Apollo "Hoax" Beginning of the end?

[bonavada]

the chinese (apparently) don't know it's impossible to send a man to the moon. LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7060347.stm) it seems they are planning to do just that within the next 20 years or so. is this this the death knell for the apollo moon hoax cospiranoids?

BV

[Bell]

the chinese (apparently) don't know it's impossible to send a man to the moon. LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7060347.stm) it seems they are planning to do just that within the next 20 years or so. is this this the death knell for the apollo moon hoax cospiranoids?

BV

Hehe, I was thinking just the same. But no matter what the results will be from this Chinese program, it's all still faked, filmed on a sound stage or on the other hand "proof of a conspiracy because it took 60 years to put another man on the moon, and that man was Chinese!"

[dudalb]

Hehe, I was thinking just the same. But no matter what the results will be from this Chinese program, it's all still faked, filmed on a sound stage or on the other hand "proof of a conspiracy because it took 60 years to put another man on the moon, and that man was Chinese!"

Exactly. The Hardcore Moonbats seem immune to logic,science,evidence,and reality in general. If any of the above had any meaning to the Moonbats,they would have been extinct a long time ago.

[HyJinX]

There is no moon.

[BenBurch]

There is no moon.

What is that from? I don't catch the ref.

[Bell]

I recognize it, but don't know from what movie.

[Redtail]

the chinese (apparently) don't know it's impossible to send a man to the moon. LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7060347.stm) it seems they are planning to do just that within the next 20 years or so. is this this the death knell for the apollo moon hoax cospiranoids?

BV

Nah it won't end. My bet is that they shift to saying "well yeah it's possible now!!!" Granted as mentioned earlier a few will say the Chinese filmed in a studio... used the ghost of Kubrick as director.

[Pardalis]

Do the Chinese have conspiracy theorists?

[Vincent Vega]

What is that from? I don't catch the ref.

in the oracle's home. But the line is "there is no spoon".

[Bell]

in the oracle's home. But the line is "there is no spoon".

*smacks head*

Riiight... the Matrix! Thanks Vince!

[Aoidoi]

Do the Chinese have conspiracy theorists?Yeah, but they tend to be quiet or dead.

[Horatius]

Granted as mentioned earlier a few will say the Chinese filmed in a studio... used the ghost of Kubrick as director.



...and the proof will be the Chinese films that look just like the Apollo films.

[Gravy]

nvm

[Bell]

nvm

Indeed :D

[BenBurch]

Yeah, but they tend to be quiet or dead.

Falun Gong.

[jaydeehess]

...and the proof will be the Chinese films that look just like the Apollo films.

:mad:
........cleans beer from monitor.........

:D

The AH believers will undoubtably point out that the Chinese will land somewhere where the Apollo equipment cannot be seen thus illustrating that the Chinese are also 'in-on-it".

[OldTigerCub]

:mad:
........cleans beer from monitor.........

:D

The AH believers will undoubtably point out that the Chinese will land somewhere where the Apollo equipment cannot be seen thus illustrating that the Chinese are also 'in-on-it".

...and if they don't land in the same spots the US did, the lack of video of a flag or moonlander will certainly be proof we weren't there already. After all, the lack of evidence is the best evidence!:rolleyes:

[Redtail]

:mad:
........cleans beer from monitor.........

:D

The AH believers will undoubtably point out that the Chinese will land somewhere where the Apollo equipment cannot be seen thus illustrating that the Chinese are also 'in-on-it".

Oh man it would be great if they landed near an Apollo site, go over to it and one them says
"Hey those HBs were right! This is a cardboard set piece!"

[Reality Believer]

We will have good images before the Chinese get there. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) will launch in 2008 with camera capable of imaging the hardware we left behind.

"We will image the Apollo sites and you will see the descent stages sitting on the surface," Robinson said. LROC will clearly see the overall shape of that landing hardware, but won't be able to resolve such things as the insignia on the side of the descent stage, or see the stripes on astronaut-planted flags, he said.

Space.com article (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060207_lro_technology.html)
NASA LRO Site (http://lro.larc.nasa.gov/)

[JamesB]

the chinese (apparently) don't know it's impossible to send a man to the moon. LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7060347.stm) it seems they are planning to do just that within the next 20 years or so. is this this the death knell for the apollo moon hoax cospiranoids?

BV

Yeah, but it is only possible because they are on the other side of the world. Duh!

[CptColumbo]

*smacks head*

Riiight... the Matrix! Thanks Vince!

Sorry, I was working.

[uruk]

Even the Chinese landing on the moon won't phase them.
There's no limit to stupidity.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Obviously the Chinese trip will be real. Only the U.S. government lies and makes things up.

[dudalb]

We will have good images before the Chinese get there. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) will launch in 2008 with camera capable of imaging the hardware we left behind.



Space.com article (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060207_lro_technology.html)
NASA LRO Site (http://lro.larc.nasa.gov/)


The LRO images will be just another Nasa Fake to help the coverup.
You know that will be how the Moonbats handle that.

[Slayhamlet]

They'll just say that technology wasn't advanced enough in the 60's. Or something.

[PhantomWolf]

Sheeze, you're kidding right?

a) If the Chinese get there:

Responses:

(i) Well we can go now, but couldn't then.
(ii) The Chinese faked it too

If the Chinese don't land or show images of the Apollo sites:

(i) They didn't because there's nothing there and the US is paying them off.

If the Chinese do land near or show images of the Apollo sites:

(ii) They are faked or the US put them there since 1969.

b) If the Chinese don't get there:

See it's impossible

Those that want to believe will believe what they want to.

[Ranb]

You need to remember, the Russians were in on the Apollo moon landing hoax. :) An HB is just going to substitute Chinese for Russians in their insane arguements.

Ranb

[Blender Head]

Wasn't there a video on Google that showed the astronauts faking the image of the Earth from their shuttle window; placing paper (?) around the window to shrink the size of the planet, giving an appearance of great distance?

[CptColumbo]

We should find a business man to go and collect the Apollo 11 artifacts, and auction them off on eBay. That would be a cool TV series. They should get Andy Griffith to star in it....oh, wait.

[PhantomWolf]

Wasn't there a video on Google that showed the astronauts faking the image of the Earth from their shuttle window; placing paper (?) around the window to shrink the size of the planet, giving an appearance of great distance?

No. There is a video about that claims that is what they are doing, but claimer does so without actual evidence. Furthermore, close studies of the clouds match the weatherpatterns of the day and the Earth has been found to have rotated slightly during the period of the broadcast, something impossible for a transperancy.

[Bell]

Yes, yes, but what about the guilty looks on the faces of Neil, Buzz and Collins when they faced Nixon?

[Sunstealer]

The real question is; which moon will the Chinese choose to land on? Cruithne? ;)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The real question is; which moon will the Chinese choose to land on? Cruithne? ;)

No the moon around Planet X. Aka Moon X.

ETA: Google is my friend. I never knew about Cruithne and that it is known as "Earth's Second Moon (http://www.burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/cruithne.html)"

[MG1962]

Yes, yes, but what about the guilty looks on the faces of Neil, Buzz and Collins when they faced Nixon?

Yes yes.......... but a I suspect that had less to do with the fact they didn't go to the moon, and more to do with the fact they didn't vote for him lol

[Apollo20]

Confucius he say:

"What was one small step for Neil Armstrong, will be one giant leap for short chinaman"

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Confucius he say:

"What was one small step for Neil Armstrong, will be one giant leap for short chinaman"

http://www.chinaexpat.com/files/u1/yao_ming.jpg

[sts60]

Wasn't there a video on Google that showed the astronauts faking the image of the Earth from their shuttle window; placing paper (?) around the window to shrink the size of the planet, giving an appearance of great distance?
As if nobody would notice? Anyway, see Clavius' take on this (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html). This was also argued at considerable length, with images and weather maps, in this thread (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1161263172) on Apollohoax.

[Blender Head]

As if nobody would notice? Anyway, see Clavius' take on this (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html). This was also argued at considerable length, with images and weather maps, in this thread (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1161263172) on Apollohoax.

Simmer down now. I only saw that video once and pretty much in passing. As Do-Over would say, 'I'm just asking questions...'.

[Unalienable]

They'll never get to the moon and they know it. You need too much shielding to survive the Van Allen belt. This is just a Chinese PR campaign feeding off of the widespread ignorance that NASA nurtured during the sixties.

[Belz...]

Do the Chinese have conspiracy theorists?

No, they've been banned by the government.

[Alareth]

Can we put Bart Sibrel on the next flight to the Moon.


And leave him there?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Can we put Bart Sibrel on the next flight to the Moon.


And leave him there?

svAQ6BCIgxg

[PhantomWolf]

Confucius he say:

"What was one small step for Neil Armstrong, will be one giant leap for short chinaman"

Pete Conrad beat you by a few years. ;)

Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me.

[jsiv]

It can be done today, but not back in the 1960s.

Am I seriously supposed to believe that they could have pulled it off back then? The "computer" they allegedly used to go to the moon was less powerful than a pocket calculator from a dollar store.

As a comparison, Flight Simulator X (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx) requires a computer with several gigahertz of processing power, numerous gigabytes of storage space, multiple gigabytes of memory, and a top of the line graphics card, and it doesn't even let you leave Earth.

[Hutch]

They'll never get to the moon and they know it. You need too much shielding to survive the Van Allen belt. This is just a Chinese PR campaign feeding off of the widespread ignorance that NASA nurtured during the sixties.

I didn't see the smilies or the Irony button, so I must assume you are not joking.

Get thee unto www.clavius.org and find out the facts.

Short synopisis--the Van Allen belt radiation can be shielded against, the astronauts passed through the belt in a very short time, and astronauts before and since have spent time in the belt with no fatal effects...

[Alferd_Packer]

They'll just say that technology wasn't advanced enough in the 60's. Or something.


Go up two posts.

[Jonnyclueless]

I can't believe it has taken China this long just to build a lunar TV film stage....

[alexg]

It can be done today, but not back in the 1960s.

Am I seriously supposed to believe that they could have pulled it off back then? The "computer" they allegedly used to go to the moon was less powerful than a pocket calculator from a dollar store.

As a comparison, Flight Simulator X (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx) requires a computer with several gigahertz of processing power, numerous gigabytes of storage space, multiple gigabytes of memory, and a top of the line graphics card, and it doesn't even let you leave Earth.

Right, so how about all those ACTUAL planes which flew with no computers at all?

The computer is needed for the SIMULATION, not the actual plane. Try accurately simulating anything, a 1960's era F1 car for example, you can't even do it with a computer really. You can only approximate it with a very complex physics engine. Making and driving one took only mechanical parts and driving skill.

[phunk]

The power needed for a modern flight sim is almost entirely used by the graphics. The math to calculate an orbital maneuver CAN be done with a dollar store calculator, or even a pencil and paper!

[Alferd_Packer]

The power needed for a modern flight sim is almost entirely used by the graphics. The math to calculate an orbital maneuver CAN be done with a dollar store calculator, or even a pencil and paper!

Or a couple of pieces of wood sliding back and forth of each other.

[technoextreme]

It can be done today, but not back in the 1960s.

Am I seriously supposed to believe that they could have pulled it off back then? The "computer" they allegedly used to go to the moon was less powerful than a pocket calculator from a dollar store.

As a comparison, Flight Simulator X (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx) requires a computer with several gigahertz of processing power, numerous gigabytes of storage space, multiple gigabytes of memory, and a top of the line graphics card, and it doesn't even let you leave Earth.
Can this be considered Stundie material because lord knows using your logic the Spaceshuttle would come crashing down to earth. I heard the statistic that the processing power for the Spaceshuttle isn't as much as the original Game Boy.

[PhantomWolf]

I think jsiv was emulating an HB's response to the chinese landings, not questioning the reality of Apollo. He just forgot the tags. ;)

Talking about emulating, here's something for all the nerds. (http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/) ;)

[technoextreme]

I think jsiv was emulating an HB's response to the chinese landings, not questioning the reality of Apollo. He just forgot the tags. ;)

Talking about emulating, here's something for all the nerds. (http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/) ;)
Sorry. You know sarcasm really gets lost in this forum because you have no clue whether or not the hyperbolic statements are serious or in jest.

[jsiv]

Making and driving one took only mechanical parts and driving skill.


Sorry, but am I supposed to just take your word for that? And who are you again?


Also, I tried punching 1+1 into that Apollo calculator thing and nothing useful happened.

They went to the moon with a broken calculator?

Yeah. Okay.

I rest my case.

[alexg]

Sorry, but am I supposed to just take your word for that? And who are you again?


Also, I tried punching 1+1 into that Apollo calculator thing and nothing useful happened.

They went to the moon with a broken calculator?

Yeah. Okay.

I rest my case.

Sorry. Good stupid truther impersonation. Caught me sleeping.

[tacodaemon]

Sorry. Good stupid truther impersonation. Caught me sleeping.


Believe it or not, a CTist on this very forum actually made the argument jsiv was parodying (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2507533&postcount=23), except he was talking about present-day moon landing simulation programs rather than Flight Simulator X per se.

[Unalienable]

I didn't see the smilies or the Irony button, so I must assume you are not joking.
I don't believe in smilies (etc.), it reminds me too much of somebody holding up an "applause" sign while the king is giving a speech.

Get thee unto www.clavius.org and find out the facts.
Good site, thanks for that.

I think I am familiar with every single anti-moonwalk claim that has ever been suggested. I noticed a few that clavius didn't seem to address, but then, you can't cover everything.

[PhantomWolf]

I think I am familiar with every single anti-moonwalk claim that has ever been suggested.

Oh I'm sure I could find a few you haven't seen before.

I noticed a few that clavius didn't seem to address, but then, you can't cover everything.

Jay has often said that Clavius is not the sum total of his work, but that his postings on ApolloHoax and BAUT also contain information in which he addresses issues not on the site.

[Hutch]

I think I am familiar with every single anti-moonwalk claim that has ever been suggested. I noticed a few that clavius didn't seem to address, but then, you can't cover everything.

Try their message board (Apollo Hoax). Jay Windley (posts as Jay Utah) and several others are very, very good sources and if you have questions and are willing to learn, they can answer damn near anything.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I can't believe it has taken China this long just to build a lunar TV film stage....

The Empire Plastic Junk Built.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

It can be done today, but not back in the 1960s.

Am I seriously supposed to believe that they could have pulled it off back then? The "computer" they allegedly used to go to the moon was less powerful than a pocket calculator from a dollar store.

As a comparison, Flight Simulator X (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx) requires a computer with several gigahertz of processing power, numerous gigabytes of storage space, multiple gigabytes of memory, and a top of the line graphics card, and it doesn't even let you leave Earth.

It's amazing that warfare was successful before gunpowder, but it still happened. How did vast armies travel without MREs? Clean water? etc?

Today's high tech is generalized, while in the 60s everything "hi tech" was built specific, especially by NASA.

[SpitfireIX]

Try their message board (Apollo Hoax). Jay Windley (posts as Jay Utah) and several others are very, very good sources and if you have questions and are willing to learn, they can answer damn near anything.


It's JayUtah, not Jay Utah, at least on Apollohoax and BAUT. I've seen him use jaywindley and heresjay elsewhere.

[genesplicer]

The one thing I say to Moon Hoaxers is the fact that we were in the middle of the Cold War during the Apollo missions. Moscow was watching our progress VERY closely. If it was a hoax, you can be damned sure that the powers in Moscow would have been jumping all over that.

[Ranb]

Those crafty HB's already have an answer for that. They say the Soviets went along with the hoax in exchange for grain.

Ranb

[sts60]

Pffft. You think small. The Cold War itself was a hoax.

Yes, I have had discussions with HBs (hoax believers) who claim exactly that.

[PhantomWolf]

It's JayUtah, not Jay Utah, at least on Apollohoax and BAUT. I've seen him use jaywindley and heresjay elsewhere.

Yeah, but people call me Phantom Wolf too, there seems to be this thing in the human brain that makes them want to put in spaces where there aren't. My programming and website stuff is done under the name PhantomProductions, and I often find people spell it Phantom Productions.


Jay uses JayUtah on ApolloHoax.net and the BAUTforum.com. heresjay is his yahoo name and on boards where he doesn't post a lot and wants people to know who he is, he'll use jaywindley

[Jonnyclueless]

Why didn't everyone else fake moon landings too? Everyone had the ability to make TV sets.I would think Russia would just say "Hey, uh, yeah, uh, we just landed on the moon too."

[Bell]

Why didn't everyone else fake moon landings too? Everyone had the ability to make TV sets.I would think Russia would just say "Hey, uh, yeah, uh, we just landed on the moon too."

4w9EksAo5hY

[jaydeehess]

Why didn't everyone else fake moon landings too? Everyone had the ability to make TV sets.I would think Russia would just say "Hey, uh, yeah, uh, we just landed on the moon too."

Do the math. Faking it is almost as expensive (in the 60/70's) as actually doing it.

[Jonnyclueless]

Do the math. Faking it is almost as expensive (in the 60/70's) as actually doing it.


I don't buy that. If the movie industry had to pay as much as launching a mission to the moon for every picture, they would never make a profit.

[jaydeehess]

The power needed for a modern flight sim is almost entirely used by the graphics. The math to calculate an orbital maneuver CAN be done with a dollar store calculator, or even a pencil and paper!

indeed, IIRC, when Apollo 13 was limping back to Earth the task of developing the orbital injection parameters was given to a group of physicists who did the bulk of the calc's using pencils, paper and slide rules (as Alfred Packer pointed out)

I owned a circular slide rule made of plastic that would fit in a shirt pocket. It had an insert that listed , among other things, the greek alphabet, and many physical constants(to more sig figures than neccessary for slide rule work)

[PhantomWolf]

Do the math. Faking it is almost as expensive (in the 60/70's) as actually doing it.

I disagree, faking it would have been and would continue to be, more expensive. Not only would major new physic altering inventions be required, but massive payouts to shut up everyone involved, paying the Men-in-Black to make sure no one opens their mouths, plus on top of that they still had to pay the contractors to make the equipment itself. Faking it would have required a budget 2-3 times that of actually going.

[Bell]

I disagree, faking it would have been and would continue to be, more expensive. Not only would major new physic altering inventions be required, but massive payouts to shut up everyone involved, paying the Men-in-Black to make sure no one opens their mouths, plus on top of that they still had to pay the contractors to make the equipment itself. Faking it would have required a budget 2-3 times that of actually going.

They saved money by hiring cheap ass stage hands. I mean... 'C' rock?! Come on. Even I would have placed that piece of prop better than they did.

[PhantomWolf]

That'd explain the stupidity of the alledged use of a crane to place the Rover onto the stage meaning that the tire tracks ended 4 feet from the tyres when they had one that was both filmed and photographed being driven and could have just been driven to the spot......

[Bell]

That'd explain the stupidity of the alledged use of a crane to place the Rover onto the stage meaning that the tire tracks ended 4 feet from the tyres when they had one that was both filmed and photographed being driven and could have just been driven to the spot......


The best evidence for the faked moonlanding is...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/AS8-13-2329.jpg/300px-AS8-13-2329.jpg

One of the earthrise photos. The Flat Earth Society used these photos as evidence of a faked landing, since they show a spherical Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Other_opinion s

[Unalienable]

The one thing I say to Moon Hoaxers is the fact that we were in the middle of the Cold War during the Apollo missions. Moscow was watching our progress VERY closely. If it was a hoax, you can be damned sure that the powers in Moscow would have been jumping all over that.


What makes you think they didn't jump all over that? Were you living in the USSR at the time? Were you getting Pravda delivered on your doorstep? From what I understand, the Soviets never admitted defeat and were the original moonwalk conspiracy theorists. They refused to broadcast the moonwalk on television while it occurred. In fact, they even gave themselves the lion's share of credit for our faked moonwalk, saying that it was only by copying Soviet technology that we were even able to send an unmanned probe to collect the moonrocks.

I personally know a few people who grew up in Cuba, and they tell me that they were taught in gradeschool that the USA faked the moonwalk, not presented as a theory, but as a matter of historical fact. (I've even heard it claimed that Cuba still teaches that to this day, but I've never seen the evidence of that claim. However, knowing what I know about Cuba, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was true.)

None of this means anything one way or the other if your goal is to prove (or disprove) the moonwalk, therefore I regard it as a sort of logical fallacy. You could use the same line of reasoning to say "If a moonwalk was technologically possible, the Russians (who were ahead of the USA in space technology) would have been all over it, and would have done it. But they didn't, therefore it must have been technologically impossible."

[PhantomWolf]

Actually the Soviets did acknowledge it and it was printed in their papers. They didn't broadcast it live (edited: They did however show the delayed footage of the first steps 3 times on July 21st, 1969), but then a lot of countries didn't, I know that here they didn't because they simply couldn't do live TV at that point. They did intercept the TV and radio signals though (http://world.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/271/03.shtml)* so there was never any dispute from them. The Hoax claims started in the US pretty early on, though formnally didn't start up till towards the end of the 1970's.

Even North Korea admitted that the Moonwalks happened to its people, they just refused to tell them which country had done it.


*The original page in Russian is here (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/271/03.shtml)

[BenBurch]

When the rocket pioneers looked into how to navigate in space they did figure out how to do it without modern computational instruments. You *could* navigate a spacecraft to the moon with just sighting instruments and a slide rule, but the workload would be amazing, and of course any error would be a Bad Thing. Apollo 13 proved at least part of that.

[PhantomWolf]

When the rocket pioneers looked into how to navigate in space they did figure out how to do it without modern computational instruments. You *could* navigate a spacecraft to the moon with just sighting instruments and a slide rule, but the workload would be amazing, and of course any error would be a Bad Thing. Apollo 13 proved at least part of that.

Gemini used the first flight computers, and on Gemini XII it broke so that Buzz had to do the docking calculations with a sextant and his brain. mercury flew perfectly well without a computer and so did the Soviet Vostok and Voskhod craft.

eta: On Apollo 13 the issue was that the LM's guidance computer was designed to run the programs for landing on the moon, not for lunar-earth navigation, the programs for that were in the CSM's AGC. However because they were using the LM as a SPS they had to fly it manually. This was achieved by placing a fixed object in the pilot's docking window and keeping it there, exactly the same way you hit a building with a plane. ;)

[jaydeehess]

You could use the same line of reasoning to say "If a moonwalk was technologically possible, the Russians (who were ahead of the USA in space technology) would have been all over it, and would have done it. But they didn't, therefore it must have been technologically impossible."

Well it might have some meaning as long as you ignore the fact that their rocket blew up on the pad and very badly damaged their launch facility. No launch facility and your program gets set back until you rebuild, and that takes a good bit of time.

[Undesired Walrus]

"Rhats one smarr step for man, one giarnt reap for mankind."

sorry....

[PhantomWolf]

Well it might have some meaning as long as you ignore the fact that their rocket blew up on the pad and very badly damaged their launch facility. No launch facility and your program gets set back until you rebuild, and that takes a good bit of time.

That was just one failure of the N-1. Unfortunately for the Soveits by the time they decided to try for the moon the politics and infighting in their space programme were at their peak. The Soviet military saw no use for such a heavy lifter as the N-1 and those involved in the space programme were split between those that wanted to beat the US to the moon, those that demanded unmanned exploration of the Solar System, and those that wanted to establish a permanent Soviet present in space with a station. With with the budget split three ways, there was never enough money to properly design and test the N-1. Unable to follow the Americans into solving the issues with giant rocket engine instablity because they lacked both the time and money, the N-1 instead relied on 30 smaller engines, a configuration that was never tested before flight. Of course with 30 engines you have 30x the chance something will go wrong and it did. The first two launches resulted in engine failures, the second being the on pad exlosion that serious damaged the launch facilities. Two later test flights also failed due to the instability of the rocket itself. The first went into an uncontrollable roll and had to be destroyed while the fourth and final N-1 flight, and the death knell for the Soviet Manned Lunar Programme come to an end when the second stage tanks ruptured from pogo induced metal fatigue. With no heavy lifter the Soviets weren't going to the moon so instead they closed the programme down, fired the head of the group, gave the funding to the space station programme and then told the world that they were never planning to go to the moon so it wasn't really a race at all, a cover story they stuck to until the early 1990's when they finally admited the truth.

[Unalienable]

Actually the Soviets did acknowledge it and it was printed in their papers.And how do you know that? Surely you're not just assuming that because they intercepted signals from Apollo that they would have given us full credit for a job well done. I don't doubt that they knew we went to the moon--I'm just doubting that they reported it honestly. Which is to say, I never have seen the evidence that they did. Of course this isn't surprising since Americans were not allowed to be exposed to Russian propaganda at the time, any more than the Soviets were allowed to watch American news. It would be fascinating to get my hands on some old issues of Russian newspapers from the height of the Cold War. I can't read Russian myself, but I have several friends who do. That's the one and only way to settle this issue, not by reading articles written 30 years later.

But anyhow, like I said before, it's a non-issue if your goal is to credit or discredit the legitimacy of the moonwalk. The propaganda stance of the Soviets is very interesting from a historical perspective, but not proof of anything.

[Corsair 115]

Well it might have some meaning as long as you ignore the fact that their rocket blew up on the pad and very badly damaged their launch facility. No launch facility and your program gets set back until you rebuild, and that takes a good bit of time.It didn't help that their chief designer, Sergei Korolev, died in 1966. He was a major driving force behind the Soviet space program. Imagine what would have happened to the U.S. program if Wernher von Braun had died in 1966.

[PhantomWolf]

And how do you know that? Surely you're not just assuming that because they intercepted signals from Apollo that they would have given us full credit for a job well done. I don't doubt that they knew we went to the moon--I'm just doubting that they reported it honestly. Which is to say, I never have seen the evidence that they did. Of course this isn't surprising since Americans were not allowed to be exposed to Russian propaganda at the time, any more than the Soviets were allowed to watch American news. It would be fascinating to get my hands on some old issues of Russian newspapers from the height of the Cold War. I can't read Russian myself, but I have several friends who do. That's the one and only way to settle this issue, not by reading articles written 30 years later.

But anyhow, like I said before, it's a non-issue if your goal is to credit or discredit the legitimacy of the moonwalk. The propaganda stance of the Soviets is very interesting from a historical perspective, but not proof of anything.

I know because I investigated and found articles written by people that were in Moscow at the time who have stated that the papers carried an article about it, though it wasn't a full front page like most US Papers, rather a small article that included the lost of the Luna probe as well. Others reported that Soviet TV played the Armstrong footage three times throughout the day and and I learn of North Korea's attitude via an interview with a US defector who was returning home after 40 something years there. Finding a paper would be great, but it's not the only way to settle the issue.

As to not uncovering the other sides propoganda, I disagree with that, and both sides spent large sums of money trying, the West still use the same techniques today as they did then, broadcasting TV and radio into opposing countries with articles that deliberately attempt to undo the propoganda of the opposing TV and radio.

[PhantomWolf]

It didn't help that their chief designer, Sergei Korolev, died in 1966. He was a major driving force behind the Soviet space program. Imagine what would have happened to the U.S. program if Wernher von Braun had died in 1966.

Nikita Khrushchev's deposing was likely a greater blow as the infighting that he had stomped on started again after he was removed from office. In the case of Apollo, even if Von Braun had died in 1966, the Saturn V plans were on the table and there was a united and focused front on getting that rocket into the air and into space. The Soviets never had that except for a few months of 1964. The political wranging between the three groups of the Soviet Space Programme (Lunar, Unmanned and Space Station) and then further fighting between rival factions inside the Lunar Programme are what killed it. Having Korolev die and having him replaced by Mishin certainly didn't help in that regard, but I doubt that it affected the rocket greatly beyond the damage done by Mishin's lack of political astuteness.

[Unalienable]

I know because I investigated and found articles written by people that were in Moscow at the time who have stated that the papers carried an article about it, though it wasn't a full front page like most US Papers, rather a small article that included the lost of the Luna probe as well. Others reported that Soviet TV played the Armstrong footage three times throughout the day and and I learn of North Korea's attitude via an interview with a US defector who was returning home after 40 something years there. Finding a paper would be great, but it's not the only way to settle the issue.
OK, that's a great answer. I thought you were just shooting from the hip but I see know you've put some time into this subject.

But understand it from my point of view: on one hand I have you telling me these things, which sound perfectly plausible. On the other hand I have talked to people myself exposed to some of the Communist propaganda of the day who tell me things that are possibly in contradiction to what you say. (Admittedly not Soviet propaganda, but Cuban, but the way I see it, it's all the same bag of laundry.) I know my friends aren't lying to me, and you know your friends aren't lying to you, and yet something doesn't quite add up here.

Anyhow, as interesting as it is from a political point of view, the argument "If we didn't go to the moon then the Soviets would have exposed us" is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst. Who's to know what the Soviets would have, or not have done, and what does that really prove?

I really get bothered when I see skeptics, with their hearts in the right place, resorting to woo-arguments to debunk woo. They start to adopt the attributes of the opposition: embracing any argument that supports their position, even if the structure of the argument is a fallacy.

[PhantomWolf]

Well I have no idea about what Cuba did, though I suspect that Castro at the time was so anti-American it wouldn't surprise me at all if he did try and claim it was hoaxed. I can only go on what the Soviets (and North Koreans) were told based on the testimony of those there at the time. Cuba is an entirely different kettle of fish and what they did and what the others did are likely completely different.

Anyhow, as interesting as it is from a political point of view, the argument "If we didn't go to the moon then the Soviets would have exposed us" is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst. Who's to know what the Soviets would have, or not have done, and what does that really prove?

I think that the thrust of it was in that they were in a competion of technology. The space race wasn't just a race to get to the moon, it was a race to show who was the better technologically and industrially. It was a race neither side wanted to lose, in fact the Soviets were so serious about not losing that when it become apparent that they had and that they weren't even able to finish a credible second and extend the challenge to Mars, they dropped out and tried to hide the entire programme under the carpet, claiming they weren't in any race to the moon at all, and that it was all a Western invention. These aren't the actions of a Government that knew there opposition had faked it.

[Unalienable]

These aren't the actions of a Government that knew there opposition had faked it.
I understand the argument, but it's faulty. Let's put it another way:

Suppose the Soviet's did deny it, and publish propaganda to that effect. Would that therefore prove in any way that we didn't go?

If I showed you a copy of Pravda from 1969 which actually did cast doubts over the legitimacy of the moonwalk, would you suddenly believe that it was faked?

No. Of course not. You would just say "well, they were jealous" etc. Therefore if the Soviets published the propaganda, it's proof of a moonwalk, and if they didn't publish the propaganda, it's proof of a moonwalk. Faulty thinking. It's better to say "Whatever the Soviet's did, it offers no evidence regarding the question of whether or not we went to the moon." That's my position on the subject.

[uk_dave]

But surely, since the moon landings were a global event, for the soviets to suddenly claim it was a hoax would have left them looking very silly in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of their prospective client states who would begin to wonder if maybe the claims of fakery didn't seem a little...desperate!

It's a different story when you're claiming a hoax many years after the original event and after the teams responsible have split up, the materials are archived and in some cases lost and peoples memories are not as fresh. That's the window of opportunity for the hoax fantasist, not the 'on the day' government sponsored propaganda campaign.

ETA : Would it also be worth considering that, despite the cold war, soviet science still viewed itself as part of the global scientific community and, as such, would not necessarily have wanted to be used to make claims of fakery about another country's scientific achievements? Once again, if soviet scientists had done this, and been proven wrong in the eyes of the global scientific community, then they would not be taken seriously again.

[SpitfireIX]

I understand the argument, but it's faulty. Let's put it another way:

Suppose the Soviet's did deny it, and publish propaganda to that effect. Would that therefore prove in any way that we didn't go?

If I showed you a copy of Pravda from 1969 which actually did cast doubts over the legitimacy of the moonwalk, would you suddenly believe that it was faked?

No. Of course not. You would just say "well, they were jealous" etc. Therefore if the Soviets published the propaganda, it's proof of a moonwalk, and if they didn't publish the propaganda, it's proof of a moonwalk. Faulty thinking. It's better to say "Whatever the Soviet's did, it offers no evidence regarding the question of whether or not we went to the moon." That's my position on the subject.


Your assertion that Soviet claims of moonlanding fakery could be used as proof that the landings were actually real is specious. There are two cases where the USSR would have made such claims: the case where the landings actually were fake, and the Soviets had proof of such, and the case where the landings were real, but the USSR wanted to cast doubt on their authenticity in an attempt to embarrass the United States. Therefore, those claims would have been proof of nothing. To assert otherwise is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Conversely, there is no reasonable explanation for the Soviets' having acknowledged the authenticity of Apollo other than that they believed it (though I have seen a few unreasonable explantions offered, such as bribes, blackmail, or the NWO controlled both governments :rolleyes: ).

[Unalienable]

Conversely, there is no reasonable explanation for the Soviets' having acknowledged the authenticity of Apollo other than that they believed it (though I have seen a few unreasonable explantions offered, such as bribes, blackmail, or the NWO controlled both governments :rolleyes: ).
Oh, I can think of some, much better than the ones you named. For years the USA overstated the capabilities of the USSR, to keep us in a state of fear. Americans were told of the great advances of Soviet space technology, to "whip us into shape" and get us worried about what the Soviets were capable of. There's no reason why we shouldn't expect the Soviets to take the same attitude towards us, if not moreso. In my (somewhat radical) opinion, the Cold War was an exaggeration perpetrated by both super-powers for the exactly same reason: a common enemy is the safest way for a government to unify its people behind a common cause, as history has taught us time and time again.

Your assertion that Soviet claims of moonlanding fakery could be used as proof that the landings were actually real is specious.
Of course, I offered that as an example of specious reasoning. But at the same time I assert that Soviet claims of moonlanding legitimacy could be used a proof that the landings were real is also specious.

I am certainly not convinced by PhantomWolf's assertion that the Soviet papers covered the story "though it wasn't a full front page like most US Papers". I'm not saying he's wrong, but I think he might be only partially informed on the subject. Perhaps one Soviet article claimed that we did it, while another expressed doubts, in an effort to obfuscate the issue. Until somebody shows me some actual old issues of Soviet newspapers, which are not that hard to locate, I remain agnostic on the subject. I would research it myself if I was independently wealthy and wasn't pressed by other concerns.

All of this reminds me a little bit of the woo-claim that we didn't go to the moon because Armstrong acted squirrely during one of the interviews. He did in fact act squirrely, in my opionion. But so what? That's not the evidence that should be on trial here.

The moonwalk issue, compared to other skeptical pursuits, is inverted from what skeptics are familiar. I assume we all regard maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as true and important. In this case, the idea of a man talking a stroll on the moon is quite extraordinary. It's not the conspiracy theorists who are making the extraordinary claim--it's NASA. The conspiracy theorists are rejecting an extraordinary claim, and they do this by ignoring, denying, or finding what they consider to be faults in the extraordinary evidence.

And so, the evidence of the moonwalk rests in the mountain of extraordinary evidence that NASA (and some secondary sources) provided us with. The ultimate question is this: is NASA's evidence extraordinary? In this case I think it is. It was not handled like a military operation--it was handled like a scientific endeavor, as it should have been. It's a mountain of information, from the telemetry data that recently surfaced, to photographs, video, audio, secondary confirmations by third parties, all of which would be nearly impossible to fake.

If NASA performed the moonwalk in secret, did not release any data, photos or videos, did not release moonrocks to various groups for study, and said nothing on the subject other than "we went, we came back, and you'll just have to trust us on that one" then I too would be a moonwalk skeptic. But that's not what they did, and so I'm not.

How foreign nations reacted to the event after the fact, or how Armstrong behaved in an interview, is a far cry from analyzing the actual direct evidence. It's a total departure from the normal process of determining truth by examining the evidence. This is exactly the same kind of argument often put forth by creationists, ghost-hunters, psychics, and UFO buffs. Don't try to fight woo with woo.

[PhantomWolf]

Of course, I offered that as an example of specious reasoning. But at the same time I assert that Soviet claims of moonlanding legitimacy could be used a proof that the landings were real is also specious.

I disagree, if they had the evidence that they were fake, then they could easily have presented that evidence. If Pravda had published as Headline news "US FAKES MOON LANDING" and then proceeded to outline their evidence in a scientific and factual way that stood up to scrutiny, then such evidence would have clearly shown that NASA had faked it. Science doesn't care about propoganda, something is either backed by science, or it isn't. It doesn't matter if the claimant is Bob the Yokel from down the street, President Bush, or Groucho Marx, if what they claim is testable, then the result of the test will either comfirm or dispute what they say. If the Soviets had the evidence and had released it then it would have been tested the same way as NASA's evidence was, and if it had stood up, then propoganda or not, it would have been shown to be true. (Remember that the best propoganda is when it is the truth.)

Rather than that we have the situation where Soviet TV played the landing three times on the day (something you initially said didn't happen) and where the papers reported it in a minor article which also covered the "loss" of their own Luna 15 probe. Both of these things, and in addition to the later cover up of their own manned lunar programme and revelations that they tracked and intercepted broadcasts from the Apollo craft, all point to the Soviets acceptance of Apollo as real, and since they were tracking the craft, they would have known if it wasn't. The Soviets had everything to lose from not coming out if they knew it was a hoax, and yet they never have, in fact they instigated their own hoax to cover up their failings. Whether you think it faulty of not, the Soviet's actions were not consistant with knowledge that Apollo was fake, but entirely consistant with the knowledge that they had lost a race to get to the moon. After that it falls to Occam's razor because otherwise we might as well start arguing that it is impossible to know anything.

[Unalienable]

If Pravda had published as Headline news "US FAKES MOON LANDING" and then proceeded to outline their evidence in a scientific and factual way that stood up to scrutiny then such evidence would have clearly shown that NASA had faked it.
(emphasis mine) Woah! You just changed the argument in a not-so-subtle way. I thought that we were discussing was simply whether or not the Soviet media position on the matter was important in determining the legitimacy of the moonwalk. I was talking headlines, now you've suddenly turned the spotlight on the scientific content to be found underneath the headlines.

Frankly I've never found much scientific content in any mass media publication, in any language, in any nation. Your qualifer is virtually impossible to satisfy.

I presented the challenge "Suppose I could prove that the Soviets published an article casting doubts on the moonwalk, suggesting that we faked it--would that change your mind?" I assumed that it would not. I never suggested or imagined that such an article would contain legitimate scientific proof of their position, just that such an article does indeed exist. I imagined it would read much like National Enquirer hysteria, but that's beside the point entirely.

Instead of saying "Yes" or "No" you decided to add a jumbo-sized qualifier "...and then proceeded to outline their evidence in a scientific and factual way that stood up to scrutiny" thereby dodging the question.

So we get back to my original complaint of this kind of analysis. "If the Soviets assert we went, we must have gone to the moon--and if the Soviet's asserted we didn't go, it still means that we must have gone to the moon." So no matter what Pravada prints as a headline, your opinion on the subject stays the same. Then why should I place any value in "evidence" that comes from Pravda at all?

[PhantomWolf]

So we get back to my original complaint of this kind of analysis. "If the Soviets assert we went, we must have gone to the moon--and if the Soviet's asserted we didn't go, it still means that we must have gone to the moon." So no matter what Pravada prints as a headline, your opinion on the subject stays the same. Then why should I place any value in "evidence" that comes from Pravda at all?

The issue is that it's not just the headline though, what follows the headline is the more important part. If the Soviet Newspapers printed an article that was scientifically able to cast doubt on the moon landings then that would be worth investigating, even if on more detailed inspection that "science" proved faulty. If they just did a big headline and made a lot of unsubstantiated claims, then that opinion wouldn't be worth the ink that was used to print it. It's the difference between saying, They Don't Go, and They Didn't Go and here's the reasons why we know. If you only read the headline then you end up accepting or rejecting a claim on just the claim, where is the critical thinking in that?

The Soviets certainly would have had that information they needed to bust any hoax wide open, they could have released their tracking data for example (data we know now confirms the authenticity of the missions) or had there really been a reason that men couldn't get through the VA Belts, they could have released that data showing that there was no way that the US Astronauts could have survived the journey. Again it's a case of the best propaganda being the truth. If they could have shown it was hoaxed, and they had the data to back it up, they could have printed it. They didn't, and now that their data has been released we can see that it backs NASA's claims, so the obvious conclusion is that they never tried to claim it as fake because they knew it wasn't.

Interestingly someone over on BAUT posted the follow extract from a 1979 book by a cosmonaut…

"By now twenty years have passed. Only twenty! In this short span - an instant i the history of civilization - we saw the far side of the Moon, received signals from human apparatus on other planets, looked on a televised panorama of the "evening star" Venus, and performed analysis of the lunar surface. Above all, in this time humanity began to live in space: there, thrown into weightlessness, he welded metal and raised plants, so that, from beyond the atmosphere, he conversed with Earth via television, laying the groundwork for international cooperation in space.

...And we all watched on television as man took his first steps on the surface of the Moon; watched, delighted but not, if you please, surprised..."

The evidence is overwhelming that the Soviets knew and acknowledged that it happened because it happened.

[Unalienable]

It seems like this discussion is going nowhere. We still don't even know if the Soviets did or did not acknowledge it at the time (other than a few suggestions of hear-say which may or may not be in contradiction) when millions of issues of Soviet newspapers from that era still exist that would settle the issue, period.

And you make the unassailable claim that (to summarize) "if the Soviets provided real proof that it was hoaxed, then that would be proof that it was hoaxed." I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with that. Of course you can replace "Soviets" with "Britney Spears" or "Mickey Mouse" or "the voices in my head" and it still is absolutely true.

Which gets back to my fundamental opinion: that the evidence of the moonwalk exists, it is what it is, and what people say about it doesn't change it. If the evidence can be shown to be absolutely fraudulent, then an example of Soviets praising the evidence doesn't matter. Likewise, if the evidence stands up to the strictest levels of scrutiny, then an instance of Soviets disparaging the evidence doesn't matter.

[godless dave]

http://www.chinaexpat.com/files/u1/yao_ming.jpg


But short people make better astronauts.

[godless dave]

OK, that's a great answer. I thought you were just shooting from the hip but I see know you've put some time into this subject.

But understand it from my point of view: on one hand I have you telling me these things, which sound perfectly plausible. On the other hand I have talked to people myself exposed to some of the Communist propaganda of the day who tell me things that are possibly in contradiction to what you say. (Admittedly not Soviet propaganda, but Cuban, but the way I see it, it's all the same bag of laundry.)

It's not the same bag of laundry. Cuba depended on the Soviet Union for trade and other things, but they weren't under their direct control. There's no reason Cuba's propaganda machine would have parroted the Soviet machine. They had different priorities.

[MG1962]

Interestingly someone over on BAUT posted the follow extract from a 1979 book by a cosmonaut…

"By now twenty years have passed. Only twenty! In this short span - an instant i the history of civilization - we saw the far side of the Moon, received signals from human apparatus on other planets, looked on a televised panorama of the "evening star" Venus, and performed analysis of the lunar surface. Above all, in this time humanity began to live in space: there, thrown into weightlessness, he welded metal and raised plants, so that, from beyond the atmosphere, he conversed with Earth via television, laying the groundwork for international cooperation in space.

...And we all watched on television as man took his first steps on the surface of the Moon; watched, delighted but not, if you please, surprised..."

I believe that quote is attributed to Alexey Leonov - The Cosmonaut slated to be the first Russian to walk on the Moon

It must be remember the Soviet space program was in immuned to Woo - during the sample recovery mission Lunokhod 1 & 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_program

It was widely believed for a time in the Soviet Union that these probes where not robotic but indeed controled and manned by KGB trained dwarfs

[jaydeehess]

Oh, I can think of some, much better than the ones you named. For years the USA overstated the capabilities of the USSR, to keep us in a state of fear. Americans were told of the great advances of Soviet space technology, to "whip us into shape" and get us worried about what the Soviets were capable of. There's no reason why we shouldn't expect the Soviets to take the same attitude towards us, if not moreso. In my (somewhat radical) opinion, the Cold War was an exaggeration perpetrated by both super-powers for the exactly same reason: a common enemy is the safest way for a government to unify its people behind a common cause, as history has taught us time and time again.

That truly glosses over the facts.

fact is that the Soviets threatened (I believe that it was Krushev) to "bury" the west. Both countries had enough weaponry pointed at each other to make certain the option of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) and in computerised war games conducted on both sides it was found that when feild commanders used 'theatre nukes' in a local conflict that it soon escalted to all out nuclear war.

People on both sides were afraid not simply because their own gov't told them to be. They were afraid because of the very real possibility that civilisation on this planet could come to a screeching, flaming halt. Chruchill's suggestion that he did not know the weapons that would be used in World War Three but he knew what would be used in World War Four - "sticks and stones" was based upon the facts of the Cold War and not political inventions.

It is on that background that each side wanted to both play up the capabilities of the other side and more to the point down play the enemy's capabilities in comparison to their own. Perhaps someone has the Pravda headlines upon the successful launch and orbit of Sputnik. Both sides could only make use of the other side's prowess by showing that the 'good guys' were catching up or exceeding the 'bad guys'. In the race to the Moon when the Soviets lost they simply disavowed that there ever was that particular race. If they had instead evidence that the USA had not gone to the Moon that would have served them so much the better than to have to backpedal.

There would have been no downside to the Soviets showing the USA to be liars. In fact it would be all good for them.

It was mentioned that the USSR wanted to be known as part of the advanced scientific community. This was not the case in Cuba. It would not hurt the Cubans to make bogus claims of American fakery whereas the Soviets could not afford to look like fools.

[Father Dagon]

It didn't help that their chief designer, Sergei Korolev, died in 1966. He was a major driving force behind the Soviet space program. Imagine what would have happened to the U.S. program if Wernher von Braun had died in 1966.A great blow, but not that a great blow. Korolev knew all parts of the system, even GULAG, and knew how to pull strings. In free societies like USA, the ability to pull strings is good but not a prerequisite for getting things done. That's beacuse the yes-men has less power in free societies.

And regarding the twoofers: The cold war was not really cold at all. It was a mortal combat between USA and USSR. If radio astronomy amateurs could determine that the signals came from the moons direction, imagine what a superpower like USSR could do with simple triangulation. (It's not that the country was too small for getting *really* reliable data.) And if they had determined that the signals not came from the moon but closer to the earth, they would've instantly let the cat out of the bag. And they would've played that card to the max.

[Spindrift]

It seems like this discussion is going nowhere. We still don't even know if the Soviets did or did not acknowledge it at the time (other than a few suggestions of hear-say which may or may not be in contradiction) when millions of issues of Soviet newspapers from that era still exist that would settle the issue, period.

And you make the unassailable claim that (to summarize) "if the Soviets provided real proof that it was hoaxed, then that would be proof that it was hoaxed." I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with that. Of course you can replace "Soviets" with "Britney Spears" or "Mickey Mouse" or "the voices in my head" and it still is absolutely true.

Which gets back to my fundamental opinion: that the evidence of the moonwalk exists, it is what it is, and what people say about it doesn't change it. If the evidence can be shown to be absolutely fraudulent, then an example of Soviets praising the evidence doesn't matter. Likewise, if the evidence stands up to the strictest levels of scrutiny, then an instance of Soviets disparaging the evidence doesn't matter.

You're getting philosophical. Of course what people say or don't say about something does not have any effect on whether or not it actually happened.

The contention is that if the Americans had faked the moon landings the Russians would have jumped all over it. It's ludicrous to say that just because the Russians say it was a fake then it's a fake. However, they had sufficient ability to present credible evidence to prove if the moon landings were faked.

Since the hoaxers are not dealing with reality, what the Russians did or did not do after the landings can be used to counter their arguments. Even if there was some reason for the Russians to not expose the hoax at the time, it's probably that such information would have come out after the fall of communism. The Russians opened their files and exposed all their failures and shortcuts they took, it's reasonable to assume that if they had prove of a hoax it would have been found.

[Unalienable]

Since the hoaxers are not dealing with reality, what the Russians did or did not do after the landings can be used to counter their arguments.
I understand what you're saying, but by playing the same game that the hoaxers play you are setting yourself up for a big "gotcha!" moment where it may appear that you've lost the argument.

For example, suppose you are engaged in this debate with some moon-hoax enthusiast named Charlie. You present the argument "If it was a fake, then the Russians would have exposed it, but they never did." Suddenly Charlie whips out a copy of Pravda from 1970, along with a faithful English translation, and it contains some article that casts doubts on the moonwalk. GOTCHA!! The content doesn't matter--maybe it says that "the shadows don't line up", or goes on about the Van Allen belts, or whatever. No two ways about it, Charlie just proved you wrong.

You know and I know that your position is rational, but if I had to decide who "won" and who "lost" that particular argument, I'd have to say that Charlie just made you look like a fool.

Maybe you are so cocksure that no such articles exist so you think you can use this argument with impunity. In that case, very well, maybe it is a good way to argue with the hoaxers, but I have my doubts.

[Spindrift]

I understand what you're saying, but by playing the same game that the hoaxers play you are setting yourself up for a big "gotcha!" moment where it may appear that you've lost the argument.

For example, suppose you are engaged in this debate with some moon-hoax enthusiast named Charlie. You present the argument "If it was a fake, then the Russians would have exposed it, but they never did." Suddenly Charlie whips out a copy of Pravda from 1970, along with a faithful English translation, and it contains some article that casts doubts on the moonwalk. GOTCHA!! The content doesn't matter--maybe it says that "the shadows don't line up", or goes on about the Van Allen belts, or whatever. No two ways about it, Charlie just proved you wrong.

You know and I know that your position is rational, but if I had to decide who "won" and who "lost" that particular argument, I'd have to say that Charlie just made you look like a fool.

Maybe you are so cocksure that no such articles exist so you think you can use this argument with impunity. In that case, very well, maybe it is a good way to argue with the hoaxers, but I have my doubts.

No, the content does matter. If there was a Russian article and it relied on the same old BS that the hoaxers then the same real evidence would apply to debunk it. The Russian article would have to provide some kind of real evidence that the landings didn't happen. Evidence that could be verified. Plus I'm very confident that no such articles exist. One of the reasons for the confidence is that if one did exist you can be sure it would have already have been brought to front and center by the hoax supporters.