Quote:

---

Then again no one's talked on JFK after all these years.

---

But someone did talk. Mr X explained the whole plot to Jim Garrison!



(There is at least one Texags poster who believes that was a factual event)

Daddy said:

---

Always believed in the landing

But like Rogan there are some things that make you doubt. Besides of course how much our govt has lied to us. Immensely

Best argument for it
Russia and everyone would scream bloody Murder you faked it. This has no #2.

Hard for someone not to talk. Then again no one's talked on JFK after all these years.

Best argument against it
Easy
It's been over 50 years, we have more technology in our watch from Apple that all the computers combined. Not only has the United States not gone back but not one other country. The rocket technology, the computers to solve the calculations and math,
The material technology, the radio and video technology.

So much greater. 10x better? Computers 10000x better.
Noones gone or tried.

Photos no stars in the background despite no atmosphere?


Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

---

From earlier:

" only further reinforces the fact that there's a knowledge gulf that won't be crossed here."

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

---

Well, then, what are these "lots" of reasons?

It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to do it.

And at the end, you have someone on the moon. Which we've done multiple times. Yay???

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

---

torrid said:

---

I'm so torn here. The heat of re-entry IS enough to melt metal.

---

But not hot enough to melt the heat shield. Which is why they protected the metal with heat shields.

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

---

Zero reasons.

Nasa of course will claim otherwise, but they are the ones getting the money, not the ones funding it.

Why are you guys so focused on debating if the Moon landing was real when we still haven't established that the Moon itself is real?

TXAG 05 said:

---

Always love the "no stars in the pictures" excuse. Take a picture of something at night without a long exposure time and see if there are any stars.

---

Yeah, that's one a collection of hilarious arguments I regularly see that baffles me, just like the "flag is waving" one too, because it blows my mind that they think NASA would put those out if the landing was really faked. Those are exactly the kinds of things that would be artificially "corrected" if it was faked because they're so obvious. This whole thing is kind of maddening, this insistence from people who know nothing about what they're talking about that they can "see through the deception" because they want to just be contrarian. And then they ask how a small descent vehicle on the moon can go faster than an SR-71 on earth.

It always comes off at the level of those (admittedly fun and campy) 1950s sci-fi movies where someone will say that the alien came from "a million miles across the galaxy!". It's that revealing level of ignorance that just makes you want to say "Oh my gosh, please just stop talking, it hurts my head to try to process this inanity." And it's not about not knowing something, heck there's all kinds of stuff I don't know about, but it's the desire from those same people to say "Gotcha!" that's the frustrating part.

Daddy said:

---

Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

---

You must not have asked an engineer. There is no friction due to air in space.

I am an aerospace engineer, and I can tell you that the overwhelmingly vast majority of loads on an airframe come from interaction with the air. Even in 9G pullouts and other high speed maneuvers, the distributed aerodynamic loads dominate every load case compared to the inertia loads.

In space, those components are - zero. AND - the energy going into developing speed is not reduced at all by drag, so as long as you apply an impulse from the engine, the craft keeps accelerating. Very small engines can achieve very large velocities that way.

There is no valid argument against saying we went to the moon. It just makes a person look dumb to even entertain such a thought.

Ag with kids said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

---

Well, then, what are these "lots" of reasons?

It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to do it.

And at the end, you have someone on the moon. Which we've done multiple times. Yay???

---

Natural resources, moon base station to further other exploration and testing of space tech, refueling/powering other endeavors.

But if you and ATM think there are zero reasons other than proving we did it with Apollo that's pretty funny. That would mean the ONLY reason in your mind with original moon landing was to win the cold war with Soviets, which would ironically fuel the denier's arguement that it was all optics propaganda for geopolitical gain.

If you wanna argue cost/benefit, fine. But to claim there are no benefits or reasons is pretty ridiculous.

Daddy said:

---

Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

---

How long did it take for the NASA guy to stop laughing after you asked him that?

DeLaHonta said:

---

Why are you guys so focused on debating if the Moon landing was real when we still haven't established that the Moon itself is real?

---

True.

Can you believe that some folks believe in "the moon"?

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

---

Well, then, what are these "lots" of reasons?

It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to do it.

And at the end, you have someone on the moon. Which we've done multiple times. Yay???

---

Natural resources, moon base station to further other exploration and testing of space tech, refueling/powering other endeavors.

But if you and ATM think there are zero reasons other than proving we did it with Apollo that's pretty funny. That would mean the ONLY reason in your mind with original moon landing was to win the cold war with Soviets, which would ironically fuel the denier's arguement that it was all optics propaganda for geopolitical gain.

If you wanna argue cost/benefit, fine. But to claim there are no benefits or reasons is pretty ridiculous.

---

I never said there were NO benefits. Sure, you could always find something like "advancing science" or something like that.

But, the cost to go there means it's not worth doing. Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. There are much better uses for that money...

BTW, it WAS optics propaganda for geopolitical gain. The optics of actually walking on the moon was a huge FU to the Soviets.

You questioned if there were any reasons other than to say we did it. It's quoted in your post. Now, you are pivoting to a seperate cost benefit arguement when coming to the realization it was a dumb post. Classic F16.

Then you top it off with an arguement that Apollo was all a display of geopolitical theater to one up the Soviets. That could be achieved with one landing, why 6?

fc2112 said:

---

Daddy said:

---

Here's a science question and I asked the guy at NASA when I took my kids there 7, or 8 years ago

It takes roughly 25,000 miles an hour to escape the Earth's gravitational force

What speed is required to escape the moons? Ive read it's roughly 20% so that's 5000 mph

Could that little lunar ship get to that speed? That's faster than a sr 71 and that plane has 2 huge engines and tons of fuel. I understand their gravity is much lower but you still got to get to that speed.

---

You must not have asked an engineer. There is no friction due to air in space.

I am an aerospace engineer, and I can tell you that the overwhelmingly vast majority of loads on an airframe come from interaction with the air. Even in 9G pullouts and other high speed maneuvers, the distributed aerodynamic loads dominate every load case compared to the inertia loads.

In space, those components are - zero. AND - the energy going into developing speed is not reduced at all by drag, so as long as you apply an impulse from the engine, the craft keeps accelerating. Very small engines can achieve very large velocities that way.

There is no valid argument against saying we went to the moon. It just makes a person look dumb to even entertain such a thought.

---

I'll post it again:

Quote:

---

From earlier:

" only further reinforces the fact that there's a knowledge gulf that won't be crossed here."

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids 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?

---

What benefit is there to putting a man on the moon again?

Other than to prove a bunch of conspiracy nuts wrong...

---

Lots of reasons.
A lot more benefits than funding foreign wars. But I see there is now a DEI element, so maybe thats reason for current delay.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/

---

Well, then, what are these "lots" of reasons?

It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to do it.

And at the end, you have someone on the moon. Which we've done multiple times. Yay???

---

Natural resources, moon base station to further other exploration and testing of space tech, refueling/powering other endeavors.

But if you and ATM think there are zero reasons other than proving we did it with Apollo that's pretty funny. That would mean the ONLY reason in your mind with original moon landing was to win the cold war with Soviets, which would ironically fuel the denier's arguement that it was all optics propaganda for geopolitical gain.

If you wanna argue cost/benefit, fine. But to claim there are no benefits or reasons is pretty ridiculous.

---

Natural resources? You realize that a Saturn V launch cost almost $3.5B each (in 2024 dollars)? And they only brought back about 100kg of moon rocks? We actually left MORE resources on the moon than we came back with. That would be the worst investment in the history of mankind. And all the other stuff you mentioned would be about as bad as investments as that. The cost benefit of all of that would be HUGE cost and nearly no benefit.

And it WAS just for optics and geopolitical gain. It was to prove that our system of government was superior to theirs. Deniers who also make that claim would finally be right about something. That doesn't mean they are right about it being faked. It's the difference between being right that Columbus discovered America in 1492 and claiming that Columbus faked the whole thing.

BlueTaze said:

---

You questioned if there were any reasons other than to say we did it. It's quoted in your post. Now, you are pivoting to a seperate cost benefit arguement when coming to the realization it was a dumb post. Classic F16.

Then you top it off with an arguement that Apollo was all a display of geopolitical theater to one up the Soviets. That could be achieved with one landing, why 6?

---

Many argued that we should only go there once. Including a few people at NASA.

The reason they kept going was because politicians fell for the sunk cost fallacy and that NASA employees wanted to keep the gravy train going.

BlueTaze said:

---

You questioned if there were any reasons other than to say we did it. It's quoted in your post. Now, you are pivoting to a seperate cost benefit arguement when coming to the realization it was a dumb post. Classic F16.

Then you top it off with an arguement that Apollo was all a display of geopolitical theater to one up the Soviets. That could be achieved with one landing, why 6?

---

I'm sorry but your arguments just come off like doubting that we ever had a real space shuttle because we quit using them, too.

The original motivation and financing was overwhelmingly due to politics, but that doesn't mean there weren't still legitimate scientific achievements and benefits, Every NASA mission before and after the first moon landing was a learning experience but there came a period of diminishing returns at the same time the public had lost interest and the money was drying up. So they did a few more since they now had the ability, trying a few new things each time, until the money dried up and then they cancelled several of them. Then they pivoted to Skylab and Voyager and Viking and the rest.

I mean, it's one of the most documented events in human history, not just Apollo 11 but the whole series of missions before and after. It was videoed and photographed and broadcast, there are reflectors on the moon, photos of the landing sites have been taken, they were tracked by the Russians at the time who have never even questioned it, and they went repeatedly, and every technical question has been answered over and over.

The risk and expense of sending people into space is 99% of the time not worth it when things can be done remotely for the majority of the solar system exploration that's been done for decades. It was extraordinarily dangerous to do what they did. When it's practical for manned missions to go back we will, and we'll go to Mars.

Yes, there was a race to beat the Soviets...but there was also a focus on scientific exploration and research with missions to varying geological area of the moon. Some astronauts like Frank Borman had zero interest in the science, they were solely fixated on getting to the moon first....while others took great interest in exploring the moon and the research and experiments.

BlueTaze is a denier. He's trying his hardest to not out right make it seem that way by his convoluted posts. He sprinkles in denier logic here and there.

I just recently came across this video in all my moon hoax debunking time.

Satellite of Love said:

---

BlueTaze is a denier. He's trying his hardest to not out right make it seem that way by his convoluted posts. He sprinkles in denier logic here and there.

---

Would you like to provide a quote of mine here that suggests I'm a "denier", or maybe a convoluted post that I can break down in a way that even you would understand?

aTmAg said:

---

And it WAS just for optics and geopolitical gain. It was to prove that our system of government was superior to theirs.

---

I'm not pumped about the Artemis program, as we have a major debt problem that needs to be addressed. However, for you to say it's the worst investment of mankind, with no reason other than to say we went, is nuts. You have to be trolling, you can't really be that dumb.

I can think of tons of gov expenditures that are much worse than a moon base. Instead of doubling down, you should have just said you were being sarcastic or joking. Now I know you really think that nonsense.

I suppose in your view, this JFK speech was also just political theater to beat the Soviets, prove we could do something they couldn't, so there would be a nuke stand down.

BlueTaze said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

BlueTaze is a denier. He's trying his hardest to not out right make it seem that way by his convoluted posts. He sprinkles in denier logic here and there.

---

Would you like to provide a quote of mine here that suggests I'm a "denier", or maybe a convoluted post that I can break down in a way that even you would understand?

---

Any one of the ones where you kept pushing that tie moon landing wasn't a 0% chance it didn't happen because of the wet market theory. Somehow you use denier logic to tie the two events together as f they are connected.
You jumped in with this:

Quote:

---

The US hasn't even officially debunked the wet market theory on COVID and confirmed it came from a lab. In fact, the US gov actively pushed a lie. They knowingly pushed a lie about wet market to preserve funding and prevent focus on the source.

That tells you all you need to know....also.

---

You also tried to argue that moon landing deniers aren't the same as 911 Truthers and flerfs. They are one in the same.

The 1960s were the perfect mix of cold war, emerging technology, and the need to inspire a fractured nation that allowed a huge program like the moon landing to exist.

torrid said:

---

The 1960s were the perfect mix of cold war, emerging technology, and the need to inspire a fractured nation that allowed a huge program like the moon landing to exist.

---

I imagine that NASA of the 60's was much closer to the SpaceX of today.While the NASA of today more closely resembles the DMV than the NASA of the 60's. Decades of bureaucratic bloat and regulation make it impossible to do what was achievable 50 years ago with seemingly primitive technology.

It's the perfect example of the lifecycle of government run markets. Starts off great, then slowly grinds to a halt over decades while stifling progress in that area over the long term... essentially freezing time where that market was taken over by government.

BlueTaze said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

And it WAS just for optics and geopolitical gain. It was to prove that our system of government was superior to theirs.

---

I'm not pumped about the Artemis program, as we have a major debt problem that needs to be addressed. However, for you to say it's the worst investment of mankind, with no reason other than to say we went, is nuts. You have to be trolling, you can't really be that dumb.

---

A moon landing denier calling somebody else dumb? That is rich.

And I'm saying that to NOW spend billions of dollars per launch to go to the moon to get a few thousand dollars of "resources" would be the worst investment of mankind. No sane person would invest in that. Only a government who can FORCE "investors" to pay would ever do so.

I'm also inclined to say that the original Apollo program was also a big waste of money too, but that is less clear. If the Soviets beat us, would that have inspired half of the world to convert to communism in the aftermath? Probably not, but maybe? If us winning kept something like that from happening, then it was probably a good investment. I doubt it, but we can never know for sure.

Quote:

---

I can think of tons of gov expenditures that are much worse than a moon base. Instead of doubling down, you should have just said you were being sarcastic or joking. Now I know you really think that nonsense.

---

Every penny taxed and spent on stuff like moon bases is money that could have been invested in factories to build more stuff to make our lives vastly better. Our lives are not improved at all by having a moon base. Even the supposed "technological" improvements argument is bogus. The private sector is much better at technological innovation than the government will ever be. Just look where we have advanced and where we have not. It's no accident that we have advanced very quickly in electronics and that is one of the few sectors where government is absent.

So by taking money from the private sector and forcing it to be spent on moon shot technology, we certainly SLOWED DOWN our technological advancement elsewhere. Hell, we almost certainly slowed it down in space too. Just look at what has happened in space now that NASA no longer monopolizes it through the space shuttle. SpaceX has moved space technology more in 10 years than NASA has done in their entire history.

Does that mean there aren't other government expenditures that are worse? No. But we shouldn't waste it on any of it.

Quote:

---

I suppose in your view, this JFK speech was also just political theater to beat the Soviets, prove we could do something they couldn't, so there would be a nuke stand down.

---

Is this supposed to be a good point? JFK was not a foreign policy genius. Most of his "triumphs" were him cleaning his own mess.

Sad. First, you try to marginalize me as a "moon landing denier", when on this very thread, many times, I have stated I accept that we landed on moon. Just because I believe there is a non-zero chance I have been duped, doesn't make me a "denier". Just because people think there is a possibility the CIA could have been involved in JFKs murder, doesn't mean they are deranged conspiracy nuts either.

And of course you continue to pivot on your statements. You originally said there are "zero reasons" and that it would be the "worst investment in mankind" to go back to moon now. But now you are saying there are reasons, like " a few thousand" in natural resources, without acknowledging the other reasons I mentioned, moon base etc.

Then you introduced a totally seperate arguement about private vs gov space programs, implying that I was in any way arguing NASA is better at execution. Another red herring.

To bring this back around to the OP, I will just say that Matt Walsh, the destroyer of deniers, also believes there is a non-zero chance the moon landing was staged. On Rogan, he said he was open to the possibility that new info could surface that changed things.

There are 2 types of people on this thread. Those who believe there is a non-zero chance the gov duped us on moon landing, and those who believe it's an absolute impossibility, and that any new info suggesting it didn't happen would certainly be fake or manufactured. For some very odd reason, many poster here can't differentiate the 2. Instead they scream and point "denier", a tactic that leftists use all the time.