I've taken the plunge on moonlanding conspiracies and I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, it's certainly conceivable, but there are good reasons to doubt the legitimacy. Did you know that NASA destroyed all the original technology and footage from the first moon landing? For no good reason at all. It's also very odd how up to the moon landing, the USSR was leading the space race and had all the space "firsts", up until the US suddenly shot way past them and completed a flawless moon trip. The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage. I have no doubt that the purpose of NASA, to a degree, is funneling money into black operations. There's a ton of fake NASA footage out there (air bubbles on space walks, astronauts green-screening out, etc.)
Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field.
But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.
I don't know where you get your "facts" from, but you should find a new source. Just your comment on NASA "destroying" the tapes is easy enoguh to find the real story:
"Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field."
You conspiracy folks are fun. I mean, come on. That took 5 minutes for me to debunk searching on the internet. From what I can tell, none had a twin. Check snopes on this to explain the rest.
Well this goes beyond nutty, obviously we are in space. Its the fact that we made it to the moon, launched a pod to the surface while orbiting, packed up the camp and flew back up and docked then just whipped around the moon back to earth in 1969 and a few more times and then no other country has done it again since 1972.
Even Joe Rogan who was a big fake moon landing advocate has changed his mind, not because he doesn't still think they could be fake but because he can't prove they were fake and really if we faked a moon landing that would be an amazing accomplishment would the US be dumb enough to fake 6.
This is why the new mission is exciting to me, a moon landing in my time. Some conspiracies are fun to go down the rabbit hole, is this one flat earth crazy? Not even close, I've never even heard the one I quoted above, obviously there is a line between fun conspiracy theories and nutter stuff.
Yup it’s pretty easy to never believe anything if you just stick to your guns and ignore facts.
“I just don’t see how that was possible” while having all of the information available at your fingertips to outline how it was indeed possible is just so maddening I don’t understand how someone can function on a daily basis.
Do yourself a favour and watch the video by the film expert above. The ending is the best part. People dismissing one of humanities greatest achievements, to talk about fairy tales, while legitimate government coverups that actually matter are happening.
Last edited by Scroopy Noopers; 07-22-2022 at 08:45 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
Well this goes beyond nutty, obviously we are in space. Its the fact that we made it to the moon, launched a pod to the surface while orbiting, packed up the camp and flew back up and docked then just whipped around the moon back to earth in 1969 and a few more times and then no other country has done it again since 1972.
Even Joe Rogan who was a big fake moon landing advocate has changed his mind, not because he doesn't still think they could be fake but because he can't prove they were fake and really if we faked a moon landing that would be an amazing accomplishment would the US be dumb enough to fake 6.
This is why the new mission is exciting to me, a moon landing in my time. Some conspiracies are fun to go down the rabbit hole, is this one flat earth crazy? Not even close, I've never even heard the one I quoted above, obviously there is a line between fun conspiracy theories and nutter stuff.
Pretty incredible, right? it's the fact that turning it into a "that never happened" is pretty insulting to the people who worked so hard, and achieved the seemingly impossible, to make it happen.
Again, today, you only need look at the Wikipedia link I provided that shows physical evidence from non-US sources that should allay any further theories. I'll admit in the 90's with the evidence I had access to back then, I was also a skeptic. But after spending a lot of time reviewing it, and logically thinking it through, I disposed the theory. To believe it now with all the current evidence is only ignoring facts.
Yup it’s pretty easy to never believe anything if you just stick to your guns and ignore facts.
“I just don’t see how that was possible” while having all of the information available at your fingertips to outline how it was indeed possible is just so maddening I don’t understand how someone can function on a daily basis.
I appreciate the conspiracy theorists that just believe almost every single one, though. Like… no facts, no logic, if there’s something that sounds like a conspiracy theory then that’s what they’re gonna believe. The ones who pick one, like flat Earth (for example) are frustrating because they use their brain for almost everything else which makes it kind of unexplainable. But listening to the people who go in on almost every conspiracy theory is like listening to a pre-schooler. Complete nonsense, but fascinating in how their brain works.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I appreciate the conspiracy theorists that just believe almost every single one, though. Like… no facts, no logic, if there’s something that sounds like a conspiracy theory then that’s what they’re gonna believe. The ones who pick one, like flat Earth (for example) are frustrating because they use their brain for almost everything else which makes it kind of unexplainable. But listening to the people who go in on almost every conspiracy theory is like listening to a pre-schooler. Complete nonsense, but fascinating in how their brain works.
I know there's a huge chunk of people who hate when you bring religion into things, but fata 'em. This is religion exactly to me. It's a very socially acceptable ridiculous conspiracy theory more ridiculous than every other conspiracy theory combined multiplied by a billion.
You can have perfectly intelligent people ignorant to their own obvious indoctrination and are like teflon to logical arguments. And then they're the same people who laugh at other conspiracy theorists. Sorry, but you're worse than a guy skeptical of the moon landing. There are about a thousand fake-moon-landing or flat-earth-style BS beliefs in every religion. And at least your average conspiracy theorist doesn't live their life with their conspiracy theory at the core of it...but religious people? Until their dying breath they're all in. It's actually equal parts hilarious and weird.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I appreciate the conspiracy theorists that just believe almost every single one, though. Like… no facts, no logic, if there’s something that sounds like a conspiracy theory then that’s what they’re gonna believe. The ones who pick one, like flat Earth (for example) are frustrating because they use their brain for almost everything else which makes it kind of unexplainable. But listening to the people who go in on almost every conspiracy theory is like listening to a pre-schooler. Complete nonsense, but fascinating in how their brain works.
That's just an anti-establishment character type. These are the kind of people that eat pancakes out of soup bowls and drink beer in a wine glass.
Pretty incredible, right? it's the fact that turning it into a "that never happened" is pretty insulting to the people who worked so hard, and achieved the seemingly impossible, to make it happen.
Again, today, you only need look at the Wikipedia link I provided that shows physical evidence from non-US sources that should allay any further theories. I'll admit in the 90's with the evidence I had access to back then, I was also a skeptic. But after spending a lot of time reviewing it, and logically thinking it through, I disposed the theory. To believe it now with all the current evidence is only ignoring facts.
Use the doubt to spark an interest in the subject is what these theories should do which instead of being insulting should be a testament to how unbelievable their accomplishments are. Sure a few clicks and I can find all the info I need but a few clicks will also give me all the info I need to believe its fake. These days its harder to find credible information than it is to find "fake news" Wikipedia is great but some people want those quick doses or videos.
A little off topic but have you ever used the news bar in windows? Click it and look at the headlines and look at the sources Microsoft is directing you too, 90% of it is dodgy sites or terrible sources of news. Point being as more information is available at our fingertips so is so much fake or misleading information.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest:
it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.
Holy cow there is so much wrong with this:
t's way too big: No it's not, take for example Pluto and Charon, the ratio of their sizes (0.51) is bigger than the ratio of the moon to earth (0.72)
it's way too light: not sure why you say this, there isn't really a minimum weight/density for a moon, but the density of the moon (3.34 g/cm^3), while low compared to earth, Mercury, or Venus, is about in line with Mars (3.93 g/cm3)
it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit): This is 100% not true, there are tons of moons in our solar system that have circular orbits (the moon isn't prefet but it's pretty close). Literally the first moon I could think off of the top of my head and check (Io) has a more circular orbit than the moon
The same side of the moon always faces the planet: This is pretty normal, there are a ton of examples of other bodies that are tidally locked to body they are orbiting, in fact, given enough time, the vast majority of orbiting bodies will become tidally locked
it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours: It's not. A that's pretty much physically impossible, B, see the density above.
The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust): There is nothing inexplicable shallow about the craters on the moon. Please show me where you got this information from, cause this is a pretty outlandish claim.
The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable) Yup, sometimes coincidences happen. This is kind of like saying people aren't real because I ran into my friend in London.
The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics: Nothing is statistically impossible, improbable sure, but the only one you've mentioned that is improbable is the distance size relationship
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
I wonder if the shallow crater thing has to do with the fact that gravity on the moon is a fraction of what it is on earth. So, whatever is impacting the moon would be coming in slower?
I have no idea if that's true. Just thinking out loud.
it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours: It's not. A that's pretty much physically impossible, B, see the density above.
You clearly haven't seen the scientific documentary "Moonfall"
__________________
Purveyor of fine Sarcasm
The Following User Says Thank You to Tacopuck For This Useful Post:
I've taken the plunge on moonlanding conspiracies and I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, it's certainly conceivable, but there are good reasons to doubt the legitimacy. Did you know that NASA destroyed all the original technology and footage from the first moon landing? For no good reason at all. It's also very odd how up to the moon landing, the USSR was leading the space race and had all the space "firsts", up until the US suddenly shot way past them and completed a flawless moon trip. The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage. I have no doubt that the purpose of NASA, to a degree, is funneling money into black operations. There's a ton of fake NASA footage out there (air bubbles on space walks, astronauts green-screening out, etc.)
A lot of this has been completely debunked. Out of 100 telemetry tapes, 45 were destroyed when the tapes were recycled, the rest have been restored and a lot of the higher quality NASA television tapes were found in the 70's and stored at the Goddard space center. Some of the television footage if you look is posted on the NASA site.
The whole Van Allen belt idiocy was debunked a long time ago. the simple fact is that they traveled through the radiation of the Van Allen belt fast enough so that there wasn't significant exposure. As one professor described it to being similar to fire walking. If you walk across a fire pit fast enough you won't get burned by the thermal energy as it doesn't have time to accumulate enough to do damage. If you slow down in a fire pit or stop you're going to get burned.
Oh and the whole they went and then never went back and nobody else did. Look at what happened in the States going forward. War in Vietnam. Recessions, more wars. Priorities changed. The American's changed their space priorities from exploration to exploitation which lead to the space shuttle program. There was no reason to return to the moon after multiple landings.
Other nations didn't go to the moon for strict reasons of dum dum du dah. Budget, resources and ability. The only other nations that might have been able to was an economic house of cards more concerned with national defense then a moon landing after the American's got there. The prestige was gone. Then they collapsed.
Really up until the 2000's the Chinese certainly didn't have the resources for a moon shot. And then they followed everyone else into the exploitation of space.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field.
There is a sheer piece of stupidity that conspiracy theorists don't talk about with this whole "Twins" theory. Most of these twins were working at their jobs while the astronauts were training. So unless NASA has top secret teleportation devices provided by the men in black this theory falls apart quickly as people can't be in two places at one time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.
First of all, its not a moon its a battlestation, run by a long dead ancient alien species known as the wardens. Basically Earth was the galaxies version of australia, where all the worst criminal's were sent and the Warden's were to make sure we never left. However they were all executed when Xenu broke the rules and dropped his political prisoners from his DC-7 rocket ships into volcanos.
After that we were left to our own devices.
Conspiracy theories work best, when people present disconnected facts and outliers as interconnected theories. It orbits circularly and rings like a bell so it must be hollow and artificially made.
What drives me crazy is that whether its 9/11 or the moon landings or whatever conspiracy theory is that people will grab onto these minor non connected facts, or plan not due their due dilligence and grab onto absolute falsehoods to build their theories.
The debris theory of the pentagon for example was the corner stone of the missile hitting the pentagon theory. but it was debunked completely and looked stupid when one looks at the debris field on the lawn of the pentagon. Or the hole in the wall theory, when one doesn't take into consideration that jet plans are not built out of the same material as Captain America's shield and the world doesn't work like a bugs bunny cartoons where holes look exactly like the object that created them.
Conspiracy theory to me is fascinating. Because, frankly its one of the greatest money making con industries out there. Alex Jones made a fortune from it. The so called Architechs and engineers for 9/11 truth or whatever they were called made a fortune writing pamphlets and books and taking speaking engagements.
The only counter, do some research apply some critical thinking, and remember that Freud one said "Sometimes a banana is just a banana"
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I thinks its perfectly understandable that people were skeptical of the moon landings being real when they look at it from a technological standpoint, when their own baseline of technology is what is available today. What i think gets lost on alot of people is how much more risk was tolerated back then. All of the astronauts of the Apollo program where absolute cowboys.
They literally landed on the moon using manual controls, experienced many faults and errors from the craft they had to manually intervene to correct in the heat of landing. This is why Neil Armstrong was selected as the guy to first land on the moon. He experienced multiple occasions during the training program and Gemini where the spacecraft or test rig experienced a failure and he had to fix to get home safely.
When piloting Gemini 8, the craft experienced a stuck thruster that caused the craft to rotate at extreme speeds. He was able to perform an emergency de-orbit burn and get the craft back to ground. During testing of the Lunar module on earth it experienced a failure where he had to eject seconds before the rig exploded.
Lets also not forget that Apollo 10, the mission that brought the LM close to the moon surface but not land, was intentionally under fueled as NASA feared that Cernan and Stafford would just go for the landing if they had a normal fuel load.
The astronauts then were a different breed when compared to today's.
It is also understandable why people point to why we never went back. In order to get to the moon, the US directed nearly 10% of its total GDP to the project which is absolutely crazy to think about.
__________________
Purveyor of fine Sarcasm
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Tacopuck For This Useful Post:
I thinks its perfectly understandable that people were skeptical of the moon landings being real when they look at it from a technological standpoint, when their own baseline of technology is what is available today. What i think gets lost on alot of people is how much more risk was tolerated back then. All of the astronauts of the Apollo program where absolute cowboys.
They literally landed on the moon using manual controls, experienced many faults and errors from the craft they had to manually intervene to correct in the heat of landing. This is why Neil Armstrong was selected as the guy to first land on the moon. He experienced multiple occasions during the training program and Gemini where the spacecraft or test rig experienced a failure and he had to fix to get home safely.
When piloting Gemini 8, the craft experienced a stuck thruster that caused the craft to rotate at extreme speeds. He was able to perform an emergency de-orbit burn and get the craft back to ground. During testing of the Lunar module on earth it experienced a failure where he had to eject seconds before the rig exploded.
Lets also not forget that Apollo 10, the mission that brought the LM close to the moon surface but not land, was intentionally under fueled as NASA feared that Cernan and Stafford would just go for the landing if they had a normal fuel load.
The astronauts then were a different breed when compared to today's.
It is also understandable why people point to why we never went back. In order to get to the moon, the US directed nearly 10% of its total GDP to the project which is absolutely crazy to think about.
Yeah...these days they need that for guns.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I've taken the plunge on moonlanding conspiracies and I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, it's certainly conceivable, but there are good reasons to doubt the legitimacy. Did you know that NASA destroyed all the original technology and footage from the first moon landing? For no good reason at all. It's also very odd how up to the moon landing, the USSR was leading the space race and had all the space "firsts", up until the US suddenly shot way past them and completed a flawless moon trip. The Van Allen belt is another tricky one, radiation experts are all over the place regarding what they think it would take to safely pass through it. Radiation is very hard on film, so it's also conceivable that they went to the moon AND faked the footage. I have no doubt that the purpose of NASA, to a degree, is funneling money into black operations. There's a ton of fake NASA footage out there (air bubbles on space walks, astronauts green-screening out, etc.)
Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field.
But what really messes me up about the moon is that it really shouldn't even exist. Out of every celestial body we've ever observed, the moon is by far the oddest: it's way too big, it's way too light, it has a perfect-circular orbit (every other moon observed has a wobbly, oblong orbit), the same side of the moon always faces the planet, it might be hollow (a NASA scientist that performed seismic tests on the moon famously remarked that it "rung like bell for 24 hours. The moon also has inexplicably shallow craters, implying a very hard structure beneath the dust). The moon also appears to be of identical size as the sun in the sky, as the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away (this one alone is so staggering improbable). The moon has a number of statistically impossible characteristics, and the summation of these characteristics is make it perfectly conducive to life on earth. I think the mere existence of the moon is the best evidence we have that life was seeded on earth by outside forces.
We're no-longer racing with the Russians to put an actual citizen of the USA in space or on the moon. There's no hurry to put human lives at risk so I think I'm find with testing with NASA's equivalent of crash test dummies.
If anything, the USA might be racing with China for the first 21st century manned moon landing and output.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
Another fun one is the space challenger explosion and how nearly everyone on it has a living twin that is working in a similar field. .
Only Onizuka and McNair have biological siblings out of the stated examples. The rest are doppelgangers with similar looks, names, ages, etc. They are not twins. It's like me saying "oh I worked with a guy that looked like Matata a few years ago". It's completely different and pure conspiracy theory.
Well this goes beyond nutty, obviously we are in space. Its the fact that we made it to the moon, launched a pod to the surface while orbiting, packed up the camp and flew back up and docked then just whipped around the moon back to earth in 1969 and a few more times and then no other country has done it again since 1972..
Why would we go back? more moon rocks? what is the practical purpose of going back other than the original dick measuring contest between two super powers?
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
