MovieChat Forums > Operation Avalanche (2016) Discussion > Only STUPID people think the Moon Landin...

Only STUPID people think the Moon Landings are a hoax

posted 2 years ago by [deleted]
41 replies | jump to latest

I was born in 1972 and have known all my life that the Moon Landings were real, my father being a Doctor of Science and so forth. I have never been religious, in fact I consider that dumb as well, and have pursued technology and astronomy as well, and I appreciate what scientists have done for all mankind to our benefit.

So shortly after the World Wide Web begins on the Internet (which has existed since the 1960s), I think of how cool that is, but shortly after social media springs up, I start to hear of young people online believing conspiracy theories and stupid ideas going against science and for religion in most cases, and then I see and am flabbergasted by crap like Flat Earth and Moon Landing Hoax nonsense, and I despair for these idiots who believe what they read online (rather than printed books in my day) and are more than willing to spread misinformation about it all, damaging humanity's future even more.

It's no wonder Buzz Aldrin punched the face of that young idiot who accosted him in the street, accusing him of having never landed on the moon, after all he'd achieved in his NASA career. I would've punched that idiot in the face as well!

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

Even if you are not religious, but you do have faith, because there is no evidence of moon-landing. You believe it because it is said so on the mainstream media and announced by politicians, that is it.

I questioned it, like many others because of "The Inner van Allen Belt" of radiation between the moon and earth. I read the early moon landing day news NASA said the radiation measured by astronauts during moon landing missions were negligible, there was no need for protection. Apollo spacecraft was after all made of very thin aluminum.

But that is before discovering the details of radiation belts, the Van Allen Probes mission was only launched on August 30, 2012. Now we know there is very little chance of survival passing through it.

Now NASA says they destroyed the technology for passing through radiation belt, and they have to re-develop it for the Mars mission. When I watched that in one of the NASA documentaries, I was like:"Who destroys technologies?"

Anyway, I see no proof of NASA moon landing, and until I do, I don't think it is real.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Then you're stupid and f-ing ignorant. I have no time for people like you.

We went to the moon. Several times in fact. GET USED TO IT.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

I think base on our conversation most people can easily see who is indeed stupid and ignorant.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Yes: YOU, fc31.

Why are you and other ignorants so against the idea that we, HUMANS, achieved something like the moon landings? I mean, we've built all this marvellous technology in our phones and computers and so forth, so only a species who did that could go beyond Earth's orbit as well.

Why are you and others like you so keen to dismiss such obvious human achievements? Do you feel threatened by those achievements in some way?

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

I only believe something if there is evidence, that is the basic scientific approach. Anyone with a rational mind should think like that.

Are you sure you are not religious?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

There is plenty of photographic evidence. Don't you believe it?

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

No, there isn't. Someone else already pointed out: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

We now only have some short footage from the old TV news archive, that is all we got.

If it is indeed a hoax, all the current footage could be shot in a movie studio. That is no enough evidence, not indisputable.

The real evidence is the entire unaltered video footage and recordings of all the missions, from the beginning to end. But of course those are missing, in the era when the whole thing could be downloaded to a home computer, but sadly and conveniently, that is no longer available.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I said PHOTOGRAPHIC, NOT VIDEO.

And before you get on your high "conspiracy theorist" horse, fc31 (which the article gleefully mocks, BTW) there was a time when video footage was recorded over frequently, no matter what it was (degaussed as the video calls it) because videotape was so expensive back then, and so these erasures and new recordings on the same tape frequently occurred. I know, it happened with Doctor Who in its first years, so many episodes were lost at the beginning.

I meant the numerous high-quality photographic STILLS taken at the time.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

And it was the Hollywood people did not believe those photos, they were the ones saying those were staged and they were capable of doing it. It was more than disputable, they were saying out-rightly some were clearly fake. It could be NASA was cutting corners, but I think that is how the hoax theory started.

But photography is not my strong suit, so I did not get into details of that.

In the end like I said there is no real evidence. If you are honest with yourself you know that too.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"But photography is not my strong suit, so I did not get into details of that."
So then, listen to a photographic expert:
https://www.youtube.com/@DaveMcKeegan/videos

Then there's always the Adam who ruins everything, who points out that considering 1960s tech in general, it would be CHEAPER to put a man on the moon FOR REAL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBYAxhH3u4

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

That is another youtuber.

Yeah, altering shadows on a photo is clearly harder than moon landing. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

Don't you know NASA could have paid people for doing this? That is a clearly commercial operation, those are paid actors reading scripts. Making these videos are even easier than doctoring some photos.

The same as the other guy, they have no credibility, and they can lie without worrying consequences.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You retard, fc31. Utter retard.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

You retard, fc31. Utter retard.

I am guessing that is all you have left to say.

I hope I helped you in some ways, and it seems you need all the helps you can get.

Anyway, adios.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 2 years ago

AMJF has a long track record of being ignorant and showing no interest in actual evidence.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

At least I believe we achieved these things, and that I am not a cynical bastard like you and fc31.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

That is a youtuber, who used to repair home computer for a living. That means he is even less qualified than me to explain this.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Your qualifications to deny him?

And I'm sure if you were really interested in offsetting what he puts out there you could actually dispute the points made with citation. Until that happens it's a much more reasonable explanation than "I see no proof of NASA moon landing" as some level of proof that it didn't happen.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

I have a bachelor degree in engineering, and a master degree in computer science. And it is safe to say my career was not consist of repairing home computers.

If I take someone's words for it, especially something of professional knowledge, I would go with someone with proper qualification and decades of experience in the field, and that someone must have no reason to lie about it.

That guy is none of those things.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

So offset what he says. Have at it. Please cite as well because your engineering and CS degree doesn't mean a whole lot in this subject matter.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

It doesn't. But that is not someone who cares about his reputation in scientific community, he could lie all he wants, even you proved it, he would say:"So what, that was my opinion as a layman, not meant to be taken seriously".

If you want quote someone as evidence, at least quote a researcher of the field with reputation in scientific community to protect, otherwise it is nothing.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Ok. I can see you that you don't have the ability to approach the subject at hand and instead attack the messenger. Your bullshit holds no more value than that guys video. And since you're not "a researcher of the field with reputation in scientific community to protect" your bullshit is also "nothing."

BTW: Even Van Allen says you're wrong.

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/82-how-come-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

Your bullshit holds no more value than that guys video.

I can see you that you don't have the ability to approach the subject at hand and instead attack the messenger.

I think it is clear who is attacking the messenger.

I have nothing to prove, and there is no way to prove a negative. The burden is on you to provide evidence, and let's just say your evidence is less than credible.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The word of James Van Allen is "less than credible" WTAF?

I'm attacking you because you brought nothing to the table and criticize someone who also brought nothing to the table (both by your own standards). You two are on equal footing but you are so invested in your bullshit conspiracy theory mindset that you absolutely refuse to question your own assertions. Again, James Van Allen says you're wrong, I'm going with that.

Have a nice day.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

That guy's name is Paul Shillito: https://curious-droid.com/about-us/

Now I question why do I even have a conversation with someone as ignorant as you.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You are heavily invested. You keep going back to this other guy when I offered up proof by James Van Allen. A guy who knew a whole shit-ton more about the Van Allen belts (have you put two and two together on this yet?), the dynamics of radiation and the effects thereof.

[–] SickSpazmoid (877) 2 years ago

The droid guy presents some high school level facts about radiation and states the simple fact they flew the ships throughout the tinniest layers, which they could do, because it is USA/NASA who discovered and explored the belts in the 50s to begin with. Actually, this is exactly how they are going to do it for the coming Artemis missions. During high radiation events the astronauts are supposed to go in the part of the ship where there is the most amount of mass between them and space. That is.

On ISS the radiation is dozens of times higher than on Earths surface and even higher on the Moon. Current NASA rules for lifetime exposure to radiation allow for astronauts to work on the Moon for around 2 years. Yep. two years without their skin falling off and tuning into zombies, like in the movies. There is evidence of ill effects of radiation on people during long stays on ISS. There is also evidence that Apollo astronauts suffered from higher rate of cardiovascular disease, possibly also caused by radiation. In fact, radiation is so high in space that astronaut often can "see" it by closing their eyes and observing the flashes caused by radiation striking their optic nerves. Yep, being an astronaut is a an unhealthy job, like many other occupations.

The Van Allen belts are not the problem. The problem are bursts from the sun and deep space rays. Working on the moon without a shelter wouldn't be fun.

I think that you are lying about your education.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

I think that you are lying about your education.

I don't even need that to know you are a low life!

From your behaviors I am guessing you are paid to do this on social media, aren't you?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

His education is of no consequence since it means next to nothing in relation to the subject matter we're covering Don't waste your time. The dude's a shitball.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

I am guessing he is your colleague from the same "social media consulting" (AKA internet troll farm operator) agency?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I'm guessing that you can't offset the words of James Van Allen and that's why you continue to skirt the evidence.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

You are both shameless and embarrassing. But anyway, I have a life, so I will leave your 2 professionals to do whatever that is you do.

After all I don't do this for a living.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Common conspiracy theorist shit bag and science denier. That's what you are.

[–] samoanjoes (58601) 2 years ago

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

[–] SickSpazmoid (877) 2 years ago

Yep, they lost the tapes with the original video format. Upon reception they were converting it to TV format. The footage we see is the original, just not in the original format.

Some pics of the landing sites made by NASA's LRO mission 10 years ago

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

Same photographs were also done by China and India. There is a ton of other corroborating evidence, but I have better things to do today.

The point is, it is good to have doubts about such things, but a reasonable person would put some effort to learn how they actually did it, instead of lazily watching YouTube debunks of the landings. Seriously, when you learn about the space program, all the arguments about how they faked the moon landings start to look stupid to you. And I'm talking about Joe Rogan level of stupidity here.

[–] fc31 (6131) 2 years ago

So you are going to send this guy on wild goose chase mission taking years, and if he could not prove you are right then he is stupid.

How condescending and dishonest are you?

You are really a nasty piece of work.

[–] samoanjoes (58601) 2 years ago

Why erase the original tapes? I mean, this gives ammo to all the doubters.

[–] SickSpazmoid (877) 2 years ago

Probably nobody thought about it. The stream from the Moon was recorded by many TV stations anyway. The originals likely were of marginally better quality but its value was not perceived. The whole live TV thing was a PR stunt from their perspective with zero scientific value. The Apollo program was not popular among the people. When Apollo 11 happened, it peaked with something like 50% approval and declined from there on. It had to be sold as a great American moment and so on.

They lost only the Apollo 11 originals but there were 5 more landings after that and they brought with themselves increasingly better cameras. You know, proper TV cameras at that time were kinda huge and they were heavily constrained by both weight and bandwidth. On Apollo 11 mission they took crappy (by the standards of Today) low res, low FPS black and white camera. They used better cameras on later missions. However, they took hundreds of high quality photos.

All videos and photos taken from the later missions could be compared to those from Apollo 11 for any inconsistencies, if one wishes to do so. Chances are that many people already did this. So they either faked all six landings or none.

They could have not perceived back then what little oversights or fuck ups would have been used 50 years later against them by Internet intellectuals like Joe Rogan.

[–] samoanjoes (58601) 2 years ago

NASA provided the original feed and had all the best quality and angles available to them. I'm sure they had stuff that wasn't even broadcasted. I see every reason for them to delete the footage of the moon landing was fake.

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 2 years ago

I think it’s understandable for younger people that have grown up with photoshop, and cg, and deepfakes to be skeptical, because they grew up in an era where anything can be convincingly faked. But they lack perspective if they think it could’ve been faked convincingly in 1969 in way that still holds up today.