Enterprise-D(ebunking)

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.

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!
- Everyone knows the moon landing was faked at a secret soundstage on Mars!
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?
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.
https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs?si=3voDpwaDOHr9UIsi This one?
- That'd be it.
  Honestly it's super interesting to watch even if you know the moon landings happened for the history of tech he talks about.
- Yes!
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.
Audio proof: https://youtu.be/8rlDTK6QI-w

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.

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.
- It's not there as some commentary by Christopher Nolan that the moon landings didn't happen. It's there to show that schools are willing to teach a lie as long as it serves the narrative of "past oppulence is what destroyed our world, so get out there and be a farmer!"
- That ~~guy~~ lady is a silly and you're supposed to think she's wrong. She's teaching lies in order to justify a bad worldview.
- That was making fun of people who believed things like that. It's very obvious if you've watched the movie.
It would have required so much work it'd be easier just to land on the moon.
Nixon's downfall was created by the CIA because they did not get along.

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.

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
- Ah yes, I see you've met the muskboys.
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.
why do conspiracy theories insist on robbing humans of their monumental achievements
Uh, JFK and 9/11 were monumental achievements?
- Would you like me to edit my comment to say "why do some conspiracy theories...."?
- How does two events out of 60,000 years prove anything to you?

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)
Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that the moon landing happened but you also claim the footage is faked? Do you have any reasons to support that? You mention something about radio technology from the 1920s, but the moon landing occurred nearly 50 years later, so I hardly see how that is relevant.
Edit: I misread your comment. Thanks to @turmacar@lemmy.world for pointing it out.
- No, they're saying regardless of if the signal was encrypted or whatever format it was in, anyone with a directional antenna could triangulate where the signal was coming from. If there were only a repeater on the moon that NASA was transmitting to that was then sending the signal back, that would also have been able to be determined.
  Both the Russians, who had a vested interest in embarrassing the US, and every other amateur and professional radio operator on the planet agreed that the moon landing was being transmitted from the moon.

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
  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.

IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD

However, for its time TOS effects were often really good. People expected the typical B-movie styles but got believable visuals.

Often. On the other hand...
Although I admit I found them fascinating when I was a little kid.
- Are you kidding me? Those things were fucking creepy. And the sounds they made? Uggghh...

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.
So your saying the return to the moon should not be for science but instead be a reality tv show?
I like how you think kid.
Temptation Moon 9pm/8central
- With Elon Musk already having as much influence as he does in space exploration, it probably will be.

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:-).

TNG came out in 1987. I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.

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

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:
- Ahh yes, the famous 23rd century boy band "NCC-1701-SYNC"
- Yeah but look at how the shadow on the wall in the back isn’t in sync with the dancing. Checkmate atheists.

It looks fine on a CRT at 480i

On the other hand, do you know one of the companies that supposedly made the Saturn-V?

Boeing.

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.
So what? SEGA made the first Saturn, and they're still... around... uh

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.

You appear to follow the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC: I Debunk Idiotic Claims.

I dick? Isn’t that Kirk and Rikers philosophy.

The special effects were simply building practical rockets and sending astronauts to the actual moon to make it look unscripted.

My god! They fooled us all by faking the moon landing with an actual moon landing!

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.

The reason the conspiracy exists is because the video footage is staged to match the audio. Obviously there wasn’t a camera crew on the moon.

Yeah, I'm gonna need more than your incredulity to convince me. Like, fun that you think it is inconceivable, but your inability to imagine has no bearing on reality. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest they actually filmed and broadcasted it live. For example, the fact that a live television broadcast was a primary goal of the mission, or the fact that RCA made custom TV cameras for the Apollo program , or that the broadcast lasted for hours, or any of the analyses out there that shows the video is likely real. Also, no one suggested that the Apollo astronauts had a camera crew with them - what a bizarre thing to mention.
- Or something like the reflection of the astronaut with the camera in the visor of the astronaut he was taking a picture of.
Decades since 1969 and not a single one of the thousands of people who would have had to be involved to make this hoax happen has talked. The Soviets also either never caught wind of it or decided not to embarrass their biggest rival who they were constantly trying to embarrass.
This is the best-kept and worst-kept secret at the exact same time. Do you really buy that?
- You’re misinterpreting what I’m saying due to my poor word choices haha. I’m not saying it’s fake. The camera is mounted to the lander and there is a delay in the footage because they had to do some kind of conversion in the video to be able to watch on tv. That’s where many of the conspiracy theories come from. Most people don’t know that.
Why was that kept a secret for so long?
- Because everything at the time was about tricking the Russians.