This isn't a "did we land on the moon" question. It's about public safety and keeping mass hysteria at bay.

Would it make sense for our or any government to live broadcast an unprecedented event such as landing on another planet or planetoid without knowing what the cameras would capture?

War of the worlds was broadcast in 1938 and created a panic among the populace. Thirty years later we landed on the moon and apparently it's barren, but what if it wasn't and the cameras had caught something inexplicable? Wouldn't there be a much larger panic as a result? Seems like something such as that a government would want to control as much as possible.

Just something I was thinking about.

so its not like we were going in completely blind

plus im certain that had protocols for every concievable situation including encountering something crazy/hostile and if they were worried about "panic" im sure they had something in place

However, if the cameras were rolling and something unexpected were to be caught a sudden commercial break or feed termination wouldn't be very effective in mitigating the problem. I'd like to think they had something more sophisticated in mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon


Luna 2 and Luna 3 made it successfully

Ranger 4 crashed on the moon

and so on

Meaning even if there was some anomaly captured or recorded by those craft we could be kept from knowing much more easily than a live broadcast.

to know what they were likely to encounter on the first manned moon landing

>Meaning even if there was some anomaly captured or recorded
>by those craft we could be kept from knowing much more easily
>than a live broadcast.

Seems like keeping us from knowing anything wasn't a fear they held.

So yeah, without that presupposed fear it makes sense to do a live broadcast for such an incredibly momentous occasion.

in light of that -- wouldn't it make sense to have a back up plan? Which I'm sure there was.

Frankly I'd like to see a movie detailing the actual event that strives to be as accurate as possible.

I dig into it every now and again but never seem to find anything with any real insight.

i think you are reaching a little IMO

you are saying "something could happen that could be hard to hide" essentially, yes?

and im saying you are dealing with a group of people who have to basically come up with every terrible scenario imagineable and develop a process for it


i'm say they wouldnt have launched if they didnt feel they'd be able to "mitigate the problem" satisfactorally

with potential surprises. I was listening to one of Neal Armstrongs speeches and it's delivery is just so odd that sometimes I wonder if maybe they did mitigate anything that could have caused a panic yet were still able to show some form of video.

Eggheads can *allegedly* send robot rovers to mars and a fucking comet, but they ain't sent shit to the relatively close moon. Ok.

Just let it go, man. The fact is you can't prove it one way any more than I can the other.

Edit: For real tho, this post is about whether the "next" moon landing should be broadcasted live, and I gave a good reason why it should be. Like it or not, more-solid proof is a legitimate reason to broadcast something like this.

I'll say it again: sigh.

You're right. I cannot disprove that the moon landing was a hoax. Oh I can point to information that you'll dismiss because HOAX! and you can point to information to support HOAX! and we can both just parry each other to death.

Still.

What conversation is there to have here without the obvious rabbit hole? blah blah blah SHEEPLE yada yada yada THEY and THEM blah blah blah MK ULTA MIND CONTROLLED CLONES yada yada yada EVERYONE FAMOUS HAS TO SACRIFICE THE LIFE OF A RELATIVE AND THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!And you can't DISPROVE ANY OF IT! HA! GOTCHA!

-Far as "just let it go"? Well, you also have that option. Feel free to have at it

-The OP wasn't about the broadcasting "next" moon landing live. I just re-read it and didn't see that anywhere.

>What conversation is there to have here without the obvious
>rabbit hole? blah blah blah SHEEPLE yada yada yada THEY and
>THEM blah blah blah MK ULTA MIND CONTROLLED CLONES yada yada
>yada EVERYONE FAMOUS HAS TO SACRIFICE THE LIFE OF A RELATIVE
>AND THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!And you can't DISPROVE ANY OF IT! HA!
>GOTCHA!

I'm pretty sure that you're intelligent enough to present your thoughts without stooping to the level of logical fallacies.

In keeping with the OP's OP, I'm not here to debate whether there was a landing or not, rather I wanted to note that video and photographic proof would help to settle the issue (if there can be considered one) once and for all.

I have a very low threshold for the tinfoil hat contingent and I absolutely made some assumptions on where you were headed with that.

My bad on that.

In fact, one of those assumptions is that any video or pictorial proof would most likely be met with further scrutiny on some birther shit, like OH YEAH, WHY DIDN’T THEY USE 4K? WHY IS THE VIDEO IN 1080, IF IT WERE REAL THEY WOULD HAVE….”or something.

Not just you, but the moon landing doubters in general.

I believe we did. I'm just puzzled by a few things. Primarily

Neal Armstrong's cryptic message about "Truth's protective layer" what is he referring to?

https://youtu.be/M1vFEwAJZQY?t=25

At least most of them. At this point in time, I'd want to see some high-quality video footage and photographs. Is that not a legitimate reason to broadcast?

Just saying that a live broadcast would offer more (and more substantial) proof for the non-believers.

That would shut up most perhaps. lol, but who knows. I'm curious as to why we haven't gone back myself.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

Only about 1.5 seconds, but that should be enough time to beep out any curses and blur out any nude aliens.

on live televised events.

so why would we allow some space shit to be broadcasted in real time?

We saw one video they saw another but the audio transmission is the same