BlueTaze said:

---

If we don't put a man on the moon in 2027, 30, 35, or 40, do you think it would be time to be skeptical?

---

NO

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

And again, we are three pages into this thread with absolutely zero evidence of a hoax being perpetrated. Just a bunch of people explaining to us the photo, visual, and scientific evidence for the actual story isn't compelling enough.

---

Quote:

---

And all this brand new equipment worked perfectly the first time. In 1969. Wow.

---

None of the missions went perfectly. All had their glitches and moments, many minor but some more serious than others (Apollo 13). Apollo 12 was struck by lightning and nearly aborted during ascent. Apollo 11 went long on its trajectory to the landing site and had an overloaded landing computer that if not for some very knowledgeable controllers, would have aborted the landing. Apollo 14, the LM had an issue with a faulty switch giving an ABORT signal that could have automatically triggered an abort during descent that had to be worked around.

What about 1969 technology would have not allowed the missions to happen? Be specific.

The Kraken said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

If we don't put a man on the moon in 2027, 30, 35, or 40, do you think it would be time to be skeptical?

---

NO

---

Of course not. This is what happens on both sides. People get too invested in a position to the point nothing can open their mind to alternative possibilities and data.

If we haven't put a man on moon by 2040, there absolutely should be some level of skepticism, however tiny. Likewise, if we do put a man on the moon again, many others will still deny the original moon landing, despite their strongest arguments have been totally destroyed.

agracer said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

I think most Americans take the moon landing at face value. That is, you were taught that we landed on the moon, therefore, it must have been true. In 2024, we absolutely know our government tried to blame a global pandemic on a virus spread via a wet market. We also know our government told us Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction in his arsenal, though none have ever been verified. These are only two of countless verifiable inconsistencies with truth and what our government have told us. I would encourage you to research the lunar landing topic in more detail before adopting or maintaining a definitive position on the topic. During your research, be sure you can answer all of these questions:

1) How were the videos beamed to Earth from the moon? We've all driven past giant satellite dishes the broadcast companies use to send signals on Earth. How were they able to send signals from the moon to Earth without a similarly huge antennae? Also, how were those broadcasts powered? 239,000 miles is *a long way* for a signal to travel and as a result it would have to be a *very powerful* signal to make it that far.

2) Why is there no sign of even a slight blast crater below or around the lander?

3) The lunar lander pad surfaces are all shiny. Why was there no dust on those surfaces kicked up from the lander's thrusters?

4) Why do the crew of Apollo 11 (Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins) have a 'star' (it's actually shaped like the moon) on Hollywood's Walk of Fame? Mind you, the stars were awarded to members of the entertainment community.

There are countless other questions on this topic that should give any objective person pause before enthusiastically deriding those who are cautiously skeptical, especially when we know what we know about our government's track record with the truth.

---

oh my god you're one of them

---

Please. Ad hominem is NOT persuasive.

I don't particularly buy his argument, but if you're going to debate, DEBATE. If he's so easy to disprove, DO IT. But attacking him personally shows how weak YOU are.

This business about x number of people being in on it, thus it couldn't be a hoax, is often misleading. In the case of NASA/Apollo, that's probably true. But don't go down that rabbit hole of using that for everything. In many cases it is NOT true, or not NECESSARILY true. There has to be a showing that there was, indeed, many people "in on it." Thus, many people had to have known and had to have known it wasn't true.

People allege it is tough to keep a secret, but that's BS. I know all sorts of secrets. So does everyone reading this thread. EVERYONE has kept stuff from their parents; everyone who's ever been married has kept things from their spouse, even if it was something innocent. You've kept stuff from family members, even things others within your family have told you. For friends and acquaintances, multiply that by 10. For bosses, by 100 or more. I can assure you, if you know something that, if it got out would cost you money or would threaten your safety (real or imagined), you wouldn't tell. So spare me the idea that too many would have had to have been in on it for it to have been a hoax. That is simply not persuasive.

With that said, although I wasn't there, I'm as sure we landed on the moon as I am that the Germans bombed it.

---

This is your proof? LOL

Tell a few people a secret you kept from your spouse and she'll be asking you about it before the week is over.

It's not about 1 or even 2 people keeping a secret, it's about 1000's.

---

This is my reaction when I hear people say that not only was the 2020 election stolen, but that it was a coordinated effort between the federal government, multiple major media outlets and multiple state and county governments and jurisdictions.

Jeeper79 said:

---

This is my reaction when I hear people say that not only was the 2020 election stolen, but that it was a coordinated effort between the federal government, multiple major media outlets and multiple state and county governments and jurisdictions.

---

The federal government intervened to kill a factual damaging story, using multiple officials to claim it was Russian disinfo, and engaging with social media platforms to censor.

The media repeatedly claimed 2020 was "the fairest election in History", never challenged the fed's
Laptop gaslighting, and claimed mail ballot stuffing allegations lacked legal merit.

Local municipalities changed rules and engaged in new pandemic processes without proper state legislature oversight.

Mark Zuck further proved FBI election interference just a few weeks ago.

BlueTaze said:

---

You think the probability that the moon landing was staged is the same as the earth being flat or the feds demolishing the twin towers?

I think it's more embarassing to be unable to recognize a discernable difference between them.

---

These 3 things are usually believed by deniers. If they deny 1 more than likely they don't believe the other two. You haven't spent much time in those communities have you?

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.

---

We didn't destroy everything. Saturn V rockets are on display. So are the remaining unused L.E.M.s. Recovered command modules exist. We only go 1000th the distance because that's what our tech is designed for and current mission. Our current tech is more sensitive than 55 years ago.

How did we get through the belt? Very fast and through the thinnest part. Though there was one mission, 14 I believe, they went through the thick of it and guess what? They turned out just fine.

Your personal incredulity doesn't mean the moon landings were fake. 'nuh unh' is not a proper debunk.

Satellite of Love said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

You think the probability that the moon landing was staged is the same as the earth being flat or the feds demolishing the twin towers?

I think it's more embarassing to be unable to recognize a discernable difference between them.

---

These 3 things are usually believed by deniers. If they deny 1 more than likely they don't believe the other two. You haven't spent much time in those communities have you?

---

I think there are a ton of people who are skeptical of the moon landing, and moreso about JFk assassination who 100% deny BOTH flat earth and 9/11 truthers who they believe are in a totally different sphere. That's really my point with asigning a rational probability to all of them.

But if you are surrounded by flat earth 9/11 truthers, I can understand why you think that, I bet almost all of them outright deny the moon landing.

It's important to differentiate all those who think the moon landing most likely happened, but are open to data that suggests they are wrong and don't blindly trust the gov version of facts. Versus those who outright deny it.

Satellite of Love said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.

---

We didn't destroy everything. Saturn V rockets are on display. So are the remaining unused L.E.M.s. Recovered command modules exist. We only go 1000th the distance because that's what our tech is designed for and current mission. Our current tech is more sensitive than 55 years ago.

How did we get through the belt? Very fast and through the thinnest part. Though there was one mission, 14 I believe, they went through the thick of it and guess what? They turned out just fine.

Your personal incredulity doesn't mean the moon landings were fake. 'nuh unh' is not a proper debunk.

---

I don't believe the other missions occurred either. Getting through the Van Allen belt alive with that technology just wouldn't happen. If you believe that, it's no skin off my back.

Quote:

---

Getting through the Van Allen belt alive with that technology just wouldn't happen

---

Please cite reasons, sources, etc to back up your claim.

Furlock Bones said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

I must say, apparently we had some *outstanding* automated photography back in 1972... That camera kept Apollo 17 in frame - and even panned back *and up* and correctly zoomed at precisely the right time.

Apollo 17 lifts off from the Moon on December 14, 1972 pic.twitter.com/adJzo4HKeZ

— Fascinating (@fasc1nate) September 3, 2024

https://google.gprivate.com/search.php?images/search?q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972&form=HDRSC3&first=1&cw=1695&ch=2648&q=what+cameras+were+used+in+1972

---

Quote:

---

Apollo 17
A camera was mounted on a lunar rover that was parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The camera was controlled from Earth using an antenna on the rover. A NASA scientist calculated the trajectory and where the rover would be each second, and then scripted commands for the ascent.

---

---

And clearly the NASA scientist also correctly compensated for the time it took the scripted commands to travel 238,900 miles from earth to moon, based on the precise time of Apollo's liftoff.

---

you do realize at the time, the greatest minds in math, physics, science etc were working either directly for NASA or as consultants.

---

it would not be difficult to have it all timed and programed WAY AHEAD of time....but lets not facts get in the way of a dumb conspiracy theory.

The Kraken said:

---

Quote:

---

And all this brand new equipment worked perfectly the first time. In 1969. Wow.

---

None of the missions went perfectly. All had their glitches and moments, many minor but some more serious than others (Apollo 13). Apollo 12 was struck by lightning and nearly aborted during ascent. Apollo 11 went long on its trajectory to the landing site and had an overloaded landing computer that if not for some very knowledgeable controllers, would have aborted the landing. Apollo 14, the LM had an issue with a faulty switch giving an ABORT signal that could have automatically triggered an abort during descent that had to be worked around.

What about 1969 technology would have not allowed the missions to happen? Be specific.

---

lol. All of it. I have more computing power on my cellphone than nasa had for the mission in 1969.

It was such a historic mission, the astronauts came back and didn't want to talk about it for the rest of their lives.

TexAgs91 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.

---

The Van Allen belt isn't an impenetrable wall.

---

what was Rogen's point about the Van Allen belt?

Farmer_J said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Quote:

---

And all this brand new equipment worked perfectly the first time. In 1969. Wow.

---

None of the missions went perfectly. All had their glitches and moments, many minor but some more serious than others (Apollo 13). Apollo 12 was struck by lightning and nearly aborted during ascent. Apollo 11 went long on its trajectory to the landing site and had an overloaded landing computer that if not for some very knowledgeable controllers, would have aborted the landing. Apollo 14, the LM had an issue with a faulty switch giving an ABORT signal that could have automatically triggered an abort during descent that had to be worked around.

What about 1969 technology would have not allowed the missions to happen? Be specific.

---

lol. All of it. I have more computing power on my cellphone than nasa had for the mission in 1969.

It was such a historic mission, the astronauts came back and didn't want to talk about it for the rest of their lives.

---

True, we do have faster and smaller computers now. But what about the computing power at that time would have prevented it? Have you ever read about the Apollo Guidance Computer and how it worked on the CM and LM? Ever watched some videos on it?

As for the second statement...that's absolutely false.

Getting through the Van Allen belt alive with that technology just wouldn't happen.

^



Has an Ag tag.





sherlock... electronics can be shielded. it is not rocket science, but can be used there.

Certainly not using this snipit to disprove moon landing, but can't deny its an odd choice of words. "Remove one of truth's protective layers". I can understand digging deeper to discover new things about "science" "physics" "nature" etc. Truth is a strange term to draft in prepared remarks.

BlueTaze said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

So, we went to the moon over 50 years ago, then destroyed everything, and now we can only go 1000th of the distance with all of our modern technology? How did they even get through the Van Allen belt? We didn't go to the moon.

---

The Van Allen belt isn't an impenetrable wall.

---

I believe the argument here is that since the Apollo missions, the risk to life has been too great for re-pentrating the VA belt and revisiting moon. Back then, the need to win space race, elevate geopolitical stature above all others, and give hope to a demoralized American citizenry, was worth executing a moon landing.

We now have the Artemis program with phase 3 putting man back on the moon, originally scheduled for 2024, then 2025, now likely won't happen until after 2027.

---

The people typically bringing this up usually are just looking for a reason to say the astronauts couldn't have made the trip. And they typically have no idea what they're talking about.

It's true, you wouldn't want to be in an orbit through the getting a constant dose of radiation. But Apollo was moving through them. They traversed the inner belts in a matter of minutes and the outer belts in a matter of hours.

The astronauts wore radiation badges which measured the amount of radiation they received. It was less than you'd get from a CT scan of your chest.

These facts will of course not make any difference to those who insist on believing the conspiracy theory, so there's little point in talking to them about it unless they can at least show that they can think critically.

Ok, so what do you think the reason is for man not making a trip back to the moon since 72? Is it because the Apollo tech was destroyed? We haven't had the funding or support?

I think the most probable explanation is that since 72' the risk reward profile changed such that risking human life (space travel in general) was greater than any geopolitical advantage. So they put it on back burner until Artemis. A much less probable scenario would be that moon landings were staged, and we are only now getting capability to actually do it.

Theres actually a flight rates fully functional AGC that came out of one of the LEM test articles. The curiousmarc channel on YouTube restored and has run quite a bit of it.

Apparently my understanding is that Stafford, when the same channel got hold of some of the programming off memory modules that ended up being the Apollo 10 version of the LEM guidance, was less than amused to discover they'd lied to him about the thing not being able to land to get him to behave and not "accidentally" make the approach.

Joes said:

---

It's like questioning whether or not WW2 happened.

---

Great. Now you've sent the Bat Signal out to the Holocaust Deniers.

BlueTaze said:

---

Especially the argument that the Soviets didn't disprove, therefore it's real. There are so many other stronger arguements, so it's confusing why that is the one that always comes up.

---

Because those of us old enough to be around at the time knew that we were at war with Russia, and they would have exposed it in a millisecond

BlueTaze said:

---

Ok, so what do you think the reason is for man not making a trip back to the moon since 72? Is it because the Apollo tech was destroyed? We haven't had the funding or support?

I think the most probable explanation is that since 72' the risk reward profile changed such that risking human life (space travel in general) was greater than any geopolitical advantage. So they put it on back burner until Artemis. A much less probable scenario would be that moon landings were staged, and we are only now getting capability to actually do it.

---

Vietnam was going on, LBJ's "Great Society" was draining more and more money, and after a few missions the political will to spend money on space evaporated.

Politicians were horrible creatures then, too.

The outcry was "we're spending too much on space" and not enough on housing, education, health care, etc.

And "if we can go to the moon", why can't we fix (fill in the blank with politician's pet social program)

BlueTaze said:

---

Ok, so what do you think the reason is for man not making a trip back to the moon since 72? Is it because the Apollo tech was destroyed? We haven't had the funding or support?

I think the most probable explanation is that since 72' the risk reward profile changed such that risking human life (space travel in general) was greater than any geopolitical advantage. So they put it on back burner until Artemis. A much less probable scenario would be that moon landings were staged, and we are only now getting capability to actually do it.

---

The Apollo program died out because the goal was achieved and it cost too much money (at least according to the government... I was fine spending that kind of money on space exploration rather than the other stuff they would waste the money on).

After the Apollo program, Nasa proposed going to Mars. And to go to Mars we would need to build a large space station to build the mars vehicle and prepare for the mars mission. And to build the space station we would need a space shuttle.

They only approved the space shuttle. The shuttle was expensive and ate up all the budget. There were cheaper ways of launching payloads into orbit, but the shuttle was pushed as THE way to launch satellites into orbit to justify it's large price tag.

The space station was also a huge expense.

These were multi $billion programs that took years to develop and build while Nasa's budget went from over 4% of the US budget down to about .5%. There wasn't money to get back to the moon, and for several decades there wasn't much will to do it either (other than with space cadets like myself).

In the meantime NASA's bureaucracy grew to the point where it is now which stifled all innovation. You can't efficiently go to the moon with a bureaucracy.

BlueTaze said:

---

What is "obvious that I am refusing to see"? That was my question.

Are you saying it's obvious that a staged moon landing is the same unlikely probability as the earth being flat or feds demolishing twin towers?

Telling me to read a history book is worthless. I understand the cold war, and importance of the space race and it's mission to raise the US stature above Soviets. As well as the need to give hope to Americans demoralized on the heels of JFK assassination, that more likely than not, the CIA played a role in.

---

The claim that we didn't land on the moon is as demonstrably false as the claim that the earth is flat, yes.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The claim that we didn't land on the moon is as demonstrably false as the claim that the earth is flat, yes.

---

Lol, ok sure, the probability that the earth is flat is the same probability that the US gov staged a moon landing for geopolitical purposes.

I have always accepted we landed on the moon. I'm just open to any info that brings legitimate skepticism to the 60s cold war space race. But there is no doubt the evidence against the earth being flat is much greater than evidence against a staged moon landing.

Not going to name names, but there were a lot of "experts" during COVID who claimed certain things were "demonstrably false" while echoing the WHO and Fauci narratives. It didn't age well.

C@LAg said:

---

Getting through the Van Allen belt alive with that technology just wouldn't happen.

^



Has an Ag tag.





sherlock... electronics can be shielded. it is not rocket science, but can be used there.

---

There's an electrical 'engineer' with an Ag Tag who thinks Building 7 from the 9/11 attacks was brought down by explosives because one guy 'heard some booms' before the building came down.

Quote:

---

the probability that the earth is flat is the same probability that the US gov staged a moon landing for geopolitical purposes.

---

The probability of either is zero, so yes

Quote:

---

But there is no doubt the evidence against the earth being flat is much greater than evidence against a staged moon landing.

---

Ignoring for a moment that there is extensive, irrefutable evidence against both, there is no need for the evidence against any two events to be identical in volume for them to be equally unlikely. Definitively exclusionary evidence is such regardless of how much of it there is. DNA evidence can 100% exclude an individual from having committed a crime even if no other exclusionary evidence exists, for example.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The probability of either is zero, so yes

---

There is more evidence to disprove COVID wet market theory, than there is to disprove a staged moon landing. Yet, you and most of the country got totally duped by the gov early on into believing COVID likely came from a wet market, and not a lab like the "wacko conspiracy theorists" were claiming.

We have emails of gov officials flat out admitting they were pushing wet market nature transmission to keep the public from blaming lab leak. As far as I know, there is no official communication indicating the gov was trying to dupe the public into believing a staged moon landing was real.



*Saying there is a greater than zero chance that the moon landing was staged, doesn't mean you think we didn't land on moon. It just means you understand math.

No matter how many times you keep going back to COVID, it doesn't make the stupidity of "we faked the moon landing" any less stupid.

By your "logic" we should all believe Trump hired Crooks to shoot his ear to help in the election because anything can happen, just like COVID.

Stop trolling.

There are 0 official government emails and texts regarding the moon landing at that time... ZERO! They wouldn't have gotten rid of them all if it weren't fake!

Im Gipper said:

---

No matter how many times you keep going back to COVID, it doesn't make the stupidity of "we faked the moon landing" any less stupid.

By your "logic" we should all believe Trump hired Crooks to shoot his ear to help in the election because anything can happen, just like COVID.

Stop trolling.

---

It's embarrassing that you interpreted my post to mean a remote possibility of something happening means we should all believe it happened. Not to mention me never once claiming the moon landing was staged, or that we have anywhere near enough info to make that conclusion.

I'm not trolling. It's a good logical exercise, especially for those who knee jerk to absolutes. Asign a probability to wet market theory, and assign a probability to staged moon landing. Where do you come out? I think you or infectionAg should go first

We have tons of evidence indicating there was a coverup and people knew a hoax was going on during Covid. It's nothing like the moon landing.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

What is "obvious that I am refusing to see"? That was my question.

Are you saying it's obvious that a staged moon landing is the same unlikely probability as the earth being flat or feds demolishing twin towers?

Telling me to read a history book is worthless. I understand the cold war, and importance of the space race and it's mission to raise the US stature above Soviets. As well as the need to give hope to Americans demoralized on the heels of JFK assassination, that more likely than not, the CIA played a role in.

---

The claim that we didn't land on the moon is as demonstrably false as the claim that the earth is flat, yes.

---

Logic fail.

People who say it definitely happened are just as bad as the people say it definitely didn't happen.

None of us can verify one way or the other. There's some evidence that it happened, but then there's a lot of missing evidence that raises questions. Not to mention odd behavior from the astronauts afterwards. I suspect the truth is somewhere between the deniers and the official government story.