You'd think that film would be a national treasure to be put in a museum. It's the most significant human achievement ever. Amazing that they lost so much stuff from those missions.

This was the conspiracy that really sent me over the edge. It seemed totally ridiculous to me, but the more I dug into it, the stranger and stranger the inconsistencies became. It was at that point I realized almost everything we've been told is probably a lie on some level, and that the insidious evil must permeate all societies because if Russia and China aren't calling the USA on our propagandist bullshit it's because their horrific lies to their people must be just as bad.

if Russia and China aren't calling the USA on our propagandist bullshit it's because their horrific lies to their people must be just as bad.

Yes. Or it's the same group of liars in control of those countries as well, end result for you and I is probably mostly the same either way.

Looks into the ISS hoax. I didn't believe it myself either, but there's some very suspicious video that suggests the ISS may in fact be fake. There's just a round satellite floating where the ISS is supposed to be, and all the footage, photos are just composites, and people floating around in zero G planes. It sounds crazy until you watch the videos... China and Russia are in on it.

Do you have a link to the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=685&v=mt_qySI10VI For the record, although the guy thinks reentry is fake too, I doubt that. I'm pretty sure a space station, reenetry, LER are all possible, but imo for whatever reason a lot of the videos shown are indeed fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds This one is also curious. Could be he misspoke, but weird nonetheless.

Seen the second clip, but never the first. Very interesting. Thank you.

I was ready to believe the moon landing was a hoax until I got banned from a hoax website when I said the space shuttle and the ISS was real, which I know because I worked on the ISS and personally saw the space shuttle take off several times while working at the kennedy space center. when people don't believe what I saw with my own eyes, in fact call me a liar, then I can't trust anything else they believe. For that reason I have to say the moon landing was real, and mainly for that reason.

Being banned by an overzealous mod isn't proof of anything and the existence of the ISS isn't proof that a human has ever stepped foot on the Moon.

Just sayin'.

I know, but if you lump them in with the moon landing hoax, then I reject reject everything in your world view. The only thing that bothers me about the moon landing is how they got off the moon. You need to switch over to moon-based coordinates in your IMU in order to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft, IMO, yet the moon has never been surveyed. You would need to use a theodolite and a survey marker to initialize the IMU. They say they used a star finder, but they also said they "didn't remember" ever being able to see stars. This causes me a slight amount of cognitive dissonance.

I was literally a rocket scientist at one time and worked on the guidance computer for the Delta rocket, in the guidance and controls group at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, CA, which is now Boeing.

I know, but if you lump them in with the moon landing hoax, then I reject reject everything in your world view.

I understand, but this is an issue. It's a logical fallacy. Everyone you've ever met or ever will meet has been wrong about something and probably holds quite a few beliefs that are also false, but that doesn't mean they don't have other knowledge to share or that they're wrong about everything else. I'm just saying that I think you're limiting yourself a bit with this mindset. Most of history's greatest geniuses were called crazy more than once.

but they also said they "didn't remember" ever being able to see stars.

This corroborates all of the astronauts' pictures from the Apollo missions which show a totally black and empty sky above the Moon's surface when we'd expect to see the most dazzling array of stars the human eye has ever witnessed.

As far as the Moon landing stuff though? If you want to discuss it more I'm game but it seems to be a topic that gets people really upset for some reason. If you've never looked at all into some of the claims made by people who doubt NASA's official story, this series is probably a good place to start.

I was literally a rocket scientist at one time

That's awesome, probably makes you sound pretty badass at parties huh?

Nobody ever invites me to parties. Although I going to a bar tomorrow and the girl that tends bar is young, 24, and smoking fucking hot, and I need to recruit her as my associate. She already told me she would like to be a PI, and I have a big money job for her. $Millions. If I don't get her, there's a couple other babes I know who are highly intelligent, but barely getting by in life. But when I was a rocket scientist, I went to parties every week. When I later got hire at the now defunct Ford Aerospace, Newport Beach, CA, people in my dept. were snorting cocaine right at their desks.

I'm kind of burned out on the moon landing. There's some strong arguments either way, so I'll just reserve judgement. Recently the govt admitted HAARP was in fact used for weather modification and chemtrails are real, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come out and admit that the moon landings were fake, just to fuck with peoples' minds. They are extremely good, amazingly good, at mind control, so nothing surprises me. And I think I have a rare form of synesthesia, where I see patterns and textures, and the pattern I see for the moon landing is slightly bothersome, thus I used the term cognitive dissonance. The pattern I get for 9-11 is disturbing, which leads me to believe they're not telling us something. I used to work in an AI lab, and was deeply involved in pattern recognition. I also spent many years working on automatic target recognition and tracking, worked with a couple PhDs who had their own company, and became an expert on pattern recognition. I also worked on a vault project, building a camera for the U2, which was an Air Force project, but it was really the CIA.

And I think I have a rare form of synesthesia, where I see patterns and textures, and the pattern I see for the moon landing is slightly bothersome, thus I used the term cognitive dissonance.

What I'll say is that there's a lot of actual evidence to support your intuition in both cases if you ever did feel inclined to do some digging.

Cheers my man, if you actually are (or were) a rocket scientist you're probably the first I've ever interacted with.

Check this out... I'm being closely monitored by Homeland Security, or a fusion center. I opened a new yahoo email account, then put some hopefully secret information in a secure privnote, sent it to that account from a hidden email on Tor, and it was opened by somebody, likely a fusion center, immediately. Privnote has an option to notify you whenever your privnote msg is read. I should have sent a test msg instead, dammit. I was afraid that was going to happen and even sanitized the msg before I sent it. As soon as I saw my privnote was read, my internet shut off and I had to reset it. I'm going to do it again and tell them if they want to keep an eye on me to just fucking hire me.

Last week I tried to call an attorney, and as soon as I hung up I got a call from a restricted number and the guy asked me who I was, I said who is this but he wouldn't tell me. I hung up and he called back again, and I shut my phone off and pulled out the battery so they couldn't trace my phone. This was from an obamaphone and now my phone got cancelled. Those motherfuckers are right up my ass no matter where I go. I'm sure they're reading this message, probably as I type, since I haven't scanned for a keylogger lately. I did put tape over the camera the other day. We're all so fucked unless we stand together. I'd like to go someplace quiet, like Crimea.

prove it where are the screenshots or call records

prove that you worked in an Ai lab. Prove that you worked on automatic target recognition and tracking. Prove that you worked on a vault project building a camera for the U2. Prove that you indirectly worked for the CIA.

Can they shower in space?

refuses to answer question, had 1 whole day

Yes, I have proof. No, you can't see it.

[–]JoemeatballsSC2 1 point 1 day ago

Can they shower in space?

permalinksaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply

why don't you google it?

Because I want your thoughts!

then you are bullshit, wont be replying to you any more.

don't let the door hit you in the ass. Interesting that your account is 19 hours old.

what door buddy can they shower in space?

The ISS is roughly 239 miles away.

The moon landing took place roughly 239,000 miles away.

Literally an astronomical difference. Also, you "working on the ISS" is not proof of anything. You were compartmentalized and worked on one small aspect of one small thing and, whether you want to admit or not, you were a tiny part of something much bigger that, in reality, you really have no clue about. And that is not an insult, it is a reality.

Well, no shit. I'm surprised it exists myself. There were some idiots on that project. It was a big dumping ground for incompetent engineers. Our in-circuit emulator was the size of a refrigerator just to have a i386 stuck into a socket on the outside. We were programming in Ada using a drag and drop tool, Matrix-X, that didn't work very well. The emulator did not support breakpoints or traces. I heard they later switched to C++, but I got out of that group because there was a massive, literally fat fuck, asshole sysadmin who took to hating me. Fortunately, it was just a temporary assignment.

Ya know... you can see the ISS passing overhead at night sometimes under the right conditions.

Guess what else? I also worked briefly on the failed billion dollar border security system and I can tell you it was designed from the beginning not to work. I got fired as a consultant for saying it would never work.

First paragraph: I understand some of those words.

ISS: yeah, I am pretty sure that the ISS exists, its the whole moon landing thing that has me scratching my head these days.

Also, you should make a self-post or do an AMA, seems like you were involved in some pretty cool/interesting projects.

Ahhh, there's lots of guys like me. 3 of my former coworkers, same department, are directors of engineering at major aerospace corporations, 2 at Boeing, and my ex-roommate from college is DofEng. at Panasonic.

prove that you worked briefly on the failed billion dollar border security system

do you have proof?

proof of what?

guess not

I don't have to prove anything to you. You're nobody important.

ad hominem how expected

straw man argument from a troll, as expected.

how the fuck did i mis represent your argument??? Do you even know the meaning of the words you choose?

You asked for proof. I made a comment, I don't need proof. Now you're changing the argument to whether or not I know the meaning of my own words, to which I clearly do know the meaning of my words.

You make a statement and wont provide proof, no straw man argument at all. I WAS THERE AND I SAW IT SO LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU arguments do NOT fly with me and never will unless there is proof provided.

HA! Your yelling now. I can tell you're getting desperate. Which is fine with me. I've got all day to rip you to pieces. At least until the paid shill brigade downvotes me into oblivion.

you only respond during working hours so who is really the paid shill here? Where is the proof of what you said in your original post that I replied to?

I generally respond 24/7. I was at a bar on Friday.

this guy didnt answer my 2nd question, i wont be engaging him further

maybe you're just not important to me. and your account being 19 hours old gives you zero gravitas.

BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON YOU

something tells me you'll be back. maybe from another new account.

Proof you were banned from a hoax website? Proof you saw the space shuttle take off several times while working at the Kennedy space center? Proof you worked at the Kennedy space center?

How would I have proof I was banned from a hoax website. It was years ago. You're not privileged to see proof of where I have worked.

This guy wont back up any of his claims, he wont get any bait from me any more thats for sure.

Well, ain't that a damn shame. you're pretty zealous considering your comment history spans only 19 hours!!!

yeah its a damn shame you refuse to actually back up what the fuck you comment about jackass

and you're a douche bag. Here's a comment from your fucking 19-hour-old troll account:

"There is no proof of Tesla actually existing or any known audio record of him fyi."

id love to hear his voice, you have any clips for me to listen to comment cherry picker? Am i gonna need to go through all your posts as some sort of strange vendetta now?

I'm sure you will. you seem infatuated with me. apparently I'm the most interesting motherfucker you've ever met online.

You just did it it to me? So what does that say about your feelings towards me then? (and no i actually haven't gone through your post history ROFLMAO i was referencing your own desperate tactics)

I had to check your post history to see how big of a troll you were, or if it was just with me. Okay, your account is older than 19 hours. Turns out you're still a troll. And you did say: "There is no proof of Tesla actually existing or any known audio record of him fyi."

Tesla? Well then who the fuck has all these patents? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents

and the moderator of /r/nchl. whatever the fuck that is. No wonder you're such a dick.

wheres the audio of tesla

I have that and no, you can't hear it.

loooooooooool troll confirmed FINALLY

I know you are but what am I?

story telling troll

my account is not 19 hours old, why do you consistently post unsubstantiated garbage?

and who the fuck are you talking to? do you think you have an audience? you should be banned for making comments that don't forward the discussion.

you should be banned for misleading people multiple times in the same thread

you said you were leaving and not coming back???? Nobody is even reading this thread any more, except for a couple friends who I told about the troll that was on here.

You are the one in here trolling, trying to steer all discussion away from the original topic. How far will you take it is the real question?

you're the only asshole demanding proof of anything. Check my comment history. You'll see I'm a smart guy and I did all these things. And I have also have a software patent, something used by the Air Force, and no, you can't see it because I would be doxxing myself.

so no proof then? pretty sure the burden of proof falls on the poster

Hey you know that one time humans went to the moon for the first time and only time in history? Yeah, we threw out all the tapes. Must have been a janitor or something. Whatever. Lucky we have all the taped Newscasts. We don't need those original moon tapes anyway....

The real reason NASA threw out the tapes.

Yep, the Apollo missions were a hoax in their entirety. It's amazing that the wool has been pulled over the world's eyes for so long, none of the details or "facts" stand up to scrutiny at all.

A bunch of the "moon rocks" have since been proven entirely fake also and quite a few others are "missing" or "lost".

Been a while since I've talked with a "Moon Landing Hoax" enthusiast. Have the arguments came very far in the last ten years or so? If so, could you elaborate on what you believe to be so unbelievable about humans leaving our planet?

Ever seen this?

I wish I had the technical ability to really argue for or against it, but it's is fascinating and it's a scientific approach to solving the problem. Not just picking out stuff that looks strange in photos.

Well considering the Apollo missions have always been hoaxes, I imagine that many of the arguments have remained fairly consistent over the years. You need only look over the details of the official story from NASA for a few hours to notice some pretty glaring anomalies.

For instance, why was there no delay between the astronauts and mission control anytime they spoke to each other? There should have been well over 2 seconds of delay for the sound to travel from Earth to the Moon and back, yet they're quite clearly conversing in real time in all of the recordings.

Moon rocks have been proven fake, others are "missing". All of the over 700 cartons of original video are "missing". You know what's also missing? Thousands and thousands of reels allegedly containing voice, biomedical monitoring, and telemetry data to monitor the location and functioning of the spaceships and their inhabitants, so basically the entirety of the alleged evidence and record.

So I guess I would ask what evidence you have that convinced you the Apollo missions actually did happen as we were told, aside from NASA just telling you they did.

How did the retroreflectors get to the moon?

I don't believe either way on Apollo 11, but Russian probes dropped reflectors in 1970. Google Lunokhood.

Yes, but there are four sets there, from the Russians and three Apollo missions.

If we're saying the entire manned moon landing was faked, it's no stretch to say unmanned rovers dropped all the reflectors.

My point is, the technological ability was there for unmanned rovers to do it (people claim unmanned rovers couldn't do it therefore manned moon landing must be real).

it's no stretch to say unmanned rovers dropped all the reflectors

It is a huge stretch, because you're positing that the USA accomplished a much more difficult task than the one you're denying.

the technological ability was there for unmanned rovers to do it

But it would have been easier for a manned mission, so Occam's Razor says that a manned mission is the obvious answer.

You're seriously overestimating the capability we had with unmanned or automated anything in the 1960s. Just because a rover is easier today doesn't mean it was easier then.

If it was easier for a manned mission then surely the Russians would have sent a manned mission rather than the Lunokhood rovers.

Why do we think the Apollo missions were so great if, by what you're saying the Russians accomplished something more impressive?

Except the Russian ones weren't located for 30-odd years, and the Apollo ones were located immediately. The issue in my mind isn't getting the rover there, but having telemetry good enough to immediately identify the location of the placement.

Why did you ignore all of the points initially made?

First off, have they ever been independently verified or are the only telescopes large enough to see them in the private sector?

Secondly, how do we know any of them are actually reflectors? Have you looked at some of the pictures out there of them? None are very conclusive.

Thirdly, reflectors on the Moon only show that something made it there, they do nothing to prove a human being ever stepped foot on the surface. An unmanned probe can leave things behind too.

First off, have they ever been independently verified or are the only telescopes large enough to see them in the private sector?

Yes, they have been, and anyone can do it themselves if they can afford the equipment.

Secondly, how do we know any of them are actually reflectors? Have you looked at some of the pictures out there of them? None are very conclusive.

Because they meet the functional definition of a retroreflector. Again, you can test this yourself if you can afford the equipment.

reflectors on the Moon only show that something made it there

No, it shows that something made it there and was carefully placed without being damaged, at some point during or prior to 1962. To assert that we had the capability to send an unmanned probe to position retroreflectors in 1962 is asserting that humanity had much greater capabilities then than we would have required to do a manned mission to the moon, so that argument actually undermines your position.

First off, have they ever been independently verified or are the only telescopes large enough to see them in the private sector?

You wrote:

Yes, they have been, and anyone can do it themselves if they can afford the equipment.

And here is the first answer on the thread that you linked:

I was a grad student on the APOLLO (Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser Ranging Operation) project that was shown on Mythbusters. The short answer is no way.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Yes, they have been, and anyone can do it themselves if they can afford the equipment.

This is just people saying, "Yes, of course you can." I was asking you if there's any evidence of this actually occurring, because I've never seen any.

And did you even read that link? Not at all something the average person can try at home, for starters the cost to create such a telescope alone is far outside the range of pretty much everyone on the planet.

In fact, many of the responses in that very thread you linked are people saying, "No, it isn't possible."

Because they meet the functional definition of a retroreflector. Again, you can test this yourself if you can afford the equipment.

I hope you won't be offended when I say that I'm not going to just take your word for it. Show me some evidence that this has ever occurred. The pictures of "reflectors" I've seen aren't conclusive at all.

No, it shows that something made it there and was carefully placed without being damaged, at some point during or prior to 1962

Well according to NASA, none of their reflectors were placed until 1969 at the earliest so I'm not really sure how you think they'd have placed one in or before 1962...

This is long before they ever even claim to have made it to the Moon.

is asserting that humanity had much greater capabilities then than we would have required to do a manned mission to the moon

I'm guessing you never heard of Lunokhod 1 and 2, which were both unmanned and left reflectors on the Moon.

Edit: removed a word

And did you even read that link? Not at all something the average person can try at home, for starters the cost to create such a telescope alone is far outside the range of pretty much everyone on the planet.

Neither is a moon landing, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Just that you can't do it, which is apropos of nothing.

Show me some evidence that this has ever occurred. The pictures of "reflectors" I've seen aren't conclusive at all.

If I make the effort, you will just discard and dismiss it with some excuse, as you've already shown a propensity to do.

Well according to NASA, none of their reflectors were placed until 1969 at the earliest

Wow I got the year wrong, so clearly NASA is lying because I made a mistake.

I'm guessing you never heard of Lunokhod 1 and 2,[1] which were both unmanned and left reflectors on the Moon.

And weren't located by ranging for like 30 years. Which rather upends your little unmanned rover theory seeing as how the Apollo ones were located basically immediately after being placed.

You totally ignored the issues with how using an unmanned rover to place the reflectors would have been harder than a manned mission, at that time.

Neither is a moon landing, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Just that you can't do it, which is apropos of nothing.

This is all speculation. Is there any evidence that anyone has ever done this? Any at all? Or is it just people saying, "well, you could if you had a few million and a few years to spare, but even then you probably couldn't get anything resembling a good picture." That's enough evidence to convince you? Someone saying that something could be done without offering anything to show it has been done?

If I make the effort, you will just discard and dismiss it with some excuse, as you've already shown a propensity to do.

So far your evidence is a thread that contained no evidence...

I'm not trying to insult you but come on. If you have anything else I'm all ears and eyes. Do you think this is conclusive?

Wow I got the year wrong, so clearly NASA is lying because I made a mistake.

Not at all. But Russia demonstrated just a year after 1969 that you could in fact place reflectors using only an unmanned probe. So the year actually does matter, 8 years is a lot more than 1 year.

And weren't located by ranging for like 30 years.

Not true - Lunokhod 1's reflector worked perfectly fine for roughly the first year of its being on the surface. The Russian reflector that was discovered a few years ago also returned far more light than Apollo's.

You totally ignored the issues with how using an unmanned rover to place the reflectors would have been harder than a manned mission, at that time.

If this is true then why did Russia use unmanned rovers instead of human beings? And why are the Apollo missions looked upon so highly if Russia actually did something more impressive?

Is there any evidence that anyone has ever done this?

There's an entire telescope at UCSD that is specific for this experiment!

So far your evidence is a thread that contained no evidence...

Your decision to disregard evidence does not mean the evidence doesn't exist - just that you chose to disregard it.

Do you think this is conclusive?

No, did I say I did?

Not at all. But Russia demonstrated just a year after 1969 that you could in fact place reflectors using only an unmanned probe. So the year actually does matter, 8 years is a lot more than 1 year.

Reflectors that weren't ranged for 30 odd years. Which is why I say that using an umanned rover to place the reflectors would have been harder at the time, considering that the Apollo reflectors were located immediately.

The Russian reflector that was discovered a few years ago also returned far more light than Apollo's.

And yet it took decades to be located! Hence the issue.

If this is true then why did Russia use unmanned rovers instead of human beings? And why are the Apollo missions looked upon so highly if Russia actually did something more impressive?

You're cherry-picking my argument to avoid the faults in your own. It wasn't getting the rover there, it was placing the reflectors such that they could be immediately and reliably located. Which the Russian ones weren't.

There's an entire telescope at UCSD that is specific for this experiment![1]

Maybe our standards for evidence are different. There is nothing on that page that proves anything, no pictures of reflectors, and certainly nothing that proves a layman can make or has made a telescope like this on their own before.

Your decision to disregard evidence does not mean the evidence doesn't exist - just that you chose to disregard it.

Again, what evidence? Some grainy photos and NASA's word? You haven't presented any.

Which is why I say that using an umanned rover to place the reflectors would have been harder at the time, considering that the Apollo reflectors were located immediately.

No, your original argument was that it would've been impossible for an unmanned rover to leave reflectors on the Moon which is clearly false considering Russia did it the following year.

That they lost track of them only proves that their mission didn't go as planned, why do you assume NASA would make the same mistakes? Why do you assume any unmanned mission would suffer the same fate?

And I already said that the first unmanned Russian probe's reflector was located and worked perfectly fine for a full year after landing.

It wasn't getting the rover there, it was placing the reflectors such that they could be immediately and reliably located. Which the Russian ones weren't.

See above but the first one was located immediately and worked how it was supposed to for a year before being lost. Bottom line is that an unmanned probe can leave a reflector, so therefore the existence of reflectors alone doesn't prove that a human reached the Moon.

There is nothing on that page that proves anything, no pictures of reflectors, and certainly nothing that proves a layman can make or has made a telescope like this on their own before

Lens theory tells us it's impossible to take a picture of the reflectors from Earth.

And your "layman" requirement is just ridiculous. Is that a requirement for proof that the moon landing occurred? That a layman can do it?

Again, what evidence? Some grainy photos and NASA's word? You haven't presented any.

You will just dismiss it anyway, as you have shown.

No, your original argument was that it would've been impossible for an unmanned rover to leave reflectors on the Moon which is clearly false considering Russia did it the following year.

That was not my argument. My argument was that using an unmanned rover to place the reflectors would have been harder than a manned mission.

That they lost track of them only proves that their mission didn't go as planned, why do you assume NASA would make the same mistakes? Why do you assume any unmanned mission would suffer the same fate?

Because the history of unmanned missions is chock full of lost spacecraft.

And I already said that the first unmanned Russian probe's reflector was located and worked perfectly fine for a full year after landing.

And another lost for 30+ years. While the Apollo ones were 100% located immediately.

that an unmanned probe can leave a reflector, so therefore the existence of reflectors alone doesn't prove that a human reached the Moon

Ahhh, moving the goalposts I see. Good work! Just what I expected from you.

Lens theory tells us it's impossible to take a picture of the reflectors from Earth.

Gotcha, so we what? Just accept that they exist based on nothing? What are the pictures on google if you type "Moon reflectors" of (like the one I linked) if there can't be any pictures taken of them?

You will just dismiss it anyway, as you have shown.

Hard to dismiss something that's never been offered. Lens theory wiki article and a reddit thread of people circlejerking are not evidence that a human has set foot on the Moon, I'm sorry.

My argument was that using an unmanned rover to place the reflectors would have been harder than a manned mission.

But Russia did it the year after and clearly thought it was the easier route. You haven't really substantiated this argument and again: if it were actually harder to land an unmanned probe and place a reflector then why are the Apollo missions held in such high regard?

Because the history of unmanned missions is chock full of lost spacecraft.

Yes you're very right, there have been tons of failed attempts at conquering space. It seems to be only the Apollo missions that went off without a hitch every single time - even 13 suffered no casualties. Nothing strange about that.

And another lost for 30+ years. While the Apollo ones were 100% located immediately.

Okay, but I don't know why you can't understand that this doesn't prove a human stepped foot there. It is entirely possible that NASA also used unmanned probes to place the reflectors and were just better at it than Russia. It's also possible that the reflectors aren't there at all since according to you we can't take pictures of them from Earth.

Ahhh, moving the goalposts I see. Good work! Just what I expected from you.

Not at all. This has in fact been my exact argument all along, have you been reading anything I've said? The reflectors in and of themselves don't prove a human made it to the Moon, period. Evidence of this is that Russia used an unmanned probe the following year, so it clearly can be done. It's not difficult logic to follow...

Gotcha, so we what? Just accept that they exist based on nothing?

Or the fact that you can run an experiment that proves they're there.

What are the pictures on google if you type "Moon reflectors" of (like the one I linked) if there can't be any pictures taken of them?

Pictures taken during fabrication and placement.

Hard to dismiss something that's never been offered

You just throw out any evidence that conflicts with your staunch disbelief. The onus is on you to prove the moon landing didn't happen, since you are making the claim.

The reflectors in and of themselves don't prove a human made it to the Moon, period

According to you, no amount of evidence proves it, unless a layman with $20 and fifteen minutes of spare time can do it in his back yard.

The onus is on you to prove the moon landing didn't happen, since you are making the claim.

This is anti-logic. If the claim is that humans landed on the Moon, which is a pretty extraordinary claim, then that claim needs to be proven. But all of their evidence has mysteriously vanished. If the only actual evidence is reflectors then that isn't very good proof at all since we already know they can be placed without the use of human beings (since Russia did exactly that).

Your only argument that humans needed to be there was that there were problems with both of Russia's unmanned landers but that in no way means that all unmanned landers would have the same problems. We can speculate either way, but the point is that it doesn't prove a human made it to the Moon.

Are the reflectors the only evidence you have that's convinced you? They almost have to be since no other evidence really exists.

According to you, no amount of evidence proves it

What is this "evidence" that you think you've offered? It was you who claimed that "this could be tested by anyone" in an earlier comment. If it can't be tested by a layman, then we're just taking NASA's word for it again.

If the claim is that humans landed on the Moon, which is a pretty extraordinary claim, then that claim needs to be proven.

The claim has been proven to my satisfaction. You are claiming it didn't happen. Thus, the onus is on you.

Are the reflectors the only evidence you have that's convinced you?

No, they just seemed to be a point that you couldn't hand-wave away. But I failed to understand the depth of your commitment to hand-waving.

If it can't be tested by a layman, then we're just taking NASA's word for it again.

Yes, if you, personally can't travel to the moon, then clearly it didn't happen. Some standard!

The claim has been proven to my satisfaction. You are claiming it didn't happen. Thus, the onus is on you.

I don't think you know how this works. The claim I'm disputing is the claim "humans have set foot on the Moon". I'm not making a claim, I'm disputing a claim.

I'm telling you it didn't happen, prove to me it did. If your only evidence is the reflectors then we've already established that isn't proof of a human setting foot there. So I'm assuming there's something else that convinced you?

No, they just seemed to be a point that you couldn't hand-wave away. But I failed to understand the depth of your commitment to hand-waving.

Did the Russians leave reflectors on the Moon without any human involvement? Oh, they did? Then how is the existence of a reflector proof of human involvement in and of itself? Answer: it isn't.

It's easy to hand-wave when the argument you're making is easily disproven with simple logic. We know that a human isn't required to leave a reflector so how is a reflector proof of a human? It doesn't even make sense if you would take a few seconds to actually consider it.

Yes, if you, personally can't travel to the moon, then clearly it didn't happen.

What are you even talking about? We were discussing a layman being able to build a telescope with which to prove to themselves that the reflectors are there and look like they should. You linked me yesterday to a reddit thread filled with people essentially disproving the point you were attempting to make who almost universally said that it couldn't be done and, if it could, it wouldn't be possible for the huge majority of people on Earth.

Nobody said anything about me traveling to the Moon.

I'm not making a claim, I'm disputing a claim.

Which is in itself a claim, and it's your responsibility to prove it.

I'm telling you it didn't happen, prove to me it did.

That's not how it works - you have to prove your claim.

It's easy to hand-wave when the argument you're making is easily disproven with simple logic.

That's not how this works. You can't "logic" away facts just because you don't like them.

We were discussing a layman being able to build a telescope with which to prove to themselves that the reflectors are there and look like they should.

Which they can, if they have the money and skill. This isn't a backyard project - lens theory alone will tell you that. But of course you don't want facts you want validation.

You linked me yesterday to a reddit thread filled with people essentially disproving the point you were attempting to make who almost universally said that it couldn't be done and, if it could, it wouldn't be possible for the huge majority of people on Earth.

Except of course for the telescope at UCSD that is devoted to doing exactly this experiment, but that's not good enough because you can't do it yourself. It's almost like space travel is a complicated and difficult endeavor!

Which is in itself a claim, and it's your responsibility to prove it.

Disputing a claim is a claim itself? Hahaha, are you serious? No, false.

But if you actually want to go this route, tell me why it is that every recording of the Moon landings has no delay at all in the audio between the astronauts and mission control. Simple math tells us there should have been well over two seconds of delay for the sound to travel from the Moon to Earth and back again - so explain to me how it's possible that they're speaking in real time in every recording.

That's not how it works - you have to prove your claim.

I haven't made one, you should go look up burden of proof I think. You're claiming that a human set foot on the Moon so prove it to me.

That's not how this works. You can't "logic" away facts just because you don't like them.

Now you're just saying words. This is really quite simple: a reflector can be placed by an unmanned probe, thus a reflector is not proof of a human. Period. Now either explain why I'm wrong, using words and logic, or give me something else in the form of evidence that convinced you.

Which they can, if they have the money and skill.

...which is just about no one on the planet, and that's exactly the point. So considering that very, very few people can actually do this, it's a pretty meaningless argument on your part. "It can be independently verified." Well, no, it really can't.

Bottom line is, you're deluded, and no evidence on earth would convince you.

Maybe if you would actually present some instead of insulting me the discussion would be a bit different. Just repeating the word "evidence" over and over and over again doesn't really mean anything when there isn't actually any evidence being offered.

And the real bottom line is: reflectors don't prove human involvement despite what you've apparently convinced yourself of. How do I know this, you ask? Because reflectors have been placed without any human involvement. Again, simple stuff.

I also notice you completely avoided responding to the explanation I asked for regarding the audio, although I can't say I'm surprised since you ignored it in the first comment of mine you responded to as well.

Maybe if you would actually present some

I have, and you dismiss it. We're done here, champ. You're deluded. Enjoy your life.

...no you haven't. "Reflectors". That's your evidence. That and you just repeating the word "evidence" over and over again.

The reflectors have been debunked as proof of human involvement, and believe it or not you just repeating the evidence mantra doesn't make your argument any stronger.

I think we are done here because you apparently have no other evidence and you also apparently have no explanation for why there's no delay in the audio.

And insulting strangers on the internet when you have no rebuttal to their arguments makes you look pretty immature, just so you know for the future.

Enjoy your cognitive dissonance, I know how painful it can be.

Well considering the Apollo missions have always been hoaxes, I imagine that many of the arguments have remained fairly consistent over the years.

And most all of the arguments have been shown time and time again to be utter nonsense. The flag fluttering, the footprints on the moon, shadows cast by the rocks, the way the sky appears etc. If you believe that missing information is proof of this hoax, you should self-examine your ideas.

Start here.

So I guess I would ask what evidence you have that convinced you the Apollo missions actually did happen as we were told, aside from NASA just telling you they did.

Here you are. I understand its Wikipedia, but its pretty thourough and exactly what you asked for.

How about responding to the actual points I made instead of linking to some tiny wikipedia article that doesn't address a single one of them?

If you believe that missing information is proof of this hoax

It's funny that to you all of this missing information somehow proves that NASA is telling the truth. Anti-logic if I've ever seen it. You just take their word for it when all of their evidence has mysteriously vanished and the physical evidence (Moon rocks) has been proven fake on more than one occasion. Why?

I understand its Wikipedia, but its pretty thourough and exactly what you asked for.

Did you even read it? It literally doesn't address a single thing I said.

The only points you made were about the communications and some missing data. I don't have a response to the communications point, not a point I've heard before. (And I'll happily admit I don't know..)

It's funny that to you all of this missing information somehow proves that NASA is telling the truth. Anti-logic if I've ever seen it.

Complete straw-man. I didn't claim anything of the sort. Where as you included it in the same paragraph claim it as proof of a hoax. Its easy to win an argument when you are making up what the other person said, right?

Also, could you provide some of your most compelling sources on the moon rocks brought back from the Apollo missions being faked?

Did you even read it? It literally doesn't address a single thing I said.

But at that end of your post you said..

I would ask what evidence you have that convinced you the Apollo missions actually did happen as we were told, aside from NASA just telling you they did.

So a page detailing third party evidence isn't what you asked for?! I must be far too high, because I'm almost sure that third party meant it wasn't, "NASA just telling you they did."

Complete straw-man. I didn't claim anything of the sort.

Well you believe NASA is telling the truth despite them having no evidence or data with which to prove their claims, so I don't really know where the strawman is. You believe them despite all of the missing information and data, I didn't misrepresent you.

Also, could you provide some of your most compelling sources on the moon rocks brought back from the Apollo missions being faked?

There's this thing called Google, you should check it out. Just type in "NASA fake Moon rocks" or "NASA missing Moon rocks" and you should have plenty to go off of.

Here's one link explaning how Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin gave the Dutch Prime Minister a worthless piece of petrified wood and claimed it was a Moon rock from one of their Apollo missions.

So a page detailing third party evidence isn't what you asked for?!

"Detailing"? Most of that link is two sentence blurbs that don't provide details of any kind.

Are you even re-reading what you're saying before you send it? Because holy fucking shit this is incredible. Its the response I expected, but even still.. Well done.

I don't really know where the strawman is. You believe them despite all of the missing information and data, I didn't misrepresent you.

Hmm.. Let's see.

It's funny that to you all of this missing information somehow proves that NASA is telling the truth. Anti-logic if I've ever seen it.

Did I make that claim? No. Straw-man.

There's this thing called Google, you should check it out.

JUST GOOGLE IT MAAAANNNN. THEN U WILL SEE DA TROOF.

I did ask for your most compelling sources.. But ah well. I love the leap you make from a few fraudulent rocks, to every single piece that is claimed must be false.

What would you say to anyone that confirms a piece to not be from Earth?

"Detailing"? Most of that link is two sentence blurbs that don't provide details of any kind.

What a petty dismissal. Fucking ridiculous. The wiki page is hardly all there is on the subject, it simply lists exactly what you asked for. Have you got any response to the independant evidence? Or are you simply going to ignore its existance?

It's funny that to you all of this missing information somehow proves that NASA is telling the truth. Anti-logic if I've ever seen it.

Did I make that claim? No. Straw-man.

Do we agree that all of NASA's data is missing? And do we agree that you think NASA is telling the truth? If the answer to both questions is yes, then you believe NASA is telling the truth despite their having no evidence whatsoever. So somehow, their lack of evidence did prove to you that they're telling the truth. There is no strawman, despite your inability to comprehend your own argument.

I love the leap you make from a few fraudulent rocks, to every single piece that is claimed must be false.

So two NASA astronauts give a "moon rock" to the leader of a country, it's proven that they actually gave him a piece of petrified wood, and yet we're to just assume that this was a once-off anomaly? They got their moon rock mixed up with something they found in a forest somewhere? And that isn't the only case of a fake moon rock, if you would just "GOOGLE IT MAAAAAN" maybe you would know that instead of needing me to hold your hand and walk you through it.

Have you got any response to the independant evidence?

What evidence? Just read some of it.

"On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos."

So, not a real picture.

"As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware."

So, no real picture.

"China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified."

So, claims without any evidence.

"Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place."

Totally unsubstantiated claim without any evidence.

"The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."

Unsubstantiated, no evidence, and neither of the two sources lead anywhere.

Do I need to keep going? Where is this "evidence" you're referring to?

Mate, just give up lol. They've already made up their minds and any evidence you show them will be ignored. You'd have more luck getting blood from a stone.

I talk pretty often with 9/11 Truthers here, so don't worry I'm used to it. Trying to get them to concede they're wrong on even the smallest point is near impossible. But I love the fact that they are always so condesending to anyone who doesn't blindly disbelieve the "official" narrative.

Its all pretty cute.

Wait. You believe the official narrative on 9/11? I really don't see how anybody who does even the slightest bit of digging can. Not saying there were holographic planes or demolition charges or anything like that, but....c'mon man. Dig around a little. They at the very very very least facilitated a bunch of guys who made the attack.

I've done my digging, thought I was "awake" to the whole thing yada yada yada. Until I actually started examining the reasons I thought this, and they served as no viable alternative when put together.

I don't believe the buildings were imploded by thermitic charges if that's what you're asking. I find the idea laughable now. The leaps of logic it takes to think that Tower 7 was rigged to implode are gigantic.

Honestly, just try it now. Lay out to me what you believe happened on 9/11. Like a play by play. You can mark what you think is simply guesswork if you're not sure.

Let's see if it could up to the same scrutiny that has been applied to the "official story"

I appreciate your civil response, and I may yet lay out the points I would ask you to consider, but I don't really have the time right now to devote to a point-by-point recitation. They're all over the 'net though, I'm sure you've seen good ones, i've you've done the digging that you claim.

But in short, there are SO MANY HOLES in the government's story, and there are so many points left unaddressed in the Official Report -- including not even a page devoted to Bldg7.

I honestly don't see how anybody who has looked deeply into 9/11 could think the Official Story is honest. I mean, even 6 of the 11 Committee members now say they were hoodwinked!

Its always good for a laugh. Better than /r/funny this sub.

Most important film footage EVER, yet it was never shown to the public, and was never preserved. People are so easily fooled.

The zio TV told me. It must be true.

"Some things that should not have been forgotten were lost."

NASA is BULLSHIT, government funded HOAX ARTISTS conning the people.

Such stupidity deserves THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k

Buzz Aldrin punching a guy is proof of Buzz Aldrin being a giant douche-bag, despite what the NASA SCIENCE AWESOME circlejerk wants you to believe.

Why would you punch someone for saying something that you know is false? You wouldn't. People react like that when they are angry. Buzz was angry because he was being called out.

But you can't seriously MEAN that the moon landing never happened?

Getting real fucking tired of these moon landing hoax theories people seem to believe happen.

Yeah, fuck people for having their own opinions on what happened..

How can you have an option on something that actually happened? That's like saying the carpet you are standing on is wood. WTF?

You are aware that there are people on this planet who don't believe the moon landing was real, right? Im not saying I'm one of them, I'm just letting you know my reasoning for the words I previously spoke.

The simulacra is real, jaden

Are you even re-reading what you're saying before you send it? Because holy fucking shit this is incredible. Its the response I expected, but even still.. Well done.

I don't really know where the strawman is. You believe them despite all of the missing information and data, I didn't misrepresent you.

Hmm.. Let's see.

It's funny that to you all of this missing information somehow proves that NASA is telling the truth. Anti-logic if I've ever seen it.

Did I make that claim? No. Straw-man.

There's this thing called Google, you should check it out.

JUST GOOGLE IT MAAAANNNN. THEN U WILL SEE DA TROOF.

I did ask for your most compelling sources.. But ah well. I love the leap you make from a few fraudulent rocks, to every single piece that is claimed must be false.

What would you say to anyone that confirms a piece to not be from Earth?

"Detailing"? Most of that link is two sentence blurbs that don't provide details of any kind.

What a petty dismissal. Fucking ridiculous. The wiki page is hardly all there is on the subject, it simply lists exactly what you asked for. Have you got any response to the independant evidence? Or are you simply going to ignore its existance?

Well, no shit. I'm surprised it exists myself. There were some idiots on that project. It was a big dumping ground for incompetent engineers. Our in-circuit emulator was the size of a refrigerator just to have a i386 stuck into a socket on the outside. We were programming in Ada using a drag and drop tool, Matrix-X, that didn't work very well. The emulator did not support breakpoints or traces. I heard they later switched to C++, but I got out of that group because there was a massive, literally fat fuck, asshole sysadmin who took to hating me. Fortunately, it was just a temporary assignment.

Ya know... you can see the ISS passing overhead at night sometimes under the right conditions.

Guess what else? I also worked briefly on the failed billion dollar border security system and I can tell you it was designed from the beginning not to work. I got fired as a consultant for saying it would never work.

If the claim is that humans landed on the Moon, which is a pretty extraordinary claim, then that claim needs to be proven.

The claim has been proven to my satisfaction. You are claiming it didn't happen. Thus, the onus is on you.

Are the reflectors the only evidence you have that's convinced you?

No, they just seemed to be a point that you couldn't hand-wave away. But I failed to understand the depth of your commitment to hand-waving.

If it can't be tested by a layman, then we're just taking NASA's word for it again.

Yes, if you, personally can't travel to the moon, then clearly it didn't happen. Some standard!

how the fuck did i mis represent your argument??? Do you even know the meaning of the words you choose?

HA! Your yelling now. I can tell you're getting desperate. Which is fine with me. I've got all day to rip you to pieces. At least until the paid shill brigade downvotes me into oblivion.

Yes, I have proof. No, you can't see it.

I generally respond 24/7. I was at a bar on Friday.