PDA

View Full Version : Appollo 13 staged?



p9107
2002-Jun-17, 03:44 PM
I know this forum is usually aimed at succesful lunar landing consipiricy, but think about it - just as the appollo programme was losing intrest, there comes a disaster, with a very lucky escape to keep the public on the edge of their seats.

sts60
2002-Jun-17, 04:31 PM
... followed by several "boringly" successful missions, as the public lost more and more interest in Apollo.

I'm no lawyer, but to me your insinuation defames a lot of dedicated people. Without any evidence, and without even the internal consistency of having something go wrong on later missions.

The X Files tag line is, "The Truth is Out There." Yeah, and the last thing the HBs want is to get anywhere near it.

p9107
2002-Jun-17, 04:52 PM
But you would have to have a lot of people to lie with the other landings as well.

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-17, 05:10 PM
If NASA was faking the moon landings they would WANT people to lose interest. It's easier to fool people when they aren't watching the missions on TV. They can't see "anomalies" in the video if they aren't watching it.


Kel

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 05:25 PM
The nadir of public interest was at about Apollo 15. Why wasn't there another staged disaster to keep interest in the subsequent missions?

You have an interesting theory, but you lack any distinguishing evidence. Given that the Apollo missions were conducted using largely experimental spacecraft rather hastily designed and built, isn't it more likely that the Apollo 13 accident was a legitimate accident?

In other words, you have a nicely affirmed consequent. What evidence do you have that your hypothesis of causation is more true than any other?

sts60
2002-Jun-17, 06:01 PM
But you would have to have a lot of people to lie with the other landings as well.

Well, yeah, exactly. You would have to have a *huge* number of people all agreeing to fake it, and all keeping their stories straight.

But that's not enough. As JayUtah pointed out, you'd have to not only build all the hardware, which indisputably flew *somewhere* (except for that which is on display to the public), you'd still have to spend a gazillion dollars to fake everything. And it has been shown on this forum that there are some things that can't be faked. (Let alone the fact that every other HB argument has been thoroughly debunked.)

At least with the idea of sabotaging A13, you could have hypothetically just planted a bomb on board, and needed only to involve a few security guards and technicians. And SRQ&A inspectors. And, oh yeah, a few hundred engineers involved in the mishap analysis...

But, as pointed out above, the scenario is not even internally consistent. It's not even a theory; it's just a malicious "what if..." with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-17 14:03 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Jun-17, 06:14 PM
p9107,

If you believe that the Apollo 13 mission was faked, including the explosion, please tell me how you feel that this was done. Nothing very detailed, just a general description.

For example, NASA actually launched Apolo 13 and then caused the accident or they did the whole thing on the ground.

traztx
2002-Jun-17, 10:35 PM
The ONLY reason NASA continues to be funded is because of success, not failure.

Each time a mission fails, there is a loud outcry against funding similar missions.

Name recognition and publicity doesn't always benefit an organization. If that were true, then we'd be driving a lot of Pintos.

So, not only is there no evidence to support this proposition, but it doesn't even make sense.
--Tommy
http://www.tommyraz.com

kucharek
2002-Jun-18, 08:48 AM
There were not a few people at NASA who thought that Apollo should be finished after Kennedy's goal was reached. Why risk more lifes?
If NASA would have finished Apollo after 11 or
12 or the close call of 13, the HBs would surely take this as a proof that the whole thing was faked and NASA was afraid that further landings would debunk that.

Harald

PS: Please be informed that Germany's unconditional solidarity with America will be suspended for two hours next friday /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-18, 10:06 AM
On 2002-06-18 04:48, kucharek wrote:
PS: Please be informed that Germany's unconditional solidarity with America will be suspended for two hours next friday /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Why, you Invading Poland, again?

Well, I'll have you Know, that Poland is Not, Now, The Same Country that you Successfully Invaded, in Less, than a Month; they are Hungrier, Have a Horrible Football Team, and Have an Economy, that is Only Now, Getting Back on it's Feet; erm, Forget I said Anything, That is All /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-18 06:42 ]</font>

p9107
2002-Jun-18, 10:46 AM
jrkeller

I'm sorry, but I did not set out to give evidence for the hoax, I merely stated that it was possible, and, I was wondering if you guys suspected anything

sts60
2002-Jun-18, 01:03 PM
I'm sorry, but I did not set out to give evidence for the hoax, I merely stated that it was possible, and, I was wondering if you guys suspected anything

No.

It's "possible" that somebody deliberately caused the Apollo 1 fire. It's "possible" that fluoridation is an evil gummint mind-control plot. It's "possible" that you are an axe murderer - I have no evidence to the contrary!

I consider all of these scenarios equally ridiculous. Each is a totally unsupported accusation, nothing more than malicious speculation.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 03:11 PM
I merely stated that it was possible, and, I was wondering if you guys suspected anything

We don't, and we have studied the Apollo 13 accident in much greater depth than the conspiracy theorists. There is no evidence that Apollo 13 was "staged". All of the Apollo missions had problems, some major and some minor. Apollo 13's problem was serious enough to abort the mission.

The array of what's merely possible is so infinitely large that to single out one alternative just by mentioning it is to imply it somehow has more merit than all the rest. And so when discussing cause and effect it is not enough to imply that some hypothesis cannot be categorically disproven and therefore qualifies it for serious consideration.

traztx
2002-Jun-18, 06:24 PM
An interesting thing about Apollo 11 is that they had a close call with the same problem that occured with Apollo 13. Fortunately, they were able to take care of it. Imagine how different history would have been if that problem hadn't waited till 13!

Since we're talking about evidence, this cute little story kinda illustrates the problem with making accusations without direct evidence:

(I hope I don't butcher this...)

A couple were vacationing at a lake and the husband decided to get some "hammock time".

While he was asleep, his wife decided she would take a ride on the boat.

The game warden flagged her down and asked her for her fishing license and she said she didn't have one. So he said he was going to write her a ticket. But she protested, saying she WASN'T FISHING!

The game warden points inside the boat and says "See that tacklebox? See those poles? See that bucket? Looks like you have all the equipment for fishing."

She: "But I wasn't fishing!"

He: "I'm sorry, ma'am, but it's the law."

She: "Well then, I'm gonna have to sue you for sexual harrassment."

He: "What?! I'm not harassing you."

She: "Well you have all the right equipment!"

p9107
2002-Jun-18, 08:16 PM
Ok - I admit, I was doing the wrong thing - I had no evidence, but I would not go so far as to say that it was an accusation. It was more like just a thaught I'd had, and wanted to share with you. The amount of abuse i've had about it :


On 2002-06-17 13:25, JayUtah wrote:

You have an interesting theory, but you lack any distinguishing evidence.

In other words, you have a nicely affirmed consequent. What evidence do you have that your hypothesis of causation is more true than any other?



has shown me how i should never speak without thinking again.


I apologise.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 09:44 PM
I'm sorry if you were offended by my comments. I assure you no malice or abuse was intended. I simply, honestly, wanted to know if you had something in mind which suggested Apollo 13 was staged. I certainly don't want you to get the idea that we browbeat people into submission as a rule. It simply wasn't apparent that you were speaking entirely hypothetically rather than advancing a thesis you believed in.

Let me delve into a bit more detail regarding some "meta-issues" of proof in this case. You note that public support was flagging. I would accept that as a true fact. You note that Apollo 13's drama increased public interest in Apollo. Also a true fact. You postulate a connection between them, specifically that Apollo 13's accident was staged in order to artificially increase public interest.

Unfortunately that involves the following premises:

1. That NASA's concern with public perception exceeds its commitment to its stated goals.

2. That the Apollo 13 accident was, in fact, staged.

3. That the subsequent investigation was, in large part, rigged.

Now if you think about these, you realize what would be involved in achieiving them. It's quite a bit.

Proving causation is very difficult, especially for historical events. Your hypothesis involves certain people thinking and acting a certain way, and it's nigh unto impossible to prove what people were thinking.

In a sense you've kind of put the cart before the horse. In terms of the thought-experiment you believed you were proposing, it doesn't really matter. You note two factors and wonder if they're connected. But to take it beyond that you'd have to structure your inquiry differently.

First it would be wise to concentrate on premises 2 and 3 above. 3 follows from 2, so 2 is your real keystone. See, if Apollo 13 was not staged, then your hypothesis can't possibly be true. That's called the subversion of support. So the first question to ask is, "Was Apollo 13 staged?" and ignore completely the question of motive.

Falsified events leave evidence of their falsification: destroyed or forged documents, suspicious inconsistencies in testimony, direct evidence, etc. You can look for these. The absence of that evidence doesn't conclusively proof it was authentic. But you can carry on an investigation to a point where you conclude that if it existed, you would have found it by then.

We can examine the rest of the premises conditionally. That is, we assume for the sake of argument that you found proof Apollo 13 was staged. Premise 3 is separate because it involves different people. The conspiracy theorists' concept of the U.S. government as a unified unit is pretty laughable. The U.S. government operates by design as an adversarial system. So when something goes wrong at NASA, it's not so easy to cover it up. You have all kinds of investigative wolves nipping at your heels. In short, you can't assume the investigation was a sham.

This means that the investigators would have to believe they were examining a voluminous body of authentic evidence that was instead fabricated ahead of time. That means someone fabricated it, and where are all those people?

And that brings us to the hardest premise of all, number 1. It's hard because we have to try to put ourselves in other people's places, and that's rarely compelling evidence.

I already stated one reason why the premise is unlikely: public apathy peaked later in the program. The other, and perhaps more salient one, is that privately Apollo 13 scared the heck out of NASA and was a key factor in the decision to end the program with Apollo 17.

So even assuming you could prove Apollo 13 was staged, it doesn't seem likely it would have been staged for the reason you hypothesize. Nothing personal, of course.

I'll be more than happy to answer any questions about Apollo 13, even hypothetical ones. Just make sure it's clear they're hypothetical.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-18, 09:57 PM
I always found the idea of NASA rigging the explosion of Apollo 13 a bit amusing and here's why.

My boss for my first summer job after my freshman year was a Vietnam vet. His primary job was to destroy, by explosives, North Vietnamese bunkers, buildings etc. He had some very wild stories. One of things that he said was that it took a lot of trail and error experience to determine exactly how much explosives were needed to bring down a building. Too little and the building still standings, but now a hazard and too much and well you've got pieces flying all over the place. Put some trucks or tanks in the building well now you've got a new problem.

In other words, you've got to be really good and experienced to know just how much to use. Now imagine Apollo 13, just how much is needed to damage the spacecraft, but not harm the crew or the LM, all in a vacuum.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-18 17:58 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Jun-19, 05:35 AM
On 2002-06-18 16:16, p9107 wrote:
Ok - I admit, I was doing the wrong thing - I had no evidence, but I would not go so far as to say that it was an accusation. It was more like just a thaught I'd had, and wanted to share with you.


I, for one, recognized what p9107 was trying to do with his post. He was just trying to formulate some discussion on Apollo 13 and the supposed hoax of it. Unfortunately he got the wording of it cloudy enough to get people wondering about his motives.

But since I'd been reading a bunch of his other posts, and I hadn't detected any HB leanings in him before, I knew it for what it was.

p9107, don't be too worried about this. You weren't doing anything wrong. In fact, I think a good discussion would be great. Just try to express your true thoughts more clearly in the future.


Personally, I think Apollo 13 is one of the weakest points in the whole HB repitoire. Most of the time they don't even bring it up at all, and when they do, they usually just gloss over it with a little bit of handwaving. I haven't seen any truly convincing arguments at all as to why it would have been hoaxed, not to mention the hows and whats.

The most common motive given is the same as in the OP. They needed to stimulate public interest. But it's been shown that it failed to do any such thing, and logic suggests that high public interest would have been completely undesireable, especially in the form of a disater investigation. If I were running a hoax, the last thing in the world I'd want is something to make people take a closer look at my operations.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-19, 12:17 PM
"If I were running a hoax, the last thing in the world I'd want is something to make people take a closer look at my operations."

Excellent point!!!!!!!!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-19, 03:37 PM
If I were running a hoax, the last thing in the world I'd want is something to make people take a closer look at my operations.

But here's where I gave p9701 credit -- he's talking about staging Apollo 13's accident, not faking the whole program. In my mind that's a huge difference. The scenario would be to "throw away" one mission for the sake of the program's popularity.

Of course you'd still have the investigation afterward. That's the problem with causing an accident: dealing with its aftermath. We've already looked at that one. It would be hard to justify essentially grounding Apollo afterwards while politicians went over your work.

David Hall
2002-Jun-19, 04:01 PM
Ah, I see. I seem to have missed that point. The idea is that the Apollo missions were real and everything going as planned. But when NASA started to see the ratings drop they decided to throw in a little drama and excitement by engineering a crisis.

Hmm. I can't see that happening as well. It would almost certainly backfire. Instead of sparking people's interest I'm sure it would just add support for those who were against the missions all along. They would have more evidence to point out that, along with it being expensive and unneccessary, it was actually dangerous as well. Another reason to cut the program off.

And as Jay pointed out, that's one of the reasons it actually was ended early.

p9107
2002-Jun-19, 04:19 PM
I'm sorry if I got everyone muddled, but at least David Hall knew what I was talking about, and JayUtah, thanks for clearing up the point about all the rest of the missions being real.

One question - what do HB and OP stand for?

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-19, 04:25 PM
James-

HB = Hoax Believer

OP = Original Post (at least from the way David used it)

CJSF
2002-Jun-19, 05:28 PM
I am continually amazed at our society (meaning here in the USA)...

People actually lost interest after only TWO manned moon missions? Perhaps I am naive, but gosh, what an ADD/HD culture we have here!

CJSF

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-19, 06:34 PM
Indeed -- look how quickly the WTC/Pentagon disasters have faded from our consciousness (the headlines are back to forest fires and missing children. Any odds on summer shark attacks?)

But in fact, by the summer of '69, public interest in the Apollo program had already faded, even before the first landing. Considering everything else that was going on -- Vietnam and the anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement and urban violence, the RFK/King assassinations, and the sweeping social changes of the sexual revolution, drugs, and rock and roll, and the silent-majority reaction to those changes -- it's really not too surprising that people's priorities had shifted.