Who says we're trying to get people to believe us? This is just a sub for like-minded folks--not a place to defend and back up our stance 24/7.

the demands for proof and sources always make me laugh

I need central authority to tell me which thoughts are correct! (Sarcasm)

I agree with your direction but I don't see the need to be definitive. For instance: I don't agree or disagree with the moon landing conspiracy because I've seen evidence from both sides and I think both are plausible.

Topics of conspiracies are often meant to be secrets. It doesn't surprise me at all that many things don't fit our understanding.

[deleted]

No need to be defensive. I think the whole point here is to exchange ideas and contemplate their possibilities. What I meant (and where I thought you were going with your post) is when you choose to believe one thing it doesn't mean you have to disbelieve all others. A person can choose to believe a certain scenario is more likely, but attacking other theories doesn't make one's choice more right.

I see conspiracy theorizing (or critical thinking) as an unlimited imaginative process to seek possibility rather than a logical process to find answers with limited evidence. The problem is lack of evidence, not lack of consensus.

Also, realize that we don't go into their threads trying to change their opinion. For some reason, a lot of people join this sub just to change our opinions. It's like telling someone homo-marriage should be illegal. It's like they're uncomfortable knowing we think a certain and they must "show us the light." Personally, i they should just unsubcribe if they don't like what we talk about here. Otherwise, it's the same as gay bashing IMO.

Wait, what exactly is ridiculous about not believing man has landed on the moon?

Can I get an example of "so much evidence"? What exactly do you see as evidence man has landed on the moon?

Because Fox News told us we didn't, that's a big red flag as something is not what it appears to be.

If you take into calculation black technology we could easily have gone there.

[deleted]

Fair enough.

If you have no reason to believe, I have no reason to persuade.

[deleted]

I'd rather start with what compelling evidence you found that we did send a man to the moon. As far as I know, it is merely NASA footage. Not even the original footage, which has been erased, but remastered footage.

[deleted]

Because if you have no reason to believe, I have no reason to persuade.

Fair enough?

[deleted]

It's simply unfair to expect someone to prove something didn't happen, like proving man hasn't walked on Saturn.

You think something happened, but have no reason to believe that it did. How am I to show you that it did not if you have no falsifiable claims about what you believe is true?

Hence: if you have no reason to believe man walked on the moon, I have no means of dismantling that belief. You hold it on faith alone.

And your logical replies are all downvoted. Can't say I'm surprised.

The moon landing is fun because there's no compelling evidence whatsoever that it happened, it's all video Bible.

Combine that with the fact that it almost entirely inconsequential whether or not man has walked there and you get some interesting reactions.

It never fails to amaze me.

I get this rabid, froth-mouthed reaction anytime I even attempt to suggest that we may not have gone. It's completely absurd.

One of my favorite parts of the story is how Buzz Aldrin used a felt tip pen to fix the circuit breaker that got him off of the moon... in the "Eagle" which looked like it was made of cellophane, gold wrapping paper and some duct tape. Surely it would've been able to blast off from the moon, travel the 230,000+ miles through space, and re-enter the atmosphere with nary a hiccup. And all using a computer system that would've made my 1998 nokia flip phone look like a quantum computer.

Lunar physics are magical

This is my favorite video ever. The viewer sees what they want to see.

Haha! That should be submitted to /r/badphotoshop.

What was the explanation given for that? Some kind of robotic tripod that automatically adjusted to movement... or something...?

Like 9/11, the moon landing "official story" completely falls apart when put under the microscope. Nothing about it makes any sense.

Something like that. Since launching a pound of payload out of earths gravity well is so cheap, we brought all sorts of fun things like go-karts and sporting equipment, and even spare cameras, specially made robotic tripods, and spare video transmission gear.

For science! ^{...and our viewers at home}

what makes you an expert on how "most people" view the theories here?

my personal input on how most people view theories on this subreddit.

And what the fuck gives you the authority to speak for "most people"?

Have you actually spoke with a numerical majority of people who visit this sub to ascertain that data?

Have you literally gathered this data from over 150,000 users that are subscribed to /r/conspiracy?

Or are you just talking out of your ass, trying to push a false narrative?

Can I get an example of "so much evidence"?

The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is evidence of mans capabilities of sending a shuttle to land on the moon.

If we couldn't land on the moon, that retroreflector wouldn't be there. We know the retroreflector is there because scientists the world over can and have 'pinged' the retroreflector at their leisure.

Do you know how a retro reflector works? Hardly the sort of device that requires careful human placement.

In fact, the Russians had sent a rover with a retroreflector as well.

Not that it was entirely necessary, as the distance to the moon was measured by laser before any craft had landed there.

I submit that pinging a retroreflector is not suitable evidence for humans walking on the moon.

Do you know how a retro reflector works?

Absolutely not, I totally didn't bother to read about the argument I was presenting whatsoever.

Hardly the sort of device that requires careful human placement.

Assuming remote robots are incapable of delicate work - Yet we send robots to disarm bombs and perform remote surgery? Yeah, robots suck.

In fact, the Russians had sent a rover with a retroreflector on it before Apollo allegedly landed.

So you acknowledge the technology to land on the moon exists, great!

So if mankind is capable of sending a shuttle, why not a manned shuttle?

I submit that pinging a retroreflector is not suitable evidence for humans walking on the moon.

This isn't a scientific journal, you don't "submit" anything.

Alrighty then.

We were bouncing signals off the moon long before the Apollo program to distract from the Vietnam war began.

does not require human placement, therefore does not prove it.

it's a popular claim to make among "you folk" though.

So you believe that we have the capabilities of landing shuttles on the moon, that's great.

have you ever played darts?

the moon is a big bullseye

What are 'me folk'?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

accusing him of being a shill because he disagrees with you. That is your ONLY reason.

Wrong.

As I stated to /u/rockran:

you are a known controversial figure here as you always appear to be repeating talking points which don't actually prove your claims.

Cite an example.

Do your own homework kid.

Nothing is stopping you from scrolling through his posting history to see for yourself.

The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is evidence of mans capabilities of sending a shuttle to land on the moon.

Nobody disputes the presence of retro-reflectors on the lunar surface. The Russians also placed retro-reflectors on the moon during their unmanned Lunokhod 2 mission - it's still working to this day.

The point of contention is whether human beings have landed on the moon, and the hackneyed "lunar ranging argument" is not sufficient to prove that. Unless you are trying to promote a brand new conspiracy theory that the Russians also sent men to the moon?

Nobody disputes the presence of retro-reflectors on the lunar surface.

I'm sure there are some that do. It helps to weed them out.

Unless you are trying to promote a brand new conspiracy theory that the Russians also sent men to the moon?

I'm establishing the fact that we have the capability of landing shuttles on the moon.

It should be obvious to you now that retro-reflectors can, and have been, placed on the moon remotely.

The issue is not the technological know-how. It is whether humans could pass unharmed through the extremely high radiation levels of the Van Allen belts. Clearly, the Russians didn't think so.

The van Allen belts were of course a concern, but the exposure time as well as the shuttles shielding protected the astronauts from harm.

I'm on my phone, so I can't cite my sources right now but the level of radiation they were exposed to was less than the yearly allowed level for nuclear power plant workers.

Replying twice as you mightn't notice an edit:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Ctrl+F "Skin Dose" to see the table showing the radiation rating for each Apollo mission. You'll see that they range from .16 to 1.14 - In comparison, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission has set the safety limit at 5 per year for workers.

I guess it might be undesirable to get that much exposure in a short period of time, but it's not like it's anywhere near enough to harm you during or shortly after the mission was complete.

tl;dr "Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program."

I am aware of this, and it contains an inherent paradox. If someone does not believe that the Apollo missions took humans to the moon, then any "data" that Nasa published about radiation exposure during those contested missions is not going to hold much weight.

If Nasa faked the moon landings, then they would obviously have to provide some fake radiation data to counter the Van Allen belt skeptics.

If you're aware of how low the threat of radiation is then why did you raise it as a point against going to the moon?

NASA had previously sent detectors through the belt to measure the levels, so it's not like the moon landing missions were the first times they measured it.

If you're aware of how low the threat of radiation is then why did you raise it as a point against going to the moon?

Being aware of the existence of "data", is not the same thing as believing that data is correct.

Why don't you believe the data is correct?

We have been doing this for a long time and most people who "criticize" us know nothing about our stance, they usually come in here with a set bias.

For example there are people who come in here and tell me that they believe wtc7 was brought down symmetrically in free fall speed through localized office fires... And they don't need to provide any evidence for this claim, somehow it just happened, the NIST report even omitted building 7 and only later included it. It has done simulations for which they didn't release any of the variables and numbers they used. They also didn't include an internal model of how this destruction could have happened and yet its us conspiracy theorist that have to spoon feed you every little detail about our theories while these supposed skeptics don't seem to need proof for their own goddamn bias.

The thing is that what you call 'skeptics' aren't skeptical at all, they believe their own version with far less proof than the version we construct. There are plenty of scenarios where this happens. Sandy Hook for instance, what proof do you have that this event happened the way it did? You don't have any proof just a media show to which you point and say "aha! see it happened!".

Meanwhile Robbie Parker is laughing his fucking ass off on camera before going into character and the skeptics start trying to convince me that laughing is simply a way of cooping with the death of your child. So why did he go into character then? Why did he laugh when he thought the camera's were off and only start "crying" when he read the script?

I have been talking about this stuff for so long I know exactly what kind of person I'm talking to and when that person will never change his mind. Do the research yourself. People who don't do the research don't want to know its as simple as that. And you have no right to blame your ignorance on the fact that we aren't patient enough to explain the same thing over and over again.

And next time provide concrete fucking examples cause Iv heard many people claim this and I simply don't see it. So please provide a link to an example.

well said.

Hate to break it to you but there really isn't much compelling proof to suggest that we definitely, 100% went to the moon and a whole hell of a lot that makes the claim suspect (at best).

Actually, it was the condescending and thoughtless way in which I dismissed anyone that questioned the moon landings that really made me re-evaluate what I thought and why. Maybe you too could take a long hard look at "how you view Moon Landing Hoax theorists", and why that is.

One day, your search for knowledge and understanding will be more advanced than just looking at YouTube videos.

Would you entertain the idea that we did go to the moon, but most of the televised footage was pre tapped so they could perform top secret missions?

[deleted]

Alright, I'm on my mobile right now, but YouTube "Apollo 11 astronaut talks about top secret missions" there's a plethora there

[deleted]

Alright, I'll look for it in the mornin

[deleted]

If you love learning about them then why aren't you looking for them yourself? There is a paradox in your speaking going on, on one hand you make yourself out to be some kind of curious enthusiast and yet you want us to give you the information. Isn't seeking for information kind of the natural result of curiosity?

I never go on boards to ask people to explain shit to me, I google it myself and start skipping link from link until I get an image of what the running counter theory is. Yet you want us to spoon feed you and if we decline then you blame us for your ignorance... A little skewed to say the least.

[deleted]

You keep asking people to prove a negative. Assert your positive belief and see if it stands up to scrutiny. There is plenty of knowledge outside of flashy youtube videos.

Why do you believe we went to the moon?

So you think they were willing to fake the moon landing, but didn't.

What besides the footage compels you to believe they actually did?

What possible missions could they perform that they would want kept secret from the public?

It's not like they could put nukes on the moon and I somewhat doubt they had a tea party with aliens.

what I would advise is for you to keep your mouth shut and keep on lurking until you know as much as the people who have something to contribute.

ignorants spouting wise on how we are wrong on topic this or that because of something they saw on penn&teller, mythbusters or [insert corrupt mainstream media sewer here] or because they have never spent any time actually looking into the subject, beyond googling the top government created debunk site, please resist the temptation to display how little you know.

Kudos to you, a well put view point. Shame it is getting de-reiled with Moon hoax theories. Most people ITT can't understand an example. Your dealing with them quite well from what I can see

All of us are human with human flaws and many are way into conspiracy theories after they had their first world shattering of perception to scrutinize carefully.

The Moon Landing Hoax was produced by out friends from Fox News so its pure propaganda.

In fact it's a red herring as there is many interesting theories about the Moon and Mars.

Check out Dark Mission if you want to find out more.

The most amusing is why is the Mars sky blue and how they filter it out to red.

Mainstream science completely failed to explain our blue sky and why Mars must have blue not red sky.

dude, do you even proofread? ambiguous pronouns. derailing grammar. inappropriate punctuation. i read this like two and a half times and probably understand 75% of your message.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Allow me to apologize on behalf of the other user. We happen to have a rule against making arbitrary "shill" accusations against other users here, as it is considered a personal attack and diminishes the quality the sub while contributing nothing to the debate.

I must also ask that you try to avoid levying personal attacks here as well. Thank you for understanding.

Please try to refrain from accusing other users of being a "shill" or "troll" here arbitrarily as it is against our rules and only serves to diminish the quality of the sub. Thank you for understanding.

Ok. I was making a joke though.

Can I get an example of "so much evidence"?

The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is evidence of mans capabilities of sending a shuttle to land on the moon.

If we couldn't land on the moon, that retroreflector wouldn't be there. We know the retroreflector is there because scientists the world over can and have 'pinged' the retroreflector at their leisure.

Because Fox News told us we didn't, that's a big red flag as something is not what it appears to be.

If you take into calculation black technology we could easily have gone there.

You keep asking people to prove a negative. Assert your positive belief and see if it stands up to scrutiny. There is plenty of knowledge outside of flashy youtube videos.

Why do you believe we went to the moon?