255 points

Still the biggest proof that it was real, the Soviets would’ve called out on the bluff

permalink
report
reply
42 points

I typically use this line but I don’t know that the Soviets had the technology to track the flight completely at the time or to verify the landing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Pretty sure they had the radio technology to intercept the radio communications and validate that they actually went far enough to reach the moon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
115 points
*

The Russians kicked our* asses all through the Space Race. I’m sure they could at least intercept comms and look through their telescopes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

While it’s definitely true they could’ve intercepted comms, I don’t know that they did do that. And telescopes would only get them to confirming things up to orbit probably.

I still think it’s likely they knew it was real, I’ve just never been able to confirm that they did for myself and so the argument I’m using it much weaker without that piece of evidence. Not to mention that Russia has had state actors promoting the conspiracy theory in recent years which makes things confusing

permalink
report
parent
reply

It was the nicest thing the USSR ever did for us. Borrowing from a blog piece I did, Eisenhower freaked out over the successful launch and orbit of Sputnik 1. Ike passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 [… and secured] a grant extended to Fairchild Semiconductor to further its development on the transistor… in the fecund economy of California.

Hence the US is now the big tech capitol of the world (though depending more and more on patents rather than innovation since the 2010s, so maybe not for long.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

If I remember correctly, it was pretty easy to intercept the communications. The Americans also dropped a few mirrors on the moon and the Soviets used them to fire lasers at the moon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Not only intercept, but they could easily check if the signal was coming from the Moon.

What they couldn’t do was get a photo of the ship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

They absolutely had the tech to point a big antenna at the moon and listen in on communications and watch the video broadcasts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

It is impossible to fake something has thousands of people that are “in on it” and even today thousands of scientists (and maybe everybody with a slightly better telescope/laser? Unsure) would somehow need to be part of it because you can just use a telescope to see the stuff that was left behind and the laser reflectors are being used today. There’s absolutely no chance it’s not real.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s quite a dangerous way to judge if something is true or not. Basically saying that if most people go along with it then it’s true. That it not always the case…

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Haha! But jokes aside, that’s not a proof that people have been on the moon. There could be many reasons why the Soviets did not call it out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Name one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Why is it when someone says “many reasons” it usually means “I can’t think of a specific reason, but I’m sure there are bunches of them”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
135 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
64 points

I thought it was racism

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

Its racists in tinfoil hats.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

like little hershey’s kisses filled with turd nuggets

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

England seems to have you guys beat if the past couple of days are anything to go by.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’d be like exporting sand to the Sahara

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I know someone working in a pharmaceutical lab that believed climate change was fake because the atmosphere on Mars was mostly CO2 and it wasn’t hot there.

God save us from the kakistocracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You’d be surprised how conspiratorial scientists are - especially if it’s outside their domain.

You’d think more deference to experts would be the default mode… just because I took one physics class does not make me an expert on climatology or the green house effect

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Well, someone who believes it was faked is crediting his side with that 13%. You’re gonna trust the numbers of someone who thinks the moon landing was faked?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

Couldnt he percentage just be false?

Also, where did you get the 4.2 million US citizens from? Im pretty sure 13% is much higher

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

did you know that 74% of statistics are made up on the spot?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I think it doesn’t actually matter whether it happened, but whether the technology to do it existed at that time. And they surely did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

To build on this: The technology to fake it didn’t exist back then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Iirc that’s also the percentage of Americans who are functionally illiterate

Looked it up, it’s worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

Did you know, that all Panda bears 🐼 worldwide are all owned by the Chinese government? Pandas outside of China are only on loan.

Just some useless information because of the username…

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Also used as tools of diplomacy, which is pretty funny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_diplomacy

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I’ve seen some recent news about China gifting Brazil a panda in a diplomatic move. So, they don’t own all pandas, or wasn’t it really a gift?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Gifting the temporary use of the panda

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

It might have been on loan, but described as a gift as there’s limited numbers they loan out.

Part of the reasoning for the loan system is that there’s a limited number, and the terms of the loan allows China to take them back in the event the zoo fails to care for them appropriately, which happens with depressing regularity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

They are given as a loan. The Wikipedia page about Panda diplomacy someone else linked is quite interesting and explains it all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Not quite true, there is one single panda they don’t own, Xin Xin at the Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

Yeah, that Panda is a leftover from better times when China gave them as diplomatic gifts. Its the offspring of 2 Pandas that were originally given to mexico before the 1980’s when China stopped gifting and started the lending thing.

There are 2 more, that are not considered a loan, in Taiwan. But they are more a “F*ck your independence, you belong to us anyways”-gifts with the Chinese arguing that it was an inner country transfer and not a gesture to a foreign nation.

Nevertheless, all Pandas outside of China have been political pawns for the Chinese government including Xin Xin in Mexico.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
63 points

Did you know that you can take a telescope and LOOK AT THE LANDING SITES ON THE MOON?

permalink
report
reply

If you can afford the simple equipment necessary, you can literally send and receive a ping to a device left at one of the landing sites that proves without a doubt we have been there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I’m not a radio engineer, but my understanding is you’re just bouncing signals off the moon itself, there isn’t a device that echos the signal back or anything. There are mirrors on the moon to reflect lasers back though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think that’s what they meant, cuz a ping to a radio device wouldn’t prove much, just that you are getting signals from up there. A laser would prove definitively.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

They left a couple retro reflectors on the moon during the moon landings so we can bounce lasers off them to accurately measure the distance to the moon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Couldn’t such device be delivered without people, like a remotely controlled rover? How does that prove that people made an actual landing on the Moon?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Because there’s like 6 of em, and we know exactly which mission launched each one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You are correct, it proves nothing. None of these things prove that people have been on the moon. Unless you want it to. Then anything is proof 😅

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Isn’t this because Hubble is actually made to look deep into space and not under its nose? I’m sorry, but I’m not watching a 14 minutes video for that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn’t have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.

It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.

Focal distance doesn’t matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they’re observing up there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You’d need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn’t yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Now I’m curious, what’s the resolution (like in meters) of a good home pro telescope watching the moon at say the best of times?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I’m no astronomer or astrophotographer, but this picture of the moon clocks in at around 320 meter angular resolution. That being said, a lot of post-processing goes into a shot like that, so some detail may be lost due to that. The atmosphere of the Earth is pretty difficult to deal with as its disturbances cause fuzziness and shimmering. Stacking multiple frames can help, but it’s still never perfect. Earth based telescopes sometimes shoot a laser up along their line of sight to get an idea of how the atmosphere is messing with them.

For comparison, The Hubble space telescope gets around 90 m angular resolution for objects at the distance of the Moon.

permalink
report
parent
reply