Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Your point is that there is zero evidence of a moon landing hoax being perpetrated?

---

I'm not sure if you are reading my posts you quote. I said there is more evidence to disprove wet market theory than staged moon landing. InfectionAg claimed there was 0% chance of a moon landing hoax....I'm challenging him/her to accept its non-zero, like he accepts wet market theory to be.

---

I have seen zero evidence of a moon landing hoax being perpetrated in eight pages of discussion, do you have some?

---

No, I dont, and I never once claimed there was evidence to prove the moon landing was a hoax, nor did I claim there was evidence proving the CIA was involved in JFK assassination.

I said there was less evidence to disprove those 2 theories than the theory that the COVID virus came from a wet market.

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Not gonna beat a dead horse.

But I do commend you for actually quoting my post. Most of the others can't use my own words to back up their assertions about my viewpoint. Instead they resort to claiming I said things I never said, and label me a "moon landing denier", despite countless posts of me directly stating I accept the Apollo landings.

When you do have some evidence, I'm sure most would be happy to discuss it with you.

Haha, if there was evidence proving either the moon landing was a hoax, or the CIA assassinated JFK, there would be no "happy" discussions to be had anywhere.

BlueTaze said:

---

No, I dont, and I never once claimed there was evidence to prove the moon landing was a hoax, nor did I claim there was evidence proving the CIA was involved in JFK assassination.

I said there was less evidence to disprove those 2 theories than the theory that the COVID virus came from a wet market.

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Not gonna beat a dead horse.

But I do commend you for actually quoting my post. Most of the others can't use my own words to back up their assertions about my viewpoint. Instead they resort to claiming I said things I never said, and label me a "moon landing denier", despite countless posts of me directly stating I accept the Apollo landings.

---

There doesn't need to be "evidence" to disprove the theory that the moon landing was a hoax. There needs to be evidence to even entertain the possibility that it was a hoax. There is none.

What evidence exists to entertain the idea that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination? If none exists, why isn't that theory thrown out on its face?

Yes, I know they are very different. However, the question posed is still legitimate based on the logic in your arguement.

BlueTaze said:

---

What evidence exists to entertain the idea that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination? If none exists, why isn't that theory thrown out on its face?

Yes, I know they are very different. However, the question posed is still legitimate based on the logic in your arguement.

---

I don't know.

Why don't you go ask that question on the JFK Assassinated by CIA thread?

This thread is about the moon.

Focus, man. Focus.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

No, I dont, and I never once claimed there was evidence to prove the moon landing was a hoax, nor did I claim there was evidence proving the CIA was involved in JFK assassination.

I said there was less evidence to disprove those 2 theories than the theory that the COVID virus came from a wet market.

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Not gonna beat a dead horse.

But I do commend you for actually quoting my post. Most of the others can't use my own words to back up their assertions about my viewpoint. Instead they resort to claiming I said things I never said, and label me a "moon landing denier", despite countless posts of me directly stating I accept the Apollo landings.

---

There doesn't need to be "evidence" to disprove the theory that the moon landing was a hoax. There needs to be evidence to even entertain the possibility that it was a hoax. There is none.

---

North Korea's dictator was just elected with 99.9% of the vote. Unless you have evidence, that was a completely legitimate election.

Anyone who says it was definitely fake are just as illogical as people saying it was definitely real. None of us know for sure, but there are a lot of strange occurrences surrounding the moon landing that should be questioned.

BlueTaze said:

---

What evidence exists to entertain the idea that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination? If none exists, why isn't that theory thrown out on its face?

Yes, I know they are very different. However, the question posed is still legitimate based on the logic in your arguement.

---

Personally I believe there's only a small chance there's much more to the Kennedy assassination, but certainly enough circumstantial evidence to at least think it is possible, and the government not releasing all information also contributes to that.

On the other hand, there's zero evidence the moon landing was a hoax, and zero realistic ways that it could even be accomplished practically.

Ag with kids said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

What evidence exists to entertain the idea that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination? If none exists, why isn't that theory thrown out on its face?

Yes, I know they are very different. However, the question posed is still legitimate based on the logic in your arguement.

---

I don't know.

Why don't you go ask that question on the JFK Assassinated by CIA thread?

This thread is about the moon.

Focus, man. Focus.

---

We can't use other conspiracy theories to justify logical arguements on how a moon landing hoax could determined to be disproven vs unproven?

Sorry didn't know you were the interent police. People here don't want to think beyond a narrow set of predetermined beliefs. I can understand how that's uncomfortable.

Farmer_J said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

No, I dont, and I never once claimed there was evidence to prove the moon landing was a hoax, nor did I claim there was evidence proving the CIA was involved in JFK assassination.

I said there was less evidence to disprove those 2 theories than the theory that the COVID virus came from a wet market.

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Not gonna beat a dead horse.

But I do commend you for actually quoting my post. Most of the others can't use my own words to back up their assertions about my viewpoint. Instead they resort to claiming I said things I never said, and label me a "moon landing denier", despite countless posts of me directly stating I accept the Apollo landings.

---

There doesn't need to be "evidence" to disprove the theory that the moon landing was a hoax. There needs to be evidence to even entertain the possibility that it was a hoax. There is none.

---

North Korea's dictator was just elected with 99.9% of the vote. Unless you have evidence, that was a completely legitimate election.

Anyone who says it was definitely fake are just as illogical as people saying it was definitely real. None of us know for sure, but there are a lot of strange occurrences surrounding the moon landing that should be questioned.

---

Now you're comparing apples and hand grenades. We know for a fact North Korea is a dictatorship and have plenty of evidence to prove that.

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

What evidence exists to entertain the idea that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination? If none exists, why isn't that theory thrown out on its face?

Yes, I know they are very different. However, the question posed is still legitimate based on the logic in your arguement.

---

I don't know.

Why don't you go ask that question on the JFK Assassinated by CIA thread?

This thread is about the moon.

Focus, man. Focus.

---

We can't use other conspiracy theories to justify logical arguements on how a moon landing hoax could determined to be disproven vs unproven?

Sorry didn't know you were the interent police. People here don't want to think beyond a narrow set of predetermined beliefs. I can understand how that's uncomfortable.

---

Since they're completely separate things, no...you can't. I mean, if you're trying to make a logical argument, you can't.

If you just want to be argumentative for S&G, then sure you can.

The CIA could have assassinated JFK and it would have absolutely ZERO bearing on the moon landing.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

there's much more to the Kennedy assassination, but certainly enough circumstantial evidence to at least think it is possible, and the government not releasing all information also contributes to that.

---

What evidence do you have that the gov is withholding any information that implicates the CIA in the JFK assassination? As far as I know, there is none, just like a moon landing hoax.

Ag with kids said:

---

The CIA could have assassinated JFK and it would have absolutely ZERO bearing on the moon landing.

---

I agree the events have no bearing on each other.

However, as pointed out, how we evaluate the validity of a conspiracy theory relative to the existence of evidence is worth fleshing out on a moon landing hoax thread. If you disagree, and think it has no place, fine.

BlueTaze said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

there's much more to the Kennedy assassination, but certainly enough circumstantial evidence to at least think it is possible, and the government not releasing all information also contributes to that.

---

What evidence do you have that the gov is withholding any information that implicates the CIA in the JFK assassination? As far as I know, there is none, just like a moon landing hoax.

---

They are withholding information on the assassination. That's a literal fact. Whether it also includes information that would implicate the cia is doubtful, but the fact that it hasn't all been released is enough to at least raise a small amount of doubt.

For the one millionth time, there is zero evidence the moon landing was faked. Your "just asking questions" obtuse shtick doesn't change that fact.

Quote:

---

Anyone who says it was definitely fake are just as illogical as people saying it was definitely real. None of us know for sure, but there are a lot of strange occurrences surrounding the moon landing that should be questioned.

---

What strange occurrences? We've already shot down the ones you listed previously. You have more?

No you haven't

Farmer_J said:

---

No you haven't

---

Classic.

Do you want to list them again?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

They are withholding information on the assassination. That's a literal fact. Whether it also includes information that would implicate the cia is doubtful, but the fact that it hasn't all been released is enough to at least raise a small amount of doubt.

---

So you are saying there is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA is implicated in the JFK assassination, but the possibility exists.

I agree. That is sound logic. But unlike others here, I am able to consistently apply that same logic to the moon landing conspiracy theory, but to a lower degree of doubt with the JFK assignation, and a higher degree of doubt with the COVID wet market theory.

It's somewhat disturbing that that position is so offensive to many here.

I think we can prove, or will be able to prove in near future, that the level of certainty that COVID came from a lab is higher or at least the same as the level of certainty that we landed on the moon. That too is an observation that bothers a lot of people. Especially InfectionAg, for obvious reasons.

*meant thumbs up, not down

BlueTaze said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

They are withholding information on the assassination. That's a literal fact. Whether it also includes information that would implicate the cia is doubtful, but the fact that it hasn't all been released is enough to at least raise a small amount of doubt.

---

So you are saying there is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA is implicated in the JFK assassination, but the possibility exists.

I agree. That is sound logic. But unlike others here, I am able to consistently apply that same logic to the moon landing conspiracy theory, but to a lower degree of doubt with the JFK assignation, and a higher degree of doubt with the COVID wet market theory.

It's somewhat disturbing that that position is so offensive to many here.

I think we can prove, or will be able to prove in near future, that the level of certainty that COVID came from a lab is higher or at least the same as the level of certainty that we landed on the moon. That too is an observation that bothers a lot of people. Especially InfectionAg, for obvious reasons.

*meant thumbs up, not down

---

We haven't seen all of the evidence and information around the JFK assassination as a good chunk of it is still classified (still 4,000+ documents are sealed). If they released the rest and there was still no evidence then the chances of that conspiracy being true also go to zero.

There is nothing else to come out about the moon landing or else it already would have. I noticed that you have also ignored the second reason why there's a zero percent chance it was faked - it's functionally impossible to present a realistic scenario for how that could happen.

BlueTaze said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The CIA could have assassinated JFK and it would have absolutely ZERO bearing on the moon landing.

---

I agree the events have no bearing on each other.

However, as pointed out, how we evaluate the validity of a conspiracy theory relative to the existence of evidence is worth fleshing out on a moon landing hoax thread. If you disagree, and think it has no place, fine.

---

There is a huge difference between the two.

For the JFK one, we KNOW he was assassinated. That is not in question. Potentially, there are issues surrounding who did it, though. But, JFK was assassinated.

For the moon one, we KNOW we landed on the moon. Now, there may be aspects of the mission that are in question (maybe the CIA was involved, j/k). But, we landed on the moon.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

We haven't seen all of the evidence and information around the JFK assassination as a good chunk of it is still classified (still 4,000+ documents are sealed). If they released the rest and there was still no evidence then the chances of that conspiracy being true also go to zero.

---

So if Kamala wins, and she has Garland release all the JFK docs, then Chris Wray testifies that it's complete. Then on top of that, John Brennan confirms under oath the CIA had nothing to do with JFK assassination. Finally, a bipartisan commitee headed by Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and Swallwell all reaffirmed.

Under that type of scenario, you would conclude that the JFK conspiracy theory was totally debunked, with 0% chance, just like a faked moon landing?

Ag with kids said:

---

For the JFK one, we KNOW he was assassinated. That is not in question. Potentially, there are issues surrounding who did it, though. But, JFK was assassinated.

For the moon one, we KNOW we landed on the moon. Now, there may be aspects of the mission that are in question (maybe the CIA was involved, j/k). But, we landed on the moon.

---

Honestly, seems futile to engage you with that take. No one ever compared the event of actual assassination to the moon landing. For you to argue "we know JFK was assassinated" shows how far away your are from the logic at hand being exercised.

It's the CIA's involvement in the assassination that is the conspiracy theory being compared to a moon landing hoax theory. No one ever claimed JFK wasn't assassinated.

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

But if the moon is made of cheese why can we not see melted cheese where the orbiter landed??? Ever think about that?

My source is youtube therefore indisputable.

---

See Wallace and Grommit for proof.

Right now on the Science Channel, there's a show on this subject.

Truth Behind the Moon Landing

Apparently it has a former astronaut and a conspiracy theorist on the show.

We are watching the new pride of ignorance. People all over the earth are willingly accepted a foregoing of our known human history for a more exciting claim of gnostic scepticism.

It makes them feel special.