A Third Option Moon Hoax Theory

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Regarding the Russians, what about the possibility that the space race was actually a co-operative endeavor between the Russians and the Americans? If that were the case, and if they were using a technology other than what is officially discussed, then they would have a very good reason for faking the moon photos, even if they did land on the moon.

There's a lot of "if" in there.
Let's start with the supposition that the space race was a co-operative effort. If it was, it was the only such effort between the US and the Soviets in that period. Back then, everything was seen as a contest between the two ideologies, and the two nations that championed them. The Olympic games, the space race...even the blood-sport that is Professional Chess! (Before any chess players here get steamed at me, I'm not mocking the game...and certainly not the serious nature of high-level chess!). If there was a way to make 'points' at the other side's expense, the points were made. Look at the way the press on both sides of the Iron Curtain responded to Sputnik (which was, from a scientific standpoint, a non-event). To read the headlines, one would've thought that a simple radio beeper orbiting the Earth heralded the End of Democracy (tm), and the Ultimate Triumph of the Proletariat! (c), depending on which side you were on.

What evidence do we have for "Them" using "a technology other than what is officially discussed"? Technical data on the Saturn V / Apollo vehicle is available, and declassified. It's very possible....tedious, but possible...to reverse-engineer the gross characteristics of a Saturn V. I know this to be the case, because a particularly sadistic professor from my university days actually dropped essentially that project into our collective laps as a semester project. If you do go through the effort, you'll find that while the engineering is tight, it's well within the capabilities of the system as published. In short, there's no need for 'technology other than what is officially discussed' to get the job done...and the supposition of 'exotic' technology opens up huge problems. To pose just a few: Where was this exotic technology built? How was it installed aboard the Saturn V / Apollo? What happened to it after the termination of the Apollo program?

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

It's very possible....tedious, but possible...to reverse-engineer the gross characteristics of a Saturn V. I know this to be the case, because a particularly sadistic professor from my university days actually dropped essentially that project into our collective laps as a semester project.

That's a particularly compelling first-hand account, Brother!

So many of the "hoaxists" spout their nonsense without even the most basic understanding of engineering and the complexities that went into the endeavor.

I guess they equate the space equipment to their Chevrolet in complexity!

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
There's a lot of "if" in there.

Yup! That's why I italicized the "ifs."

Let's start with the supposition that the space race was a co-operative effort. If it was, it was the only such effort between the US and the Soviets in that period. Back then, everything was seen as a contest between the two ideologies, and the two nations that championed them. The Olympic games, the space race...even the blood-sport that is Professional Chess!

(Before any chess players here get steamed at me, I'm not mocking the game...and certainly not the serious nature of high-level chess!). If there was a way to make 'points' at the other side's expense, the points were made. Look at the way the press on both sides of the Iron Curtain responded to Sputnik (which was, from a scientific standpoint, a non-event). To read the headlines, one would've thought that a simple radio beeper orbiting the Earth heralded the End of Democracy (tm), and the Ultimate Triumph of the Proletariat! (c), depending on which side you were on.

To play the devil's advocate, what would be stopping "them" from behind the scenes co-operation? Hell, if you wanted to get really conspiratorial you could say that the whole cold war was a put on orchestrated by the famous and nefarious military industrial complex to generate fear, control the populace, and channel funds into military and private contractor bank accounts.

What evidence do we have for "Them" using "a technology other than what is officially discussed"? Technical data on the Saturn V / Apollo vehicle is available, and declassified. It's very possible....tedious, but possible...to reverse-engineer the gross characteristics of a Saturn V. I know this to be the case, because a particularly sadistic professor from my university days actually dropped essentially that project into our collective laps as a semester project. If you do go through the effort, you'll find that while the engineering is tight, it's well within the capabilities of the system as published. In short, there's no need for 'technology other than what is officially discussed' to get the job done...

The Saturn/Apollo technical data being available and holding up to scrutiny does not prove that it was used to land on the moon. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. NASA certainly says it was.

...and the supposition of 'exotic' technology opens up huge problems. To pose just a few: Where was this exotic technology built?

How 'bout Area 51?

Seriously though, since we have no idea what this "exotic technology" might be, we would have no way of knowing what sort of facilities would be required to build/launch/operate it.

How was it installed aboard the Saturn V / Apollo?

Why would they install said exotic tech on the Saturn? Maybe it's exotic enough to not require a rocket launch.

What happened to it after the termination of the Apollo program?

Maybe they're still using it? Gary McKinnon claims to have seen evidence of "non-terrestrial officers" and UFOs during his intrepid cannabis-fueled exploits. How would we know?

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by BarryZuckercorn

 

why should it?
To make something "visible" by adjusting contrast it must be there already. What should be at the point where the "real 2D" (from the real object projected on the photos film) meets the "fake 2D" (from the background image) If whoever made the "fake" part of the picture screwed up there might be errors, but they would be visible regardless of contrast values.

Adjusting the gamma settings in your average video game can have dramatic effects on what can and cannot be seen. Sometimes details which were completely invisible with a low gamma setting become crystal clear when the gamma is increased. Why would the same not hold true for photography? And again, why is the "noise" or whatever it actually is only visible in the sky, not over the entire photograph?