The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: exadon on January 01, 2018, 09:16:27 PM
-
The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.
what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
-
The few posts I’ve seen on the topic (here is the most representative sample (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4971.0) I found) seem to hold that there are no such objects on the moon (since nobody landed there to deploy them) and that anyone claiming to have done the laser ranging experiment using the retroreflectors is either mistaken about their results or lying about it.
-
Retroreflectors have been seen in nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum). Unless you're calling fish man-made equipment, your argument is not as conclusive as you'd like it to be.
-
Retroreflectors have been seen in nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum). Unless you're calling fish man-made equipment, your argument is not as conclusive as you'd like it to be.
Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....
-
Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....
I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.
Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"
-
Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....
I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.
Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"
It's weird that none of the 3rd parties who were monitoring the Apollo missions have called NASA out on their fakery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
-
Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....
I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.
Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"
So then do you have an example of one NOT from a living being? A rock or something that has somehow naturally become a retro-reflector? Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon. *That* is why the retro-reflector's are used as evidence of man on the moon. Because, as far as I'm aware, they don't occur through natural non-living means. Ergo, how are you not positing for life on the moon? Although you do seem to struggle with implication and reading between the lines from previous times we've discussed things, so not sure if this has occurred to you. If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where. But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon. Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
-
If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where.
I'll try once more, although I'm rapidly losing interest in chasing your circular logic.
Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon.
No, it does not. Since not all retroreflectors are man-made, there is no reason why a hypothetical naturally-occurring retroreflector couldn't be located on the moon.
But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon.
You don't know that. You're assuming it, based on a potentially incomplete sample.
Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
Ah, finally, your goalposts are starting to budge. But no; the retroreflectors supposedly present on the moon could be the evidence you're looking for.
-
Why would you need retro-reflectors on the moon? Its shiny. If sunlight can bounce off it and hit earth, a laser can.
The moon is a huge mirror. Like a beautiful big disco ball in the sky.
"With earthshine observations, what we do is use the moon as a giant mirror," said study lead author Michael Sterzik, deputy director of the European Southern Observatory's La Silla Paranal Observatory.
Getting a return of a few photons is not evidence there has to be a retro-reflector on the moon.
-
Why would you need retro-reflectors on the moon? Its shiny. If sunlight can bounce off it and hit earth, a laser can.
The moon is a huge mirror. Like a beautiful big disco ball in the sky.
"With earthshine observations, what we do is use the moon as a giant mirror," said study lead author Michael Sterzik, deputy director of the European Southern Observatory's La Silla Paranal Observatory.
Getting a return of a few photons is not evidence there has to be a retro-reflector on the moon.
Sunlight is far more powerful and brighter than a laser. XKCD did calculations to see just how powerful of a laser(s) you'd need to light up the moon's surface: https://what-if.xkcd.com/13 (https://what-if.xkcd.com/13) (hint, it's a lot, far more powerful than you could imagine).
Lasers also diverge according to the inverse square law, meaning by the time they hit the surface of the moon, their intensity would be equal to the inverse square of the distance it traveled. To give an example, a light shines with 1-watt intensity at 1 m. At 2m it'd shine with 1/4 intensity. At 3m it'd shine with 1/9 intensity, and so forth. The law doesn't only use meters, it's relative to any distance.
The moon is absolutely not like a mirror or a disco ball in the sense that they reflect all the light. The moon has a higher albedo, which means it can reflect a significant amount of light, but this light needs to be VERY intense (like the sun). A laser shone from the Earth is not powerful enough to make a difference (as seen in the XKCD article).
Oh, and getting a few photons back is perfect evidence that there's a reflector on the moon, why wouldn't it be? Lasers can point to different areas on the moon, not where the reflectors are. They get no photons back. Point to exactly where a reflector is, they do get photons back.
-
You don't know that. You're assuming it, based on a potentially incomplete sample[/b].
Much like your assumption that we did not land on the moon?
-
Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....
I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.
Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"
So then do you have an example of one NOT from a living being? A rock or something that has somehow naturally become a retro-reflector? Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon. *That* is why the retro-reflector's are used as evidence of man on the moon. Because, as far as I'm aware, they don't occur through natural non-living means. Ergo, how are you not positing for life on the moon? Although you do seem to struggle with implication and reading between the lines from previous times we've discussed things, so not sure if this has occurred to you. If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where. But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon. Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
You're relying on the appeal to ignorance fallacy when you limit natural retroreflectors to only living organisms.
-
The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.
what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?
-
People should be derided for both. There are reflectors on the mood because we put them there.
-
Tom- your argument is that retroreflectors have been witnessed on Earth without human intervention, so therefore it may be possible that under different circumstances (i.e. those on the moon), natural retroreflectors from inanimate material could be formed as well, right? I just want to make sure I understood it properly - you spread it out over several posts and I'm not used to that...
Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?
To be fair, they are using it to suggest that intelligent life (humans) visited the moon, not that it exists/lives there (natively or otherwise).
-
The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.
what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?
Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg). This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg). As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.
The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.
Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.
As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.
-
PickYerPoision,
To be fair, they are using it to suggest that intelligent life (humans) visited the moon, not that it exists/lives there (natively or otherwise).
A lot of people actually believe ancient humans from earth did travel to mars rather than live there, and that the "pyramids" and such are remnants of ancient space exploration.
-
People should be derided for both. There are reflectors on the mood because we put them there.
Well, I'm glad you admit that round earthers who claim that the lunar retroreflectors prove humans went to the moon should be derided. It takes guts for a round earther to admit that. And saying we put the reflectors on the moon doesn't make it true. All you guys have as proof that it's man-made is because the government and NASA say so, which is fallacious mind you (appeal to authority fallacy).
-
The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.
what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?
Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg). This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg). As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.
The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.
Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.
As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.
How can you use "we know that life doesn't exist on mars" as a reason to reject the "architecture" on mars? You're resorting to the appeal to ignorance fallacy. And your premise to the retroreflectors being manmade is also fallacious (appeal to authority). The government and NASA tell you it's theirs, and that's all the "proof" you guys need!
-
The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.
what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?
Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg). This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg). As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.
The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.
Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.
As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.
How can you use "we know that life doesn't exist on mars" as a reason to reject the "architecture" on mars? You're resorting to the appeal to ignorance fallacy. And your premise to the retroreflectors being manmade is also fallacious (appeal to authority). The government and NASA tell you it's theirs, and that's all the "proof" you guys need!
Straw man. I never claimed that life not existing on mars is a reason to reject the architecture. I said sentient aliens can't exist on Mars and people who believe so can be derided. We have multiple reasons why sentient, complex life can't exist on Mars: 1. The environment of Mars in its barren atmosphere is deadly to all life exposed on it, except maybe tardigrades. 2. There's no liquid water currently on Mars. Life needs liquid water in some form. 3. Going along with 1, Curiosity rover measured the radiation to be 76 mGy/year. This essentially sterilizes the surface of any exposed life. 4. Mars has no magnetic field, meaning that cosmic radiation kills any exposed life. 5. Tardigrades would barely survive a few days as a result, and no cell, no matter how hardy, would survive for reasons mentioned before. Proof: https://www.space.com/g00/3396-study-surface-mars-devoid-life.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw%3D%3D&i10c.ua=1 (https://www.space.com/g00/3396-study-surface-mars-devoid-life.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw%3D%3D&i10c.ua=1) and https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1977.pdf (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1977.pdf). 5. Martian regolith contains perchlorates, which are harmful to most life. 6. Nitrogen is basically essential for life, after Carbon of course. There's some N2 in Mars's lower atmosphere, but it is insignificant, and can't support nitrogen fixation. Proof: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23560417 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23560417). 7. Mars's atmosphere is thin, too thin for nearly all life. Very few microorganisms are able to survive at Mars's atmospheric pressure (1-14mbar). There's some evidence that some bacteria are capable of cell replication at 25mbar, but this is greater than Mars's atmosphere. Now. Is life on Mars? Evidence leans to no. BUT, it is certainly possible that microorganisms exist a few meters underground, or in the polar caps. If you want to read more on it, here's the wiki article. It basically highlights all I've mentioned above and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars)
Though it may be a fallacy of ignorance, the evidence we have that there is no life on Mars is overwhelming and provides some scientific backing to the rejection of sentient life on Mars. YES, there's a possibility of life on Mars, but is it sentient, complex life? That answer is a nearly certain no. We have satellites orbiting and taking photos of Mars on the daily. Would life not be visible to them?
As for the apparent appeal to authority, no, it isn't fallacious. We have significant proof that there does indeed exist a reflector or device of some sort on the moon where we claimed to have placed them. It may not be a retro-reflector, but it has to be a man-made object up there. Independent scientists and organizations, with the right equipment, have confirmed the existence of some reflecting object up there. NASA isn't a lone source. The soviet agency also put a reflector up on their probe missions. This has been confirmed. Independent agencies have bounced lasers off the reflectors. They aren't affiliated with NASA.
-
Nickrulercreator,
Straw man. I never claimed that life not existing on mars is a reason to reject the architecture. I said sentient aliens can't exist on Mars and people who believe so can be derided.
Strawman? In YOUR own words:
Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars.
The implication of what you typed was that there can't be architecture on mars because life there doesn't exist. How is that strawman?
As for the apparent appeal to authority, no, it isn't fallacious. We have significant proof that there does indeed exist a reflector or device of some sort on the moon where we claimed to have placed them. It may not be a retro-reflector, but it has to be a man-made object up there.
Why must it be man-made? Because NASA and the government say it is? That's the very definition of appeal to authority logical fallacity that you're resorting to again. You have no evidence that the retroreflectors are man-made placed on the moon during an alleged lunar landing. All you have is "the government and NASA say so, so it must be fact".
Independent scientists and organizations, with the right equipment, have confirmed the existence of some reflecting object up there.
No one is denying the existence of these. But where is the evidence that they're man-made left behind during a visit by humans to the moon?
NASA isn't a lone source. The soviet agency also put a reflector up on their probe missions. This has been confirmed. Independent agencies have bounced lasers off the reflectors. They aren't affiliated with NASA.
No, it hasn't been confirmed that any nation went to the moon and set up man-made retroreflectors there. All that is known is that there are some sort of reflectors up there which could very well be natural objects on the moon.
-
Nickrulercreator,
Straw man. I never claimed that life not existing on mars is a reason to reject the architecture. I said sentient aliens can't exist on Mars and people who believe so can be derided.
Strawman? In YOUR own words:
Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars.
The implication of what you typed was that there can't be architecture on mars because life there doesn't exist. How is that strawman?
As for the apparent appeal to authority, no, it isn't fallacious. We have significant proof that there does indeed exist a reflector or device of some sort on the moon where we claimed to have placed them. It may not be a retro-reflector, but it has to be a man-made object up there.
Why must it be man-made? Because NASA and the government say it is? That's the very definition of appeal to authority logical fallacity that you're resorting to again. You have no evidence that the retroreflectors are man-made placed on the moon during an alleged lunar landing. All you have is "the government and NASA say so, so it must be fact".
Independent scientists and organizations, with the right equipment, have confirmed the existence of some reflecting object up there.
No one is denying the existence of these. But where is the evidence that they're man-made left behind during a visit by humans to the moon?
NASA isn't a lone source. The soviet agency also put a reflector up on their probe missions. This has been confirmed. Independent agencies have bounced lasers off the reflectors. They aren't affiliated with NASA.
No, it hasn't been confirmed that any nation went to the moon and set up man-made retroreflectors there. All that is known is that there are some sort of reflectors up there which could very well be natural objects on the moon.
I apologize for the first part, I had misread your comment and I see my mistake.
As for why it must be manmade? What other objects, not manmade, can be found on the surface of the moon, that reflects back photons in such a way that only a retroreflector can match? Normal reflecting objects, such as mirrors, shiny rocks, etc, reflect light back at an angle opposite to the angle it is being projected at. Retroreflectors do the opposite. They're designed so that light or photons hitting them will reflect back in the direction the light/photons came from. Take this diagram as a visual aid: http://www.glimling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/how_a_retroreflector_works_compared_with_mirror.jpg (http://www.glimling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/how_a_retroreflector_works_compared_with_mirror.jpg). The only way a mirror could reflect light back to the source is if the light was being projected perfectly perpendicular to the mirror. The difficulty of this when taking into effect of the movement of the moon, the moon's rotation, the earth's movements, etc, is insurmountable. It doesn't have to be manmade because NASA said so, it has to be manmade because there's no other option. Perfect retroreflectors don't exist in natural rocks or other geological formations. In only 1 example does this happen in nature that we know of, and that is in flashlight fish of the family Anomalopidae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#In_fish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#In_fish). The only way a mirror could reflect light back to the source is if the light was being projected perfectly perpendicular to the mirror. The difficulty of this when taking into effect of the movement of the moon, the moon's rotation, the earth's movements, etc, is insurmountable. It doesn't have to be manmade because NASA said so, it has to be manmade because there's no other option. Perfect retroreflectors don't exist in natural rocks or other geological formations. In only 1 example does this happen in biology that we know of, and that is in flashlight fish of the family Anomalopidae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#In_fish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#In_fish). Additionally, the reflection of the photons back to the source matches perfectly with the retroreflectors. Shine the laser at the moon where we didn't put a reflector, and you get nothing. Shine it where we did put a reflector, and you get back photons. This isn't because NASA says so. This is strong evidence that a retroreflector is placed on the moon. From a distance of 240,000 miles away, you would need an insurmountably powerful laser (or actually set of lasers) to even see any sort of light emitted from the moon reflecting the lasers. If the moon is just a few thousand miles away, or however far FEs claim it to be, the laser would still have to be crazy powerful. For the math for 240,000 miles away, check here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/ (https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/)
Now, your last paragraph. What natural object could it be? A rock? How is this rock so perfectly formed to be able to mimic a retroreflector? We have confirmed that objects are up there. They coincide with where the landings of probes/LMs are. This isn't 100% proof it's manmade, but the evidence for a manmade object up there rather than natural formations is substantial. I'd like you to answer those questions. Creating a perfectly-working retroreflector isn't something nature can do easily. Not to mention in a rock, which was likely on an asteroid that hit the moon, or part of magma from when the moon was still in its volcanic phase of formation. How was this rock formed? If it was natural, how did it happen so perfectly 5 times (Apollos 11,14,15, and Lunokhods 1 and 2)? How, exactly, did NASA or their discoverer find these rocks? Why is there no evidence of any sort of reflection from these rocks, or whatever they are, before the dates they were supposedly placed there? Who discovered them?
Oh and you can just call me Nick, no need for the full username.
-
Much like your assumption that we did not land on the moon?
There's evidence aplenty of a faked moon landing, so need not assume anything about this specific incident. Is it possible that a real moon landing happened alongside it, and for some reason was simply not publicised, or even kept under wraps? Well, technically it is, and it would make your smug comment half-defensible, but somehow I doubt you're going to want to pursue that path of reasoning.