The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings

[Steve Kinney]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/14/2015 02:13 AM, juan wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:03:20 -0500 Steve Kinney 
> <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:
> 
> On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:
>>>> http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-
of-
>
>>>>
>>>> 
stanley-kubrick-1747558774
> 
> OK
>>>> 
> I'll bite.  Just a couple of questions for starters:
> 
>> A couple of answers below, although I don't have a strong 
>> either for or against the fake hypothesis, oh sorry, 
>> 'nutcase' 'conspiracy' 'theory'.

It does approach that.  One of the proofs offered by Beleivers is
that it is impossible for human beings to pass through the Van
Allen belts and live.  Because they have been called "radiation"
belts and as we all know, radiation is deadly.

> They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our 
> present context since the position they challenge is itself 
> based on speculation.
> 
> 
> How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect
> 
>> I don't know the technical details. Could radar track the the
>> landing of a small object on the moon in 1960? Can it even do
>> it now?

1969 and later, actually.  :D

Not my field, but I do know that ham radio operators using /very/
directional high gain antennas followed the missions from Earth
orbit to the surface of the Moon, listening to and recording voice
and telemetry signals.  The cost of sending transmitters to the
Moon, and maintaining a constant stream of 100% believable signals
all the way there and back, would have been quite staggering.  The
odds of this unlikely mission failing would have approached 100%
over the course of six missions.

>> ? and expose
> the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo 
> missions to the Moon)?
> 
> How is it possible that simulating the Apollo missions could be
> less expensive,
> 
>> Well, that's usually the point of simulating something. It's 
>> cheaper.
> 
>> Plus, if you actually can't do something then the other 
>> option is to 'simulate', aka, faking it.

Cheaper to build and launch a series of Saturn V launch vehicles
with LEMs and command modules on top, than to just go ahead and
send them all the way?  At minimum it would cost the same as doing
the program for real.

Also consider that part of the price of simulating an Apollo
program would have been the cost of maintaining the illusion from
beginning to end, under the watchful eyes of thousands of
engineers who thoroughly understood the systems they were working
on, documented everything they did in minute detail, and
distributed  that documentation to other equally well informed
engineers working on related systems?  It would have cost much
more to fake the program than to actually do it.

Not to mention the 100% risk of exposure, since /one/ error in the
deception would have resulted in a chain reaction leaving the
whole deception exposed to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands
of very smart, very committed, very pissed off people.  Even the
Soviets could not have kept a lid on something like that.

:o)






-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=J2Fn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----