No Stupid Questions

Check out professor Dave on YouTube, he just made2 2 long videos on the topic

Literally not worth arguing with a person that believes this. These kinds of beliefs aren't rooted in logic or reality so you're not going to change their mind.

2 Things:

1. They left a mirror at at least some of the landing sites, and we can bounce a laser off that mirror back to Earth. Proof that we were there.

2. They have sent probes up to circle the moon, and those probes photographed the sites. You can see lunar landers, abandoned gear, footprints, and the tracks from lunar rovers.

Ya'll believe in the moon?

you dont have ti provide anything, the weight of the proof is with the non believer :)

but okay lets go:

beyond all the obvious evidence:

the biggest evidence is around how difficult it would have been to stage it. how many people need to be bribed for eternal silence - this includes suppliers, ex workers, employees, crews, etc...why hasnt anyone admitted the lie in their deathbed?

what I am saying is that it is more difficult to stage this (successfully) than actually do the freakin thing.

The reason we can’t build the same thing as before is because the tooling is all gone, the set up of tools used to make those parts no longer exists. Half of designing a large complex thing is setting up all the machinery to actually produce what you want, testing and checking and dialing everything in, verifying that what you’re getting out is with in tolerances and will fit together properly. Building test segments and measuring how the behave and then going back and readjusting all the tools to account for differences and altering the design to match what you can actually make. Also all the people who knew the ins and outs of the old designs and manufacturing processes to make them are retired (and probably have forgotten some stuff) or dead. Recreating those production lines, manufacturing methods, retesting and dialing it all in, it would be expensive and time consuming, more so than just building something new based on modern manufacturing techniques and using already produced parts.

And we have been doing that… but it’s not getting nearly the same level of funding the Apollo program had, nor the same level of political commitment. Between 1963 and 1971, nasa’s budget was on average double what it is today (accounting for inflation) and they were allowed to focus most of that on a single project for that whole 8 year period. Compare that to today where nasa has hundreds of different projects ( ISS, near earth science satellites, mars rovers, probes to asteroids and outer planets, Artemis) and their goals and plans get whiplashed about every 4 years each time the administration changes. Not to mention Boeing routinely running over budget and over time and forcing nasa to foot the bill for their fuck ups. Blue origin and space X are also behind schedule on their lander projects as well.

So why were we able to do it back then and can’t now? NASA got the funding they needed, got to focus most of it on a single project and got to make a long term plan and stick with it, and private companies were much less willing to screw them over for a quick buck.

a) Explain why the US hasn't gone back in so long,

Why would they? Nothing of value came from any of those missions and the risk is enormous.

and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn't given them a good impression...)

Because transistors are a lot more sensitive to EM than valves. Our current technology miniaturized lots of things, but that also means that a single piece of conductive material (like moon dust) or a single electron (from an em pulse) in the wrong place can wreak havok to it. Old computers required lots more electrons and space for their actual function so they were a lot more resistent to random variations. And we can't make old computers anymore because we don't have the factories for them, and you're not going to create an entire factory just to produce a couple pieces for one mission, so they have to focus on isolating and making things more resistent.

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

The moon is constantly being bombarded by unfiltered radiation because of its lack of atmosphere. This makes it so they're composed of minerals that rarely occur on earth (they usually bind with oxygen or nitrogen in the atmosphere), have different isotopes (because of the radiation) and are much older (because no interference from tectonic movement/rain/wind/etc)

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

Because they can't for the same reason the US can't, they don't work with modern electronics, and no one can produce old electronics.

They say that there isn't strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that "we will see" once someone else lands on the moon)

There is very strong evidence, your friend can corroborate for himself by spending a few thousand dollars (or he can understand that if anyone wanted to they could). First you need to buy a very powerful laser, then a very sensitive sensor, you hook them so they very close together and fire at the moon, you will never get a reading back, because the moon surface is a difuse reflector with a rough surface the light will scatter and go everywhere. However, when the astronauts went to the moon they left retroreflectors in specific locations, so if you pointed at one of those you would get the signal back approximately 2.5 second later.

And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn't faked?

I guess it's easier to ask them "what evidence would convince you" because the answer will be none, of there was any evidence that would convince them they would have been convinced already.

Another thing, they also can't believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!

Not sure what's there to not understand about this, so I'll just say same way cars get to a dealership and you ride them afterwards.

It happened during the Nixon administration.

Nixon couldn't even cover up one little burglary.

Gotta put this guy in a room with my high school astronomy teacher. He DESPISED moon landing conspiracy theorists. I still remember when he showed us a documentary about them and kept yelling at every person in it for believing this stuff.

Velco them to a stiff board, tilt it so their head is reclined, cover their face with a rag, and pour Tang onto them until they acquiesce.

No technical rational explanation will ever get to them.

Most are there because they want to belong to a community, and because they like the idea of being right where everyone else is wrong, so that they're the important ones for once.

That's how you get to them: feed their need to belong, and their need to find enough self-esteem some other way.

Aren't there reflectors in very specific places on the moon that will respond to high powered lights shown at them?

Hearsay is worlds apart from firsthand observation. Just saying.

Ask what proof would change their mind and show them. Then when their mind is not changed, you will understand

I always felt that the most compelling argument that we did it was that faking it was too risky. If America faked it and the USSR went up and found no evidence that America got up there then that would have been impossible for America's position on the global stage. Remember the Apollo missions happened during the Cold War. Irrefutable proof that America pretended to go to the moon would have been deeply damaging to idea that the might of capitalism was greater than the communists.

America left lots of stuff up on the moon with the idea that someday someone would go back up and see it.

It's also not really a big deal if your friend doesn't believe we went to the moon. What is their ignorance harming, really? They're another cog in the great machine of capital and neither their intelligence nor wisdom is required to keep it spinning

You cannot argue with stupid, dont bother.

The moon landing was faked, but they hired Stanley Kubrick to direct the shoot, and he insisted that they film on location.

There is a mirror left on the moon you can shoot a laser at and have it bounced back to you, no other celestial object can do that. Its also foundational knowledge for gps.

https://wtop.com/science/2019/07/the-experiment-still-running-on-the-moon-and-tv-re-runs-50-years-later/

You can't use logic to talk someone out of a position they didn't use logic to decide on in the first place.

Those kinds of people should get nothing but scorn from the rest of us. No conversation, no attempting to change their minds.

Just pure, unadulterated scorn and derision. Nothing else. Fucking morons aren't useful for anything other than diluting the gene pool anyway.

You don't, the same as "flat earthers" they're too far down the rabbit hole

If it were faked, the Soviets would have had a field day. They didn't. If all the other facts didn't work, I find that most convincing. The nemesis had to accept it begrudgingly.

Between the 70s and today, the motivations for moon landings have changed. Back then: fuck the commies, we go first, and science. Turns out the moon isn't that interesting to continue sending people there. Rocks and dust, yawn. Not worth the ROI. The reason why there is renewed interest now is because people think realistically they can build a base on the moon. That was science fiction in 1969.

For your own mental health, give yourself a time frame and if they still think it's fake allow yourself to let it go. Chances are they don't want to be convinced and you have to let nature take its course and hope the seed of doubt you have planted comes to life and blossoms.

My go-to is to just beg them to play Kerbal Space Program

They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon.

In the 1960s, getting to the moon was the most important thing in the solar system. The Soviet Union and the US spent ungodly amounts of money and risked uncountable lives in this endeavor. We did the thing, and now we've done the thing. We aren't willing to risk those lives or spend that money anymore. New missions have to be much, much cheaper and much, much safer.

Technology has definitely improved, but there is a physical limit to the amount of energy that you can pull out of a given mass of kerosene and liquid oxygen. Getting to space hasn't gotten any lighter, and fuel mass has always been the biggest hurdle. Again, play KSP. It will brand the tyranny of the rocket equation into your soul.

They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.

They could, in the same way that we could start sending children underground to mine for coal again

To summarise,

a) Been there, done that. Anything new will involve sending more mass than the Apollo missions had to deal with. Tyranny of the rocket equation: more mass means more fuel means more thrusters means more mass means more fuel...

b) I could do some research and come back, but there is no answer to this that will satisfy a moon landing denier, because any explanation would require a baseline understanding of chemistry and also trust in the institutions that examine these moon rocks.

c) The answer to a also applies here

I think the most convincing evidence that we did go to the moon has to do with the dynamics of the moon dust in the original Apollo footage. If you look at the footage you’ll see the dust gets kicked up pretty high, higher than what you’d expect given Earth’s gravity, and it falls at a slower rate too.

So the question is: if they faked this footage then how did they get the dust to behave like this?

One possible explanation is that the footage was filmed underwater. The issue with this, though, is this is not at all how you’d expect dust to behave underwater. (you can go to the beach, kick up a bunch of sand underneath the water and see for yourself).

Another possibility is suspension cables. I guess you could explain the astronauts perceived lower gravity with suspension cables, but for pieces of dust? You can’t have suspension cables for individual pieces of dust.

So the simplest explanation is that this footage really was actually taken on a lower gravity environment, such as the moon.

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

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

Don't bother arguing with stupid. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

As an aside for anyone interested in this particular conspiracy theory, check out the great black comedy mockumentary Operation Avalanche

Mock him for being incurious, stupid and failing google-fu.

Or show him some of these links, your call.

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/space-astronomy/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked

https://starwalk.space/en/news/was-the-moon-landing-fake

https://askanexpert.asu.edu/earthspace/top-question/moon-landing

For the Artemis vs Apollo stuffs:

https://spaceinformer.com/artemis-vs-apollo-comparison/

https://apollo11space.com/apollo-vs-artemis-how-technology-and-goals-have-transformed-lunar-exploration/

And just to see how stupid he is, maybe ask if the earth is flat. If they say yes… just have him go watch this entire channel…

The reason I’m calling him stupid is because he’s either never actually searched or done any kind of research beyond conspiracy theory memes, or has immediately discounted the vast majority of people patiently explaining why he’s wrong.

As for why china didn’t try to go… they didn’t have a space program until recently. As for the soviets? Well. Why go when we happily shared our research with them? One of the main motivations was propaganda. It was a sort of proxy war and we won. Beyond that, there wasn’t much point in duplicating efforts.

Another point of fact that many people don’t address is how impossible it would be to fake the radio transmissions without getting caught.

Something had to go to the moon. Tiny changes in antenna alignment were sufficient to cause a loss of contact with the CSM. (A fun movie about this is called The Dish and is based on a true story.)

The thing is that the CSM wasn’t going straight to the moon, it followed a transfer orbit that intersected both earth and the moons orbit (and at a time when the moon would be there!)

This path meant that you couldn’t just point an antenna at the moon.

It also meant that you had to keep a lock on the CSM’s path or risk losing it forever (The Dish, they almost lost it.)

HAMmies had their own rigs which could listen in, as did virtually every government.

The precision required to catch the signal meant you could track its location in real time.

It also means we have tons of recordings with the appropriate amount of signal lag.

And there would be no way to fake those signals by broadcasting from earth- everyone paying attention would know. if ever the entire world watched something that first landing was it.

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t waste your time. At this point it’s willful ignorance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

An interesting take on the technical hurdles it would have taken to even be able to fake what we saw during the moon landing.

tl;dw: It might have just been easier to go to the moon instead.