moon landing

  • 38 Replies
  • 1059 Views
*

Canary

  • 170
moon landing
« on: April 24, 2019, 08:52:03 AM »
FE believers believe that moon landing was fake and made some argument about moon landing.
but the problem is almost all of them have been debunked in wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
so if anyone have a critique on wikipedia page about moonlanding conspiracy theory,i would be glad to hear it. 

Re: moon landing
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2019, 10:11:21 AM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded

*

Canary

  • 170
Re: moon landing
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2019, 10:28:46 AM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded
do you believe all conspiracy theory are false?

Re: moon landing
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2019, 10:33:35 AM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded
do you believe all conspiracy theory are false?

no
but that moon landing is fake
is bs


*

Canary

  • 170
Re: moon landing
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2019, 10:36:23 AM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded
do you believe all conspiracy theory are false?


no
but that moon landing is fake
is bs
so what kind of conspiracy theory do you think is true?

Re: moon landing
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2019, 12:05:40 PM »
A journalist went to a FE meetup and interviewed a bunch of them. He said the common pattern was they already believed in multiple conspiracy theories and so youtube suggest FE videos and over the course of time, they added FE to their conspiracy list. I think some are just in love with conspiracy, and this is possibly the mother of all conspiracies, often linked with the Rothschild and Illuminati. I wonder if they know Illuminati was a real and very specific thing?

"Never blame conspiracy when stupidity is an adequate explanation" - Jimster

Conspiracy is a way of explaining many things that would otherwise be absurd. Those who don't need conspiracy to explain things are more likely to be right in how we understand things. Those who accept conspiracy have a much greater freedom to see reality different ways, and for some, that is a good thing. Eventually, conspiracy becomes a drug for some.
Is it possible for something to be both true and unproven?

Are things that are true and proven any different from things that are true but not proven?

*

Canary

  • 170
Re: moon landing
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2019, 12:37:03 PM »
A journalist went to a FE meetup and interviewed a bunch of them. He said the common pattern was they already believed in multiple conspiracy theories and so youtube suggest FE videos and over the course of time, they added FE to their conspiracy list. I think some are just in love with conspiracy, and this is possibly the mother of all conspiracies, often linked with the Rothschild and Illuminati. I wonder if they know Illuminati was a real and very specific thing?

"Never blame conspiracy when stupidity is an adequate explanation" - Jimster

Conspiracy is a way of explaining many things that would otherwise be absurd. Those who don't need conspiracy to explain things are more likely to be right in how we understand things. Those who accept conspiracy have a much greater freedom to see reality different ways, and for some, that is a good thing. Eventually, conspiracy becomes a drug for some.
well if you believe in one conspiracy theory it would be easier to believe other.because you will find that goverment can lie easily and that is not gonna superise any flat earth believer.
one explanation is because they like CT they believe other the other explanation is because they discover a CT they would believe easier other CT. 

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: moon landing
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2019, 03:43:45 PM »
A journalist went to a FE meetup and interviewed a bunch of them. He said the common pattern was they already believed in multiple conspiracy theories and so youtube suggest FE videos and over the course of time, they added FE to their conspiracy list. I think some are just in love with conspiracy, and this is possibly the mother of all conspiracies, often linked with the Rothschild and Illuminati. I wonder if they know Illuminati was a real and very specific thing?

"Never blame conspiracy when stupidity is an adequate explanation" - Jimster

Conspiracy is a way of explaining many things that would otherwise be absurd. Those who don't need conspiracy to explain things are more likely to be right in how we understand things. Those who accept conspiracy have a much greater freedom to see reality different ways, and for some, that is a good thing. Eventually, conspiracy becomes a drug for some.
well if you believe in one conspiracy theory it would be easier to believe other.because you will find that goverment can lie easily and that is not gonna superise any flat earth believer.
one explanation is because they like CT they believe other the other explanation is because they discover a CT they would believe easier other CT.
And Flat Earth believers have to believe many conspiracies to explain how the true shape of the earth could be hidden from ordinary people for some 500 or 2300 years, depending who is "telling the story".
If you want to learn about "Flat Earth Conspiracies" Mark Sargent's your man!

God, Aliens, & Conspiracy Theories, Oh My! Mark Sargent vs. Dr. Jeff Zweerink (Highlight)
Especially from about 2:55 or (if you're up to a new version of history ::)): YouTube: FLAT EARTH Clues Introduction - Mark Sargent

Some conspiracies are simply ridiculous and hurtful to many innocent people and I would class the Sandy Hook Massacre and probably the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia disasters.

Other conspiracy theories are perhaps more understandable and a few have been proven true.

But real missions carried out professionally and intended to be secret with plausible "cover stories" never get called conspiracies.
One such was the so-called deep-sea research and exploration ship, the Glomar Explorer - it was certainly "exploration" but hardly a research vessel..

In reality, it was a CIA operation to retrieve the Soviet Golf II class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, the K-129, without Russia learning what they were doing.
Quote from: Julia Barton
Confirmed: The CIA's most famous ship headed for the scrapyard
The Hughes Glomar Explorer was more than just a giant ship — it was a giant secret, possibly the biggest and strangest covert operation the CIA pulled off during the Cold War. But now, 40 years after its original mission, it’s finally headed to the scrapyard.

The ship’s origin story began in March 1968, when a Soviet Golf II class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, the K-129, sank in the Pacific Ocean. This was at the height of a high-risk cat-and-mouse game between the USA and the USSR. After the Soviet Navy failed to pinpoint the location of the wreckage, the US Navy found it. So the CIA decided to raise it off the seabed. They called this mission “Project Azorian,” and its details have been an official secret for decades. It took three years for retired CIA employee David Sharp to get permission to publish in 2012 his account of the mission and his role.

If a well-funded organisation like, NASA, were faking the Moon missions and space flight in general surely they would have done a better cover-up job and possibly even employed the CIA's assistance - who better ;)?.
For example:
  • Why make so many "easily detected mistakes" in the photos taken on the Moon?

  • Why put the astronauts in the Challenger disaster back into the community with the same or very similar names. It's no great problem changing one's name and I'm certain that NASA could easily have had the old name recorded as deceased even if it was a simple name change.

    At least a name change would make casual snooping far more difficult.

Re: moon landing
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2019, 04:42:42 PM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded
do you believe all conspiracy theory are false?


no
but that moon landing is fake
is bs
so what kind of conspiracy theory do you think is true?

Watergate
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

Canary

  • 170
Re: moon landing
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2019, 04:46:54 PM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded
do you believe all conspiracy theory are false?


no
but that moon landing is fake
is bs
so what kind of conspiracy theory do you think is true?

Watergate
that already have been prove and was not a conspiracy theory!

Re: moon landing
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2019, 02:09:59 AM »
moon landing is real

anyone who tells you otherwise only wants attention or is borderline retarded
do you believe all conspiracy theory are false?


no
but that moon landing is fake
is bs
so what kind of conspiracy theory do you think is true?

Watergate
that already have been prove and was not a conspiracy theory!

I obviously have high standards then ;)
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22442
Re: moon landing
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2019, 02:13:09 AM »
Don't place disbelief in the moon landings as being solely due to flat Earth believers because there's a hell of a lot of people from all walks of life that do not believe they happened.

And as far as labelling people stupid because they believe in conspiracy theories....that reeks of a desperate attempt to simply mark anyone out that dares to go against the mainstream narrative as basically, nut cases.

Any person that thinks we should not question anything is clearly not your ordinary run of the mill everyday person as part of the people of society but is 99.9% likely to be part of those who ensure the mainstream narrative stays as is.

The 0.1% who go against conspiracy theories are merely following the pied piper narrative just because it makes them feel important or the are afraid to even dare point a little finger at anything as a potential conspiracy for fear they become the exact same target they willingly placed others into.

Anyone that thinks we live in a truthful governed society is naive in the absolute extreme.

*

Omega

  • 869
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: moon landing
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2019, 02:37:43 AM »


Any person that thinks we should not question anything is clearly not your ordinary run of the mill everyday person as part of the people of society but is 99.9% likely to be part of those who ensure the mainstream narrative stays as is.

The problem isn't asking questions. The problem is cherry-picking your answers.

There is a very easy and immediately observable piece of evidence that the moon landings where real.

The Russians never challenged it.

Don't forget, this was at the hight of the cold war and the moon race was very much a pissing contest between the USSR and the US. If there had been ANY evidence that the moon landings where faked, the Russians would have come out with that as soon as they had it.

They never did.

What they did do was shelve their own lunar program because there was no value in getting there second, in essence admitting the US got there first.

Any and all other arguments are secondary in these discussions because talk of moon mirrors and rocks are hand-waved by the staunchest lunar-denier. But this 'USSR didn't challenge it' argument can be tested in five minutes of googling and is unassailable.

The annoying thing about this simple piece of evidence is that it basically makes the whole FE notion unravel at all its poorly crafted seams.

Moon landing=real means:

- Space flight is real
- Satellites are real
- Photos of the earth are real
- The earth is round
« Last Edit: April 25, 2019, 02:50:35 AM by Omega »
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22442
Re: moon landing
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2019, 03:09:03 AM »


Any person that thinks we should not question anything is clearly not your ordinary run of the mill everyday person as part of the people of society but is 99.9% likely to be part of those who ensure the mainstream narrative stays as is.

The problem isn't asking questions. The problem is cherry-picking your answers.

There is a very easy and immediately observable piece of evidence that the moon landings where real.

The Russians never challenged it.

Don't forget, this was at the hight of the cold war and the moon race was very much a pissing contest between the USSR and the US. If there had been ANY evidence that the moon landings where faked, the Russians would have come out with that as soon as they had it.

They never did.

What they did do was shelve their own lunar program because there was no value in getting there second, in essence admitting the US got there first.

Any and all other arguments are secondary in these discussions because talk of moon mirrors and rocks are hand-waved by the staunchest lunar-denier. But this 'USSR didn't challenge it' argument can be tested in five minutes of googling and is unassailable.

The annoying thing about this simple piece of evidence is that it basically makes the whole FE notion unravel at all its poorly crafted seams.

Moon landing=real means:

- Space flight is real
- Satellites are real
- Photos of the earth are real
- The earth is round
The mere fact that you said the Russians never challenged it, as your proof is enough for me to know that you simply follow the narrative of mainstream officials, which appears to most likely be, unconditional.

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: moon landing
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2019, 03:36:32 AM »
The mere fact that you said the Russians never challenged it, as your proof is enough for me to know that you simply follow the narrative of mainstream officials, which appears to most likely be, unconditional.
No one claimed that the Russians failure to challenge the lunar missions is, in itself,  proof that the lunar landings were really.
That is just more piece of evidence to be added to the rest of the evidence.

You don't have proof or even solid evidence that the landings were not factual.

You simply have to insist that they cannot be real because any space missions would conflict with your world view.and nit because you have any solid contrary evidence.

But it is so telling and more evidence that you, yourself, are quite bereft of real augments that you so often resort to accusations like "you simply follow the narrative of mainstream officials, which appears to most likely be, unconditional."

*

Omega

  • 869
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: moon landing
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2019, 03:46:16 AM »
The mere fact that you said the Russians never challenged it, as your proof is enough for me to know that you simply follow the narrative of mainstream officials, which appears to most likely be, unconditional.

Wait, hold on. So you're not actually responding to the evidence itself here.

Apart from what Rabinoz said, you are ignoring an historical fact.

Or are you saying historical record of the cold war and the USSR's response to the moon landings are somehow altered?

Are you saying that there is a conspiracy, which has to include literally millions of people who where alive during the sixties and seventies, to hide that the USSR in fact did claim the lunar landings where a hoax?
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22442
Re: moon landing
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2019, 01:04:03 PM »
The mere fact that you said the Russians never challenged it, as your proof is enough for me to know that you simply follow the narrative of mainstream officials, which appears to most likely be, unconditional.

Wait, hold on. So you're not actually responding to the evidence itself here.

Apart from what Rabinoz said, you are ignoring an historical fact.
I'm questioning and not accepting a historical storyline.


Quote from: Omega
Or are you saying historical record of the cold war and the USSR's response to the moon landings are somehow altered?
I'm saying that there may not have been any cold war...maybe more of a pretence of it.
You don't generally have monumental fall outs with your neighbour and then allow your siblings to all play in each others gardens whilst you all decide to have a barbecue and a few cans of beer before you decide to announce things have taken a turn for the worse again....and so on and so on and so on.

Quote from: Omega
Are you saying that there is a conspiracy, which has to include literally millions of people who where alive during the sixties and seventies, to hide that the USSR in fact did claim the lunar landings where a hoax?
The usual hundreds of thousands and million have to know this and that and can't possible be duped.

Why do you people consistently use this line?

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: moon landing
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2019, 02:12:31 PM »
The mere fact that you said the Russians never challenged it, as your proof is enough for me to know that you simply follow the narrative of mainstream officials, which appears to most likely be, unconditional.

Wait, hold on. So you're not actually responding to the evidence itself here.

Apart from what Rabinoz said, you are ignoring an historical fact.
I'm questioning and not accepting a historical storyline.


Quote from: Omega
Or are you saying historical record of the cold war and the USSR's response to the moon landings are somehow altered?
I'm saying that there may not have been any cold war...maybe more of a pretence of it.
You don't generally have monumental fall outs with your neighbour and then allow your siblings to all play in each others gardens whilst you all decide to have a barbecue and a few cans of beer before you decide to announce things have taken a turn for the worse again....and so on and so on and so on.

Quote from: Omega
Are you saying that there is a conspiracy, which has to include literally millions of people who where alive during the sixties and seventies, to hide that the USSR in fact did claim the lunar landings where a hoax?
The usual hundreds of thousands and million have to know this and that and can't possible be duped.

Why do you people consistently use this line?
Ok, YOU don't believe any of this. So what there's seems to be little that you do believe.

So you have no evidence against the lunar missions.
By the way, I was around at the time of the development of the nuclear weapons from the late 1945s, the launching of the first satellite in 1957, the cold war, the Korean war, the Berlin crisis of 1961, the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the development of the space program and the lunar missions from the mid-196s to December 1972.

There's not a shadow of a doubt that the Cold War was real and that early nuclear tests were real.

Not only that but there is a lot of 3rd party evidence for the lunar missions and especially for Apollo 11.

Sceppy, don't bother reading the rest. You'll only ridicule it.

There is evidence from amateur radio operators, such as:
       Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida, Sven Grahn

And a lot more detail for those interested:
Quote from: Chris Graney
ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio, Eavesdropping on Apollo 11
The nearly forgotten story of how a radio amateur successfully detected transmissions from the first men to land on the Moon.


In July of 1969 a ham radio operator and amateur radio-astronomer by the name of Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, accomplished an amazing feat. He independently detected radio transmissions from the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface. Fortunately, his accomplishments were recorded by Glenn Rutherford, a young reporter for the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal. “Lunar Eavesdropping: Louisvillians hear moon walk talk on homemade equipment,” sporting Rutherford’s byline, appeared in the Wednesday, July 23, 1969 issue of that paper — front page of section B, the local news section (see Figure 1).
     

Figure 1
Larry at the receiver

Rutherford opened the Courier story with “Thanks to some homemade electronic equipment, including a rebuilt 20 year old radio receiver from an Army tank (see Figure 2) and an antenna made of spare pieces of aluminum, nylon cord and chicken wire (see Figure 3 and 4), a small band of Louisvillians was able to ‘eavesdrop’ Sunday (July 20) night on the American astronauts’ conversation directly from the moon.”

Figure 2, The Antenna
     
Figure 3, Antenna Design

The story discussed how Baysinger recorded 35 minutes of conversation from VHF signals transmitted between astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins (he did not attempt to pick up the encoded S-band signals from the main Moon-Earth communication link).1 These 35 minutes included the time during which President Richard Nixon transmitted a message of congratulations to the astronauts.

Rutherford’s story briefly mentioned how Baysinger had been previously successful in constructing a device to detect radio signals from Jupiter and in tracking and reproducing pictures transmitted from Earth-orbiting satellites. It briefly described the antenna used for the lunar eavesdropping project — a fully steerable 8 × 12 foot “corner horn” — and it briefly discussed the amazing sensitivity of the receiver, which Baysinger specially modified for the lunar eavesdropping project. Rutherford finished the story with “Needless to say, the receiver worked to perfection Sunday night.”
. . . . .
Lunar Eavesdropping Link
More information on Larry’s lunar eavesdropping, including some audio clips, can be found on Christopher Graney’s Otter Creek-South Harrison Observatory Web page, Lunar Eavesdropping In Louisville, Kentucky.

Then from a more "professional" source:
Quote
In the 1957 – 1975 period, the 20 metre parabolic antenna of the Bochum Observatory in (the then) West Germany was often in the news as it received transmissions from Russian and American space vehicles. The Director at the time, Professor Heinz Kaminski, was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and US space agencies.

During the later Apollo missions, the observatory received and recorded some of the Field Sequential Color TV transmissions from the Lunar Rovers on the Moon, as well as biomedical data and voice.

The 20 metre Bochum antenna inside its radome, in 1972.
Photo: Bochum Observatory. With thanks to Thilo Elsner.


An independent recording of the Lunar Landing.
During Apollo 11, the observatory ‘listened in’ on the first lunar landing.

The present Director, Dr. Thilo Elsner, has provided a short audio recording of transmissions received from the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, Eagle, at the time of Lunar touchdown.
The Moon was just above the horizon at the time of the landing, but it was below the horizon for the first step. (See graphic below.)

Hear the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing
audio 430kb mp3 file.
In this stereo mp3 file, the recording made at Bochum is on the right channel – and the NASA Net 1 recording (recorded at Honeysuckle, but coming from Goldstone) is on the left channel.

Charlie Duke (Capcom in Houston speaking with the astronauts) – and the associated Quindar tones – are heard only on the left channel (i.e. the NASA recording) since Bochum could only hear the transmissions from the Moon – not those being transmitted to the Moon from the tracking stations on Earth.

Bochum and Net 1 recordings synchronised by Colin Mackellar.

This graphic shows the side of the Earth visible from the Moon at the time Eagle touched down on the lunar surface (2018GMT Sunday 20 July 1969).

As seen from Bochum, the Moon was at a low elevation and was setting.
NASA Manned Space Flight Network stations at Madrid and Goldstone both tracked Eagle to the surface.

*

faded mike

  • 773
  • new world
Re: moon landing
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2019, 05:43:46 PM »
I heard their backpacks wouldn't fit through the door of the lander according to one persons research...
I don't have dificulty believing one percent of the population actively participates in hidden agendas.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2019, 05:47:04 PM by faded mike »
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: moon landing
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2019, 06:55:11 PM »
I heard their backpacks wouldn't fit through the door of the lander according to one persons research...
I don't class evidence like "I heard . . . ." as worthy of even a mention.

I read that the world would end:
  on 23 Oct 1997, when Bishop Ussher predicted would be 6000 years since creation, and therefore the end of the world.
  in Jul 1999, when Nostradamus predicted that the "King of Terror" would come from the sky in "1999, frequently interpreted as Doomsday.
  on 21 Dec 2012 when the Mayan calender would "run out".
  on 23 Apr 2018 when David Meade predicted (after Nibiru him) that the rapture would take place and that the world would end on this date.
And hundreds more!

So, either post some evidence or forget it!
Here is the evidence you might have given because your claim was more or less correct but irrelevant ;):
Quote from: Clavius Moonbase
SPACE VEHICLES, lunar module doors
Claim: The lunar module's overhead hatch is too narrow to admit an astronaut in a space suit wearing a backpack. [James Collier]

This is true The hatch in question is the one over the astronauts' heads (Fig. 1). When the lunar module and the command module are connected, this is the hatch through which the astronauts pass between the modules.

Fig. 1 - View up into the cabin of LM-13 through the forward hatch.
This is what the astronauts would have seen while climbing up the ladder
into the spacecraft. The opening at the top is the overhead hatch.
       
Fig. 2 - View from the interior of LM-13 outward through the forward hatch.

Collier just assumed the astronauts were wearing a space suit and back pack (PLSS) any time they went through the overhead hatch.
They weren't; that hatch was only used when the spacecraft were connected to form one continuous shirt-sleeve environment.

In fact, the PLSSes were actually stored in the lunar module until they were needed on the lunar surface. You don't need a PLSS every time you wear a space suit. You can plug your hoses into the spacecraft's oxygen supply if you aren't going outside. The PLSS is only for when you're outside the spacecraft. To prepare for an actual landing, the astronauts could put on their space suit (minus helmets and gloves) in the command module, go through the connecting tunnel to the lunar module, and complete the suit-up and pressurization there.
<< and more explanation >>
Why don't doubters simply find the information instead of believing ignorant and, I believe, sometimes dishonest "Lunar Mission Hoaxers".

*

Omega

  • 869
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: moon landing
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2019, 11:35:07 PM »
I heard their backpacks wouldn't fit through the door of the lander according to one persons research...
I don't have dificulty believing one percent of the population actively participates in hidden agendas.

We are talking about significantly more than one percent. We are talking about every person in the world over fourty. People who where alive during at least part of the cold war.

That's one hell of a conspiracy.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Stash

  • 1470
Re: moon landing
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2019, 12:36:53 AM »
The problem with an FE moon landing conspiracy is that it's not optional. There's a conspiracy because there has to be.

In the modern era, leading up to rocketry, it was predominately literal scriptural interpretation that fed the FE movement. Enter space exploration and you get a whole slew of flat earth deal breakers. Because pretty much everything regarding space and the use/exploration thereof is predicated on a globe earth theory. From slingshots, maintaining orbits, probes/landers, and men on the moon, etc., requires all things globeriffic. Pepper in imagery from space looking back at earth and the notion of space exploration is decidedly untenable in maintaining a flat earth perspective. So, the long and short, all of it must be dispensed with. In doing so, that means there MUST be a conspiracy afoot to have put all of that evidence there in the first place in front of a worldwide audience. Ergo, the conspiracy HAS to exist regardless of evidence for or against:

- One can believe in a Globe earth and believe NASA, et al
- One can believe in a Globe earth and NOT believe NASA, et al
- One can believe in a Flat earth and NEVER believe NASA, et al

Because for FE the NASA fakery/conspiracy is an absolute must it sullies any sort of unbiased skepticism that should be present in regard to the matter.

Re: moon landing
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2019, 12:54:57 AM »
An interesting addition to this particular thread is that all those who have written in support of the moon landings have given evidence to back up their belief while thise who have written in support of conspiracy theories have provided only "I don't believe the narrative" and "I heard that"

Like someone said early in this discussion, no one says you shouldn't question what you heard. But cherry picking what yiu accept as evidence, that's just lazy.

*

Omega

  • 869
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: moon landing
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2019, 01:51:59 AM »
An interesting addition to this particular thread is that all those who have written in support of the moon landings have given evidence to back up their belief while thise who have written in support of conspiracy theories have provided only "I don't believe the narrative" and "I heard that"

Like someone said early in this discussion, no one says you shouldn't question what you heard. But cherry picking what yiu accept as evidence, that's just lazy.

The actual problem here is that people who believe in FE have a lot to lose when they give up that belief:

- They feel special for knowing 'forbidden knowledge'
- They can share that feeling with likeminded people who sustain their feeling of being special
- They make honest friendships and form communities with people who think like they do

If they would accept even a tiny bit of doubt, not only do they lose the feeling of being special but they risk losing their community.

This is all completely human and understandable. I remember when I was a church going christian but my belief was diminishing. I did not so much mourn the loss of my faith but the fact that I was losing a very basic connection to my community.

I don't think FE people are complete whackjobs (well, not all of them). I think they are just very happy with their little world (whatever its shape) and don't want to lose that. And therefor any and all logic must be abandoned to keep the faith.

Nothing new under the sun (whatever its size).

If FE versus RE (or lunar hoaxers vs lunar landing) was about rational thought and fact, the debate would be over in seconds.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2019, 01:57:39 AM by Omega »
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22442
Re: moon landing
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2019, 02:44:38 AM »
An interesting addition to this particular thread is that all those who have written in support of the moon landings have given evidence to back up their belief while thise who have written in support of conspiracy theories have provided only "I don't believe the narrative" and "I heard that"

Like someone said early in this discussion, no one says you shouldn't question what you heard. But cherry picking what yiu accept as evidence, that's just lazy.
Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.
There's plenty of evidence to back up claims that nobody went to any so called moon but it's discarded because it's too close to the bone, so it's dismissed out of hand with little to no answer for it.

You know, stuff like, how it took a few people to get them into their suits and yet inside a flimsy cramped so called lander they manage to have no issues at all, not even any issues with having to supposedly go back into the lander then back out onto the so called moon without worrying about pressurisation and depressurisation of the so called lander.

And that's just a small piece yet a piece that gets washed away without any realistic argument in favour of how it supposedly worked.

*

Omega

  • 869
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: moon landing
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2019, 02:53:53 AM »
Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.

Please explain to me why 'official narrative' is inherently untrustworthy? Your whole claim is based on the assumption that anything that is 'official narrative' must be wrong because it is 'official narrative'.

Why?

You do realise that the reasoning 'it's untrue because it's untrue' is not exactly proof of anything?

(I know you won't answer. You'll duck the question. But I love to be surprised by a straight answer at least once)
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22442
Re: moon landing
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2019, 02:57:45 AM »
Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.

Please explain to me why 'official narrative' is inherently untrustworthy? Your whole claim is based on the assumption that anything that is 'official narrative' must be wrong because it is 'official narrative'.

Why?

You do realise that the reasoning 'it's untrue because it's untrue' is not exactly proof of anything?

(I know you won't answer. You'll duck the question. But I love to be surprised by a straight answer at least once)
Funny how you avoid what I've just said.

*

Omega

  • 869
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: moon landing
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2019, 03:31:24 AM »
Funny how you avoid what I've just said.

Actually I haven't.

I have given you strong evidence that the moon landings are real. You disgard this on the sole basis that there is an 'official narrative' about the cold war and the lunar missions.

Therefor, before we can get any further we need to establish why you think history is wrong and why anything that is an 'official' narrative' is wrong. Oh and what is the definition of an 'official narrative'?

If you don't answer these questions, you basically forfait and admit you are in fact wrong.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2019, 03:49:50 AM by Omega »
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

Re: moon landing
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2019, 05:25:18 AM »
Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.

Please explain to me why 'official narrative' is inherently untrustworthy? Your whole claim is based on the assumption that anything that is 'official narrative' must be wrong because it is 'official narrative'.

Why?

You do realise that the reasoning 'it's untrue because it's untrue' is not exactly proof of anything?

(I know you won't answer. You'll duck the question. But I love to be surprised by a straight answer at least once)
Funny how you avoid what I've just said.

Funny how you ignore the evidence provided above. An independent German observatory was able to recieve and record Apollo mission transmissions. But I guess that is "official narrative". A small town newspaper carries a report of a small town amateur radio ham recieves Apollo transmission, but that also has to be fake, right? Because Reasons.

But in true flart earth conspiracy mode, thise must be ignored and even not responded to and something else must always be brought up as the smoking gun. And when that is debunked or explained, a flerf will double down on his belief and ignore thenexplanations giving and immediately gish gallop onto something else.

But then, it is all official narrative. So it must be false because reasons.

*

rabinoz

  • 20559
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: moon landing
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2019, 05:27:17 AM »
Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.
Incorrect!
But, in any case, what evidence have you ever given that the "official narrative" is incorrect?

Quote from: sceptimatic
There's plenty of evidence to back up claims that nobody went to any so called moon but it's discarded because it's too close to the bone, so it's dismissed out of hand with little to no answer for it.
No there isn't! That so-called evidence is dismissed because it has no basis in fact - some easily, some not so easily.

Like that silly claim that astronauts could not fit through a hatch with their PLSS on or the ridiculous claims about the thermosphere or the Van Allen Belts.

Quote from: sceptimatic
You know, stuff like, how it took a few people to get them into their suits and yet inside a flimsy cramped so called lander they manage to have no issues at all,
A few people in earth's gravity but might it not be easier in the 1/6 gravity of the moon? And they did not remove all of the suits in the LM only the outer pressure jacket most of the time.
And who says that they had "issues at all"? One issue they had was with the lunar dust (it's far more "sticky" than earth dust).
The dust was bad on the longer Apollo 17 mission when the LM arrived back at the Command Module the pair stripped naked and left their suits behind.

Quote from: sceptimatic
not even any issues with having to supposedly go back into the lander then back out onto the so called moon without worrying about pressurisation and depressurisation of the so called lander.
Why would there be issues with pressurisation and depressurisation of the lander? It was designed for that purpose and tested on earth[1].
Besides the LM was pressurised with pure oxygen at only 4.8 psi.

Quote from: sceptimatic
And that's just a small piece yet a piece that gets washed away without any realistic argument in favour of how it supposedly worked.
No, it does not "just get washed away"! It's just more examples of your not understanding what was going on.

There is voluminous information available on "how it supposedly worked".
For example a lot of people claim that the LM had walls "about as thick as a coke can" and, guess what?. It did!

Quote from: Quora.com
How thin were the walls of the Apollo Lunar Lander?
About as thick as a coke can, but it had plenty of ribs and spacers for structural strength, and plenty of lockers and equipment on the inside so you couldn't just stick your foot through it.

Here's the structural stuff.
The "coke can" was just the pressure vessel to hold in 4.8 psi and there was plenty of closely spaced support for that thin skin.
The thin skin tapered in thickness so was only thin it the middle where the stress was least.

[1] And the first LM failed the pressure test on earth when a window shattered - big redesign job.