Feds on the Moon

[mackler]

So, a couple days ago I was killing some time, arguing with one of my government-worshipping friends about how useless (nay harmful) the Federal Government is, and when I challenged him to name one productive thing the Feds have ever accomplished, he said: "are you kidding me?  The United States Federal Government achieved the greatest single technological feat in the history of humanity: It sent agents to the moon, and got them back safely!  A dozen of them!  And they did it using only the technology of four decades ago!"

I'd heard these stories before; I'd even looked at some of the websites claiming it's true.  The people who believe this say that it all happened before I was born, so I don't have any experience living during the time it allegedly occurred.  In fact, because it supposedly happened before I was born is usually justification for them to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, after all, they lived through and I didn't.

Now, I have an open mind, and I suppose anything is possible (though the Feds not screwing up everything they touch is more than a little bit hard for me to swallow).  "Fine," I said to my friend.  "I'm here.  My mind is open.  Please persuade me that the Feds actually sent agents to the moon in the 1960s.  What's the evidence?  How can you possibly believe that this could be true?"

Well, we talked for a long time.  I didn't get any good answers to my questions, such as: how come there's no government moon base?  The government just loves spending money and creating programs.  That one sounds like the perfect budget-bloater.  Where is it?  And why are the men who supposedly were walking around on the lunar surface not out making millions by going on tour giving speaking engagements about their experiences up there?  Why are they not the presidents of moon-mining-and-exploration companies?  Why are there no moon-exploration companies?  As far as I can tell, every single one of all these supposed moon-walkers immediately went into hiding as soon as their supposed journey was over.  Pretty unlikely behavior from participants in "the greatest technological achievement in the history of humanity."

No, after nearly an hour of me asking questions and the both of us searching the internet for evidence, all my friend could come up with was the following:

• A bunch of pictures and some videos, supposedly of these Federal Agents on the moon dressed up in deep-sea-looking outfits.  It looked to me like they were taken in a big sandbox under a spotlight.  Absolutely nothing about them persuaded me they were real, and some were obvious fakes.  (Whoever produced this one obviously didn't consider the fact that if the surface of the moon is dusty enough for footprints to be visible, then it would be dusty enough for the disturbance created by jets of rocket thrust to be visible.  oops!  )
• My friend claimed he had seen a moon-rock with his own eyes.  When I asked him how he knew the rock he saw had come from the moon, all he could tell me was that they guy who showed it to him said that it had to be from the moon because rocks like this one don't come from the earth.  Now, I know that asteroids are crashing into the earth all the time, so just because some guy has a rock that he claims came from the moon in no way convinces be that the Federal Government flew spaceships all the way to the moon with a bunch of agents who went beach-combing and brought that particular stone back.
• Newspaper stories from mainstream papers reporting on the alleged lunar landing.   I'll admit, I don't have too much difficulty believing that the Feds sent out news releases that they had agents on the moon, just like I have no difficulty believing that the Feds sent out press releases claiming that North Vietnam attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, or that nobody in the Federal Govemment had suspected that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings, or than cannabis has no known medical benefits.  All these claims can scientifically be shown to be false, but newspapers publish them anyway.  Just because some otherwise reputable newspapers decided to reprint govemment press-releases about the Feds' wonderful achievements proves nothing except that newspapers are prone to publishing government press-releases.
• My friend claimed the moon story had to be true because people bounce lasers off the moon, and there's no way this would be possible unless the Feds had sent agents to the moon to put a mirror there for the lasers to bounce off of.  When I asked him if he had ever spoken to or could even name a person who bounces lasers off the moon, he admitted he had not.  When I asked him whether it should be possible for an unmanned device to place a mirror on the moon, he had to admit that would be possible.  When I asked him why you can't bounce a laser off the surface of the moon without a mirror, he had no answer.  So the moon-laser claim in no way convinced me that the Federal moon-story is true.
• Finally, my friend believes in all his heart that the Federal moon-story just has to be true, because if it weren't true, someone would have "exposed" the cover-up by now.  This is just bad logic.  If you buy that reasoning, then I suppose you believe that George W. Bush is a shape-shifting lizard-alien because, after all, if it weren't true someone would have exposed the cover-up by now.

Maybe I'm posting this in the wrong place, seeing as how this forum is probably short on Fed-lovers, but I figured I'd start my inquiry among friends.  So, does anyone here believe this story?  If so, why?  What's the evidence?  Please convince me that the Feds are really competent enough to have sent space-men to the moon a dozen times before 1972.  My mind is open and ready to consider the proof.

[BillKauffman]

Please convince me that the Feds are really competent enough to have sent space-men to the moon a dozen times before 1972.  My mind is open and ready to consider the proof.

What is the alternative explanation for NASA?

[mackler]

Please convince me that the Feds are really competent enough to have sent space-men to the moon a dozen times before 1972.  My mind is open and ready to consider the proof.

What is the alternative explanation for NASA?

Well, I'm probably unqualified to answer this question, being a skeptic as I am, so I stand ready to be corrected. That said, as I understand it, the thinking of the moon-believers is something along the lines that NASA is no ordinary Federal Agency.  It's not run by bureaucrats, nor is it subject to the same institutionalized incompetencies and inefficiencies as the rest of the Federal Govemment.  Rather it's a group of technological super-geniuses who can accomplish anything if only they are given permission to do so, including sending some of their agents a quarter million miles through space to jump around on the moon. 

As to why these supergeniuses cannot now, with forty additional years of technological development at their disposal, repeat the alleged feat of flying to the moon, they seem to explain it away as a problem caused by the rest of the Federal Government, or a lack of public interest (sort of the way your team doesn't score if you don't cheer loud enough).

Yes, I know that this contradicts not only common sense, but the actual evidence (Hubble Telescope *cough cough*), but that seems to be how they rationalize their belief in NASA and the moon theory.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Virgin Galactic is offering commercial space travel. They're experts on terrestrial travel and motivated by profit. I can't see why they'd stake their reputation and good name on somethign that's complete and utter non-sense.

This means, at the VERY least, space travel is possible, which means that it's most likely theoretically possible that a moon landing COULD happen.

That said, there's two things about NASA you need to consider. Firstly, they weren't typical government bureucracies at that time. There was fierce competition with the Soviets driving innovation on both sides. My second issue is that government sucesses are often failures too.

Government can build schools. This means government isn't ENTIRELY composed of inept chimps. Unfortunately, even though they have the ability to build schools, they lack the ability to do it quickly and cheaply. It's possible that NASA spent billions upon billions of dollars doing something that wouldn't require those billions, and only in comparison to other governments failing to do a project as fast as they did was it a "success".

[KBCraig]

Why do you state that moon travel couldn't be repeated?

The public did lose interest in repeated trips to the moon. It was expensive and dangerous and offered little return on the expense. We were at the tail end of an expensive protracted and unpopular war. Scandal broke at the highest levels of government. People were fed up and pissed off and didn't want to throw any more money at the government.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Hasn't stopped them though

[Puke]

The federal gov't didn't send men to the moon.
The federal gov't threw massive piles of money at smart people who were able to wade through the bullshit and accomplish a task.

[dalebert]

The federal gov't didn't send men to the moon.
The federal gov't threw massive piles of money at smart people who were able to wade through the bullshit and accomplish a task.

That's pretty much how they accomplish anything. All the military technology they have was obtained that way also.

[KBCraig]

The federal gov't didn't send men to the moon.
The federal gov't threw massive piles of money at smart people who were able to wade through the bullshit and accomplish a task.

Puke, FTW.

It was only after the space program transitioned from a bunch of smart people trying to accomplish a task, into a "government" program with "government employees", that space became mundane and boring.

There were a couple of iterations of this transition. The Mercury astronauts, the true pioneers of American space travel, found themselves booted out for being too "cowboy", in favor of the younger and prettier Apollo crews. New projects languished after Apollo died, then some new "cowboys" launched the shuttles. And then shuttles became routine, and the cycle repeats...

[mackler]

Thanks for your response.  You raise several legitimate points:  First, the example of Virgin Galactic's commercial space travel offerings.  Second, you reason that the Feds' typical incompetencies were not affecting their performance in the 1960s because they were competing with the Soviets.  Finally, you point to the ability of governments to build schools as evidence that the Feds could have sent agents to the moon in 1969.

Each point is legitimate and deserving of consideration, so in the interest of adequate fairness and objectivity, I'd like to address each separately.  In this post I will share my thinking on the case of Virgin Galactic.

As I read it (and please correct me as appropriate) your argument regarding Virgin Galactic rests on three premises:

• Virgin Galactic is offering commercial space travel.
• Virgin Galactic is motivated by profit
• Virgin Galactic would stake neither its reputation nor its good name on something that is complete and utter nonsense, since doing so would certainly have a negative impact on its profits.

First, I'll observe that at this time Virgin Galactic is proposing to offer commercial space travel.  I am not aware that that they have yet begun operations, nor am I aware that they have conducted a single commercial space flight.

Next, I'll note that according to wikipedia (and yes, I know that wikipedia is not always a reliable source of information so correct me if this is wrong), Virgin Galactic is proposing to offer "sub orbital" space-flight to allow passengers to experience weightlessness for "up to 6 minutes."

Third, I will agree that Virgin Galactic is motivated by profit.

Finally, by way of setting forth the basis for my conclusions below, I will agree that profit-seeking businesses have no incentive to invest their assets in something that they consider to be "complete and utter nonsense," and thus it is appropriate for us to proceed on the understanding that Virgin Galactic as an organization does not believe that seeking to earn profits by offering to the public sub-orbital space-flights that provide up to six minutes of weightlessness to their customers is complete and utter nonsense of the sort that would present an unreasonable risk to the company's profits.

This is my factual basis for my following conclusions, so please correct any inaccuracies of mine in the foregoing.

I see it this way: Virgin Galactic is proposing something not very comparable to traveling to the moon, but rather something more like a very-high altitude airplane flight.  I have no trouble believing that humans--even ones working for the Federal Goverment--have developed the ability to put objects into orbit around the earth, even vehicles with people on board such as the space shuttle.  What Virgin Atlantic is proposing seems quite less advanced than a space-shuttle flight in that the suggested altitude is lower, and the proposed length of the flight is shorter.  So I will have to agree with the decision-makers at Virgin Atlantic that such a sub-orbital flight is not complete and utter nonsense, and it fact has quite a bit of profit potential.  However, the possibility of offering such a sub-orbital service in 2008 provides for me no logical basis for believing that in 1969 the US Federal Government sent agents not just into orbit, but a quarter million miles from earth to the moon, and back, half a dozen times.  I can see no logical justification for concluding the latter from a belief in the former.

And I agree that Virgin Galactic is most certainly motivated by profit.  In contrast, at no time have the Feds ever been motivated by profit.  The Feds can lose any amount of money on unproductive activities, and will never go out of business as a result, and the situation was no different in the 1960s.  No government program is motivated by profit.  By definition.  So while giving a private company credit for a high likelihood of being able to accomplish its stated goals may be appropriate, since that company may be forced to cease operations if it sets unrealistic goals, the Federal Government is constantly failing to meet its stated goals, and continues to do so secure in the knowledge that no failure that one can easily imagine will put it out of business.  Thus, the recognition that in 2008 a private company aspiring to send vehicles into sub-orbital flights is motivated by profits, provides for me no logical basis for concluding that in 1969, a government entity not motivated by profits successfully sent its agents a quarter million miles through outer space to the moon and back half a dozen times.  The latter does not logically follow from the former.

Finally, as to the question of whether a profit-seeking company would stake its reputation or good name on something that is complete and utter nonsense, I will point out that private, profit-seeking companies make bad decisions that damage their reputations and good names all the time.  I could list many examples, but fresh in my recent memory is Microsoft's vaunted Vista operating system, which (thought I don't use it myself) media reports convince me has done nothing but damage to whatever reputation and good name the Microsoft Corporation had thitherto developed for itself.  Business involves risk, and new industries are the riskiest.  One man's limitless potential is another's "complete and utter nonsense," so just because one can make an argument that one particular group of entrepreneurs in 2008 believe that sending vehicles into sub-orbital space-filghts for six minutes is not complete and utter nonsense gives me no logical basis to conclude that in 1969 the Federal Government sent a dozen of its agents a quarter million miles to the moon and back.  The latter simply does not follow from the former.

So, while I appreciate you pointing to the case of Virgin Atlantic, and while I am personally encouraged by a commercial interest in space flight, nothing about this particular commercial venture constitutes evidence that convinces me that the moon theory is true or  that it could even possibly be true.

Time permitting I will respond to your other two points regarding competition with the Soviets, and the ability of governments to build schools.

Virgin Galactic is offering commercial space travel. They're experts on terrestrial travel and motivated by profit. I can't see why they'd stake their reputation and good name on something that's complete and utter non-sense.

This means, at the VERY least, space travel is possible, which means that it's most likely theoretically possible that a moon landing COULD happen.

That said, there's two things about NASA you need to consider. Firstly, they weren't typical government bureucracies at that time. There was fierce competition with the Soviets driving innovation on both sides. My second issue is that government sucesses are often failures too.

Government can build schools. This means government isn't ENTIRELY composed of inept chimps. Unfortunately, even though they have the ability to build schools, they lack the ability to do it quickly and cheaply. It's possible that NASA spent billions upon billions of dollars doing something that wouldn't require those billions, and only in comparison to other governments failing to do a project as fast as they did was it a "success".

[mackler]

Government can build schools. This means government isn't ENTIRELY composed of inept chimps. Unfortunately, even though they have the ability to build schools, they lack the ability to do it quickly and cheaply. It's possible that NASA spent billions upon billions of dollars doing something that wouldn't require those billions, and only in comparison to other governments failing to do a project as fast as they did was it a "success".

In this post I give my take on the above reasoning.  It seems to be divided into two parts, so I'll consider those separately.  The two parts being:

• Government can build schools, therefore the Federal Government in particular might have sent some of its agents to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
• The Federal Government spent billions of dollars on its space program, therefore a likely result of the spending was that it sent several of its agents to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s

Government Can Build Schools

First I must confess I do not exactly understand this statement, and whether it refers to constructing the edifices in which schools operate, or whether it refers to creation of the institutions known as government schools.  With respect to building construction, I see a great difference between building a building and sending men to the moon.  Humans have been building buildings for thousands of years.  It is not a particularly innovative area, nor a technologically challenging one, at least as far as school buildings go.  It certainly isn't something that has never been done before.  That government in general is capable of doing what has been done thousands of times for thousands of years by thousands of people is not convincing evidence for me that US Federal Government was able in 1969 to perform the greatest technological feat in the history of humanity.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to creation of the institutions called schools then my analysis is somewhat different.  A "school" just like the government itself is really an artificial abstraction, like a corporation.  All that is required to create one is a vote in the legislature declaring the school to exist and identifying the people who constitute its faculty, staff, and students.  That alone doesn't mean that anyone is being educated.  I myself was subjected to one of the so-called government schools, and I found the experience to be completely lacking in any educational value, except in the certainly unintended result of providing me with a daily lesson in what a complete failure the government is in operating schools.

True, there was a bit of learning going on there, but that was due mostly to the self-motivation of people who would have been learning anywhere.  People learn while they're in prison too, but that doesn't make the prison a school.  Sure, the government can "create" institutions and give them names--school, correctional institution, child protective services--but that doesn't mean they're accomplishing their goals.  So I question whether it is at all correct to say that government can build schools.

Perhaps you are referring to schools such as state colleges.  Here I may be more convinced the government is capable of not totally screwing up everything it touches, but there's one big difference here: competition.  A large part of the budget of the bureaucrats who run state colleges actually comes from their customers who have the option of taking their business somewhere else, so if the bureaucrats screw up too much, they actually might lose their jobs.  The Feds' space program has never had any such constraint.  The only customer is Congress, and this costumer wasn't shopping around between different space agencies at the time that the Federal Agents allegedly landed on the moon.

Finally I'll note that as with the construction of buildings, creating a school is not the most technologically advanced feat in the history of humanity.  In fact schools have been around for thousands of years, and it doesn't take rocket scientists to put one together.  Even if I believed that it was possible for the government to build a school that actually provided a worthwhile education, that fact in no way logically leads to the conclusion that the Federal Government in particular sent a bunch of its agents a quarter million miles through outer space to the moon and back forty years ago.  Government may not be entirely composed of inept chimps, but I do not believe that even ept chimps could have performed the alleged feat that would have (had it actually happened) worthily qualified as the most stunning technological achievement in the history of the human race.  No, the daily operating of the Horace Mann Elementary School down the block is not what I consider to be persuasive evidence of Feds voyaging to the moon back during the Woodstock era.

The Possibility the Feds Wasted Billions of Dollars

It's possible that NASA spent billions upon billions of dollars doing something that wouldn't require those billions, and only in comparison to other governments failing to do a project as fast as they did was it a "success".

This argument I have more trouble unpacking.  Yes it's possible that the Federal government spent billions upon billions of dollars doing something that wouldn't require those billions.  In fact I'm certain that they do exactly that every day and have been doing so non-stop probably since soon after there were a billion dollars in circulation.  I'm not sure how that provides any evidence of hippie-era moon exploration.  Yes, the government wastes money.  I have no disagreement on that point.

As to the second part, that "only in comparison to other governments failing to do a project as fast as they did was it a 'success.'" I cannot say I understand what this means.  What is "it?"  Wasting billions doing nothing?  And you seem to be implying that other governments did the same thing but just not as fast.  I confess I am not steeped in the details of moon-theory, but I was under the impression that moon theorists claim that it was only the US Federal government who sent agents to the moon.  Are there stories of other governments doing the same thing?  if so, it would be glaringly inconsistent of me not to insist on evaluating such claims by the same standards of scientific evidence as I do the claims underlying the American moon theory.

So in conclusion, I cannot say I agree that "government can build schools," but even if I do suppose for the sake of argument that some governments can build schools, whatever that means, I don't see that as a logical basis for concluding that back when computer punch cards were cutting edge technology, the US Federal Government had agency bureaucrats on the lunar surface catching "air" as they drove their space-buggy off the edge of craters like the Dukes of Hazard.  The "government can build schools" argument just doesn't lead me at all toward a belief that the moon theory is true.

[J’raxis 270145]

This is another one of these topics, like many of the other conspiracy theories that get debated on these forums, where the truth or falsity of the matter has zero impact on the freedom movement in New Hampshire.

[dalebert]

This is another one of these topics, like many of the other conspiracy theories that get debated on these forums, where the truth or falsity of the matter has zero impact on the freedom movement in New Hampshire.

+1

[mackler]

This is another one of these topics, like many of the other conspiracy theories that get debated on these forums, where the truth or falsity of the matter has zero impact on the freedom movement in New Hampshire.

I don't think it's fair to refer to the moon-theory as a "conspiracy."  I'm willing to give the believers credit for being sincere in thinking that there is a scientific basis for it--or at least my mind is open for someone to persuade me of that.  Depending on the outcome of this discussion, though, I may change and adopt your opinion.

Anyway, I know it's not liberty-related; that's why I put it in the "endless debate" forum.

[J’raxis 270145]

This is another one of these topics, like many of the other conspiracy theories that get debated on these forums, where the truth or falsity of the matter has zero impact on the freedom movement in New Hampshire.

I don't think it's fair to refer to the moon-theory as a "conspiracy."  I'm willing to give the believers credit for being sincere in thinking that there is a scientific basis for it--or at least my mind is open for someone to persuade me of that.  Depending on the outcome of this discussion, though, I may change and adopt your opinion.

I don't consider "conspiracy theory" to automatically be a derogative or dismissive term.