MovieChat Forums > Candace Owens Discussion > Latest Idiot to Promote Apollo Hoax

Latest Idiot to Promote Apollo Hoax

posted 3 years ago by Ranb (11276)
42 replies | jump to latest

Candace Owens
@RealCandaceO
Now for some light-hearted fun. What’s the one “conspiracy theory” that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked.
Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA “accidentally erasing” the original footage.

Candace Owens
@RealCandaceO
·
Jan 28
Replying to
@RealCandaceO
The biggest thing for me is the fuel tank size, plus the live broadcast with audio from the moon.
In 1969.
I just cannot.

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1487107786609676289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1487107786609676289%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2022%2F1%2F29%2F2077484%2F-This-will-shock-you-Candace-Owens-is-a-moon-landing-conspiracist

DAM!!! She is stupid. Or trying to convince people she is stupid? Or is this just another cry for attention?

[–] LennyNero (501) 3 years ago

Candace is well educated, but I feel her interests are monetary. She’s a “showman”, and speaks intelligently, but that’s as far as her talents reach.

Like, she doesn’t really care to unify the country - there’s more money in playing the role of contrarian/villain. There really isn’t anything that she’s said that’s really attempted to improve anything. Her POV doesn’t really identify with many people, especially with the tone in which she speaks - I’m smarter than you! - and a newer gen has put her in her place…because she’s not as smart as she thinks she is.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

She is just having some fun at your expense. Unclench for once.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

So it's a cry for attention. Seems that she could think of something that does not make her appear to be so stupid.

It is her problem, not mine. I'm always glad to tell someone like her how stupid she is.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 3 years ago

Since you have a minor obsession with her I would say you have a problem, too.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the JFK assassination? The scientific evidence continues to pint one way 60 odd years later.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

I am not making a mockery of my intellect the way Owens is.

I'm of the opinion that Oswald shot JFK and most likely acted alone. I have not seen any evidence to show otherwise that is convincing.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 3 years ago

You convinced me. Thanks for the clarification.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 3 years ago

OTH, I am amazed at how many intelligent people believe conspiracy theories regardless of how ridiculous they are and what facts say.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

When people say this, I wonder which moon landing they think was the first real one. Because we put signal reflectors on the moon at some point, and that's provable.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

Certainly not arguing for the Apollo hoaxtards, but playing devil's advocate here, I would answer the reflectors were placed by unmanned landers.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

There were six moon landing missions. Do the hoaxtards think all of them are fake?

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

Most do, although I've heard some just say the first wasn't (don't know why they'd differentiate them).

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

The moon hoax believers have an answer for almost everything.

A (more powerful) laser can be bounced off of the lunar surface without a reflector. The Soviets put reflectors on the surface with an unmanned probe. The best signal returns were from the two reflectors placed by Apollo missions.

Go to www.apollohoax.net to see the hoax proponents get eaten alive.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Cool. Thanks for the link.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

If you enjoyed that, enjoy this:

https://youtu.be/OROlF8zB9z0?t=50

[–] BillySlater (4281) 3 years ago

I don´t think believing a conspiracy means someone is stupid. There are smart people that believe we have been visited by alien beings like Stanton Friedman and he is probably smarter than anyone who has ever posted here or on IMDB.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

Not only does Owens claim the moon landings were a hoax, she says it is a conspiracy theory that no matter what anyone says, she believes it is true. Only stupid people say there is nothing that can convince them otherwise.

Did Stanton Friedman say that aliens have visited and there is nothing anyone can say to change his mind?

I am open to the idea that aliens have visited Earth but I've never seen any convincing evidence that they have.

[–] BillySlater (4281) 3 years ago

Well he believed aliens crashed at Roswell and the government covered it up.

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

Probably because the government has released at least 4 different cover stories. Newspapers reported it as UFO crash from sources in the government and witnesses. 24hrs they magically retracted their stories.

First it was a UFO. Then it was an airplane. Then it was a balloon. Then it was swamp ass. Then it was a manned yada yada. If you’re gonna lie you should probably be better at it then that. But it is the government so there’s that.

[–] BillySlater (4281) 3 years ago

I agree that governments lie, I just don´t believe for a second that aliens have visited us.

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

Hard to say. The discussion of the subject and sightings and abductions is interesting nonetheless.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

Since the government (contractors like Lockheed) was testing aircraft at the Groom Lake facility, they probably welcome any kind of UFO crap story that was not revealing what they were actually doing.

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 3 years ago

I don’t think the conspiracy theorists realize there were multiple moon landings. Even Candace here refers to it as a singular event.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

That would be just another gap in her knowledge. Lots of moon CT'ers ask why we never went back; but we did go back six more times, with five of those missions landing on the moon.

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

So if they were going to hoax it they could really only hoax it one time?

Would it be that difficult to use the tools for the first hoax more than once?

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

What would be the point?

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 3 years ago

Gd5150 If they faked it once, and got away with it, than yes it would be extremely risky to keep doing and give people much more to try and nitpick.

For example Candace mentions that some of the original footage was “accidentally erased”. This isn’t something that you can fake 6 times without people questioning it.

There is the matter of the astronauts going in to space and returning to earth a few days later. Conspiracy theorists say that they just hung out and orbited the earth before returning. But if they did this they would be visible from earth to anyone with a telescope. It would be risky for them to keep doing this, without getting caught, but they never did.

You can say the same about the radio communications. This was being monitored all over the world, someone would’ve detected that they weren’t coming from the moon, or that something was off about the signal.

Plus they introduced new things each trip. If they were using cables and slow motion for the moon footage, it would have no effect on the hammer/feather drop, or the way the lunar rover kicked up dust. Those things could only happen in a vacuum.

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

The moon landing hoax theorists use photos from all the moon landings as evidence. Not just 11.

The number of times we went isn’t really relevant to whether it was a hoax or not.

If they hoaxed one they hoaxed them all.

[–] AP (5295) 3 years ago

I’ve seen some conspiracy theorists claim only the first was fake because the US wanted to beat the USSR to the Moon for propaganda purposes.

[–] Bubbathegut (18241) 3 years ago

You just got rickrolled! lol

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

Stupid is the entire post. Is this all you got?

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

I got to tell you, as a big fan of Candace, I was frankly stunned she said something so profoundly stupid and even more so that she didn't walk that back. I have to be honest in that it will make me more wary of other things she says going forward.

It's not that she doesn't understand the technology, the effort, or the courage of those who accomplished it (and that's no sin - most people don't), it's that she shares a common trait with hoaxtards in that if they don't understand something, then it isn't possible and millions of others must be in on the conspiracy. That is a significant personality defect.

If AOC said that, I'd be ripping her too.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Same here. I thought much higher of her than this nonsense. Very disappointing.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

What else is there? Is there any part of what Owens said that is not stupid?

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

With all due to respect which is none, you’re not one to judge her intelligence.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

Oh yes I am. Owens put her thoughts out there in public for us to judge. She has been found to be severely lacking in critical thinking skills.

Just the part where she says the landings were a hoax no matter what anyone says, means she can't be trusted to think straight.

There are few people I admire in the world. I would be very disappointed if they said they had an opinion on whether or not a historical event happened, and could not have their mind changed no matter what evidence was presented.

I think in a few days or weeks someone will talk some sense into her then she will try to find a way to say she was teasing us. Or maybe she will use the Tucker Carlson defense; "no one would believe what she says is true". :)

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

You’ve said nothing intelligent nor have you proven your ability to judge another persons intellect. Try harder.

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

I've satisfied myself with how I'm judging the stupid things Owens says. Are you willing to defend her and show us how being unwilling to change one's mind is rational?

[–] Gd5150 (11964) 3 years ago

So will you still be able to listen to her show religiously? Or is this it for your tuning in?

[–] Ranb (11276) 3 years ago

So are you going to answer my question or not?

I have never listened to her show. I read about her from time to time on the internet.

You probably won't like this Rationalwiki article about Owens. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 3 years ago

She starts off the tweet by calling light hearted fun. I have a feeling it’s a subject that she hasn’t actually spent much time on, or she doesn’t take it too seriously.

I don’t think it’s indicative of her overall intelligence, she usually well thought out, and well spoken. If she actually did research on this and came back with the same conclusion, I might change my opinion on her. But if she said she was just teasing, or trolling for responses, I would accept that.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

It's not an intelligence thing any more than fundamentally different political bents are.

My problem with hoaxtards is not just that they don't understand technology (which isn't a sin), it's that they are the type of people that won't accept anything they don't understand. That is troubling.

[–] liscarkat (19396) 3 years ago

Up until now I've really respected her, but this puts her in the ballpark with knuckleheads like Rep. Hank Johnson (D), who believed Guam could capsize like a ship, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D), who thinks Neil Armstrong went to Mars. Owens has definitely sacrificed some points.