Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

Woodsman said:
Indeed, it appears that you and others here are deeply committed at a belief level to this idea of Moon Hoax, so I think it is probably best for me to stop spending energy when it might be a matter of free will violation at this point.

However, before I leave this, I will hazard to point out: It is dangerous to indulge in lies; on this forum it is understood that a large part of what we must do is to try to clean our machines and wake up, to discern truth from lies, and it seems this moon hoax issue presents a big sticking point.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Woodsman, for providing a lesson in thinking critically, and applying that thinking.
 
Turgon said:
For example, when he says "Because we didn't go there and that's the way it happened. And if it didn't happen, it's nice to know why it didn't happen" he could be referring to having never gone, which is what a lot of people have jumped on, OR he's responding to the question in regards to length of time between, and that we didn't go there and is inferring or implying 'in such a long time' and why no one has gone back and that's what he was getting at.
Click to expand...

I generally assume that when a person is asked a specific question and they respond, they are responding to that question, not another one.
 
Last edited:
Joe said:
Thank you, Woodsman, for providing a lesson in thinking critically, and applying that thinking.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Thank you Woodsman for putting so much time and effort into applying critical thinking and supplying so much-needed basics of logical thinking and plain common sense, to all those strange "proofs" of this "conspiracy" that can be so easily dismantled if one is inclined to a make such an effort. Which is what you did. And it is really no wonder that people are fed up with the sheer amount of energy and time some invest in this "conspiracy". So indeed, MikeJoseph82 might be onto something:

MikeJoseph82 said:
This thread really feels like it's shifted towards the flat-earther logic spiral. I'm out.
Click to expand...
 
Brewer said:
Do you have an explanation?
Click to expand...

As explained by the astronomer speaking in this video:

The moon's surface is very bumpy and lumpy. Lots of craters, mountains, things like that. When the sun bounces off that surface, it can sometimes bounce off in a few different directions, caused by all those uneven surfaces. And this makes some of those shadows look like they're coming from perhaps different directions that you're not expecting.
Click to expand...

 
Brewer said:
OK, have done that but a lighter is not the best source of light, best to use the moon's primary source of illumination or electric lights outdoors. I've shown these images to dozens of people so far they have no explanation for it, my experiments indicate there were at least two different sources of light illuminating the LM. There are four sources of light on the moon; the sun; the Earth; the stars and the moon's albedo. You can rule out the latter two:- and the Earth, it was but a sliver and and high in the sky when these images were taken. Can you explain these overlapping shadows? These are the most obvious examples but they appear in numerous images throughout the Apollo archive and seem only to apply to the LM. Do you have an explanation? Has your zippo in a dark room experiment shed any light on the subject?
Click to expand...
Massimo Mazzucco (well know in Italy) has the skill set and years of experience allowing him to address the imagery issue with the Moon Landing. Have a listen as to his take on this subject.

Next is a case where people who know something about photography do an experiment and show the result for a specific Apollo photo. Enjoy,
Climbing on the latter
 
Joe said:
What's lazy is the tendency to assume that conspiracy theories have some kind of inherent validity rather than questioning them as we do the official story. I could never understand why some people who clearly have the skepticism that allows them to be open to "conspiracy theories" do not use that same skepticism to determine whether or not the "conspiracy theory" is anywhere close to the truth. To me that seems a logical approach, but then I suppose some people just want to believe rather than want to know.
Click to expand...

When it comes to skepticism your right but I was more referring to the part where that guy said “I’m out” after tossing out that I think of as a crude blanket label at people (flat earther) who question the U.S. narrative.

No one has to do that! You can walk away with dignity without calling attention to your decision to remain ignorant while bashing those who won’t defend what you think is valuable.

The lack of integrity imho from the U.S. when it comes to lying to the people of earth is also a massive elephant in the room here.

Does one have to get out a time line of how often we’ve been lied to by these cretins?

This Apollo 11 footage debate also reminds me of the 911 debate for these same reasons.

This issue has far more merit than flat earth nonsense and it’s just rude imho to lump everyone into that camp who won’t swallow this meal prepared for them by chefs who often lie about the ingredients.
 
luc said:
Indeed, the comment about the "flat earth vibe" of this thread IMO refers to precisely this lack of straight thinking in some of the material presented here.

As you said WM, the whole moon landing thing WAS a propaganda operation; nobody doubts that. But this doesn't imply in any way it was a hoax!
Click to expand...
Joe said:
I could never understand why some people who clearly have the skepticism that allows them to be open to "conspiracy theories" do not use that same skepticism to determine whether or not the "conspiracy theory" is anywhere close to the truth. To me that seems a logical approach, but then I suppose some people just want to believe rather than want to know.
Click to expand...
Pashalis said:
And it is really no wonder that people are fed up with the sheer amount of energy and time some invest in this "conspiracy". So indeed, MikeJoseph82 might be onto something:
Click to expand...
The problem here is this isn't like the flat-earth conspiracy. The flat-earth conspiracy is flat-out nonsense. The moon-landing conspiracy isn't, and still has a flavour of something amiss going on, something more than usual propaganda shenanigans. Thats how I still feel about it anyway. Not that I think its an out and out "hoax" either (I hate that word because it forces the subject to choose between extremes), but I do think there's a lot of explanations that could and should be explained to the public by the officials by now (its been 50 years!), but they still struggle to do so... And the only reason various outstanding oddities are eventually explained at all, to some satisfaction, is because of those wacky moon-hoaxer 'theorists' forcing the issue. Its like squeezing blood of out of a stone for what should be an upfront open book for all to read, but it isn't, and it has to take forums like this one to squeeze out the blood from the stone on behalf of everyone's peace of mind.

It'd be better to say the moon-landing conspiracy has more the flavor of, say, the "chemtrail conspiracy" - if we're going to use a comparison: We now can all conclude and agree (I assume) the government aren't spraying us from planes (though the Cs did say it happens in rare instances) but we can also see there is something unusual going on in the perpendicular with regards persistent contrails. As so deduced; is likely because the atmosphere is shrinking... Something far worse than spraying! (Having said that, I notice lasting contrail coverage in the skies has been noticeably less in the UK in recent years... But I digress)
I guess my point is, suggesting flat-earth logic as applied to forum members comes across as an absolute put-down, without giving merit for discussion where their is some merit for it. But... I do also appreciate the way the investigative side to things was warping too far off into conjecture and it deemed necessary to drive that point home hard to keep the thread on the critical-thinking track.

I don't think the "conspiracy" itself is a waste of time and energy, just the way it was going was becoming a waste of time and energy.

Anyhow... It doesn't help the fact the Cs haven't exactly been forthcoming about the moon-landings.


EDIT: Heh... Duyunne pretty much said it too, at the same moment
 
Altair said:
Don't forget that Soviets were working at the same time on the program of crewed moon landing but repeatedly failed. It was a real "moon race" and a "matter of honor" between US and USSR. And I think that if US crewed moon landing was a hoax then USSR would be the first to officially expose it as such. They surely had capacity and resources to do that.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Me personally, I don't put too much stock in that. I'm of the opinion ALL things non-terrestrial related must abide by a higher ruling enforced by the Consortium. All Earth geopolitics must and will succeed to that ruling. I think SPACE is the ulterior reason for the formation of the UN Security Council (formed 1945) - of which both America and Russia are two of the 5 Permanent Members (China, France and Britain are the other three)
 
Woodsman said:
it appears that you and others here are deeply committed at a belief level to this idea of Moon Hoax, so I think it is probably best for me to stop spending energy when it might be a matter of free will violation at this point.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Being concerned about violating someone's free will "out there" is valid, but not "in here". Signing up to membership on this forum should also mean we choose to have our free will violated, if necessary, in the quest for Truth. Nothing should get in the way of that (unless safety or the breaking of a confidence is at stake)
If someone on this forum doesn't like his/her free will violated so as to avoid Truth, then he/she can always make the choice to leave.
 
duyunne said:
When it comes to skepticism your right but I was more referring to the part where that guy said “I’m out” after tossing out that I think of as a crude blanket label at people (flat earther) who question the U.S. narrative
Click to expand...

In this instance he was calling a spade a spade. This thread has shown quite a lot of fervour and emotional thinking that has caused a lot of videos and theories to be posted that quite frankly, don’t amount to much at all. And despite all that’s been said folks are still posting those videos. Chasing shadows, literally and figuratively. So it’s not to say that there isn’t something there, but folks are so immersed in the conspiracy they can’t see the forest for the trees or take a step back and look at it from a wider perspective. To me, it’s two dimensional thinking and is reminiscent of flat-earther obstinacy. Just look at the uproar over ONE simple comment of a member expressing his frustration and then leaving the conversation. I think he hit the mark in more ways than some want to give credit for. It wasn’t an absolute put down like @BlackCartouche claims it is and if some of y’all were looking at it in context, would realize that as well instead of getting so bent out of shape about it.
 
duyunne said:
This Apollo 11 footage debate also reminds me of the 911 debate for these same reasons.

This issue has far more merit than flat earth nonsense and it’s just rude imho to lump everyone into that camp who won’t swallow this meal prepared for them by chefs who often lie about the ingredients.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that you (or anyone else) only considers the 'moon landing hoax' a possible hoax because the idea already exists, and has done for several decades? Have you considered the idea that one day someone with the right mental makeup decided it was a hoax and then began the process of putting that idea out there? And from there, other like-minded people latched on to the idea and propagated it further, leading to the result that, today, the 'moon landing hoax' is viewed (by some) as something that "has some merit"?

Have you ever tried a thought experiment where you imagine that the idea of a 'moon landing hoax' never existed, and then consider the merits of it from that standpoint? Does it still have the same merit, or any? From that standpoint, is there ANY credible evidence (worth getting all conspiratorial about) to consider that the moon landings were faked? IMO there isn't. And in that respect, the thinking that informs pretty much all of the discourse by those that believe in a moon landing hoax is very similar to that of the flat earthers.
 
This Apollo 11 footage debate also reminds me of the 911 debate for these same reasons.

To me, I don't really care much about whether Apollo 11 was a hoax or not. At worst it would be just some cold war shenanigans, and in my mind not really important in one way or another. But one thing it does do, as in flat earth theories, is take ones attention away from something that really was important, and affected our reality in a significant way, 911.

These hoaxes kind of get lumped together, so by association, 911 is just as absurd as flat earth and the moon mission hoax.

I think you can fall into a trap by diverting your attention to things that in the end, don't really matter much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom