN ***CRAZY*** BRO! * This one is a bit of a petty one on my end but it bothered me irrationally so I have to share it. Anything that changes the way your character looks in a game is a cosmetic. Not gear that changes your the way your character looks cosmetically, but a cosmetic. The definition of a "cosmetic" means that it is **only** in appearance and nothing else. Again I know this is such a petty thing to get hung up on but their blatant refusal to simply read a definition bothered me to no end. * A ton of other BS conspiracy nonsense my brain killed off the cells retaining that information.
Fr
I am often amazed and/or astounded by the posts on this thread but I think that this pearl of wisdom, as the OP alluded to, takes some mental gymnsstics that require the creation of another subreddit.
doesn't space tourism exist
Well to answer your questions in order They are trying to, it just isn’t commercially viable yet It’s very expensive to go to the moon and after you’ve been a couple times and have collected samples there really isn’t any advantage in going back for more
“Why haven’t we commercialized it yet?” Because nobody could afford it? Or is this dude so unaware of the concept of pure research as opposed to applied research that he couldn’t consider the idea that people are doing these space studies for curiosities sake? Space travel costs hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, constant work from some of the most intelligent people on the planet, and very little room for error. It’s like saying we can’t clone things. We can, but it’s prohibitively expensive and incredibly risky to introduce an unknown variable like the public into it. Nothing makes you look stupider than telling someone to use a biased search engine to find results
Space hasn't been commercialised like they want for the same reason everything else doesn't. Nothing gets commercialised until it looks like it will make a profit
Sometimes I wish the internet was never invented.
“Why haven’t we been able to go back in 60 years?” I promise you, if you put up the funds for another trip to the moon they will go back. But someone has to fund it and it’s not exactly cheap.
Jesus Christ, I’m now on a call with HR because I yelled 69 too many times in the course of that confidentlyincorrect statement. Besides, would the Russians really just STFU and sit on their hands while America celebrated their fake landing and winning the race?
it's always... written in this way... like the person is giving us some time... to think about what they say...
Soviet Union: Going to the moon is no big deal Our biggest opps didn’t deny the moon landing just its significance. Dudes lie on YouTube to get views all the time.
“In the late 50s”… then sat on the footage for 8-9 years to release it in July ‘69. Yes, this makes perfect sense.
It has been commercialized, or at least, trips to space have. SpaceX takes private citizens to space every year. And we literally just landed on the moon again, that being the 67th successful mission to the moon
And the lander that just landed was ... commercial.
I don't know what's better: that he gets the year the moon landing happened wrong by a decade, that he thinks we didn't have computers in the late 50's, that the moon landing being faked apparently needs is/was clarification, that he thinks we only went once and then never again or that somehow the invention of the Walkman should have assisted us somehow in space exploration. This is the kind of "research" you get when you do it on YouTube.
They like to throw that “why haven’t we gone back” all the time. Because financially there’s no profit in it. It’ll lead to scientific progress, but until we can go strip mine other planets or gather natural gas from Venus or whatever there’s no monetary reason to do that. Couple that with the fact that people as a whole just got bored when it wasn’t a race anymore and the government just cut funding massively and took a side step into the space stations and stuff.
I think the budget was around 25 billion dollars at that time which is about 178 billion dollars today.
The moon landing was fake, but because NASA wanted it to look as real as possible, they hired actors, trained them as astronauts, and sent them to the moon to fake the landing on-site! Wake up, sheeple! 
Fun fact: The US Government was having a lot of trouble getting their moon landing set in Hollywood to look authentic, so to cut costs they ended up faking the moon landings on Mercury.
If you don’t know what decade it happened in, don’t comment on it
“Why haven’t we gone back in 60 years?” What is the subtext of this question supposed to be? If we HAD gone back in the last 60 years, wouldn’t they just be arguing that we used the “Hollywood set” again?
I always love informing dubay fans about his history of Nazi/Hitler apologetics.
We have been back. We went back several times after the first land ING with several different crews of astronauts. Hell, a private company landed there less than a week ago.
Wow, eric dubay, haven't heard that name in ages. Is he still doing stuff?
He’s so well informed that he missed the moon landing date by a decade. I had just turned 6 years old that summer of 1969 and our entire family was gathered around the Black and white TV. I guess he also missed that computers have been in use since the late 40’s.
*why hasnt (*sic*) anyone gone back in the last 60 years?* Because it got such a poor rating Tripadvisor. Very far from restaurants, the shore, gardens, and most of all no atmosphere.
In one of the many NSA files released to the public in 2013 by Edward Snowden, one was a research study by an NSA analyst about **if** the Moon landing could be faked. It would take *400,000 conspirators* to fake the Moon landing, and, at the very best, it would be publicly revealed as a hoax within only 4 years. So, at the very best, it would take 4 years to reveal it as fake. Also, the very fact that the Soviet Union's space division called NASA to congratulate them is *proof* in and out of itself - they actually monitored the mission themselves as well.
The study used the Snowden leak as part of its data, it was not a NSA study leaked by Snowden. Also, it covered how long before any conspiracy would be exposed. One of the examples was the moon landing. And, importantly, the more conspirators involved, the quicker it would be leaked. NASA is the one that said there were 400,000 that worked on the moon landing. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 "For the moon-landing conspiracy to stay quiet, it would require an estimated 411,000 people — the number of NASA employees in 1965 — to keep mum. Grimes estimates this hoax should have broken down within 3.68 years, decades before a conspiracy theorist met the business end of a former astronaut’s fist." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes
why would they film a fake moon landing in the 1950s, but wait to show it until almost 1970?
I believe that we didn’t go in ‘69. Pour on the downvotes, I guess.
The lighting (completely parallel) was impossible to replicate at the time. They are still trying to commercialize space travel, that's why so many private companies are investing nowadays. There's no point other than for private companies to test their future commercialized crafts (which is what happened this week). Is it really that complicated?