Do you believe the moon landing was faked?

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.

Do you believe the moon landing was faked?

Yes
1
8%
No
11
92%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8852
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Do you believe the moon landing was faked?

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:38 am

sykkelmannen wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:42 am
Would it be fair if I relentlessly demanded proof that Apollo indeed landed on the Moon, of all of you,
You're the one who made the claim (an extraordinary claim), so you need to back it up. You knew you were breaking the rules when you made that post saying you weren't going to back up your claims.
You need to start supporting your arguments, or you're going to end up getting banned.

As Soon as Zzzz asks for you to be banned for breaking the rules (if he does) that'll be it. So if you want to post here you need to make an honest attempt to respond to his arguments.

Or you need to take them back. At any time you can admit an agnostic position about whether the moon landing happened or not and nobody will bother you.


And FYI: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Making a claim like "the Earth is round" does not carry the same burden as a claim like "the Earth is flat"; the former is mainstream consensus and can be understood by studying basic physics; the latter requires much more work to support.

Likewise, making an accepted claim in history and science about the moon landing is not like making a claim of a grand conspiracy.
sykkelmannen wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:42 am
and demanding complete explanations? I don't think so. I respect you have the right to your opinion, all of you, and I have no desire to prove you wrong.
You don't need to know everything, but you need to provide an explanation of one more plausible alternative to the moon landing actually happening.

An assertion of faith is not adequate. We don't let people come here to just lecture and proclaim Jesus Christ without answering arguments, and we won't let you do the same for your faith in conspiracy theories.

sykkelmannen
Newbie
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:17 am
Diet: Freegan

Post by sykkelmannen » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm

@salad
Wow, what a great witch-hunt you got going here. Lol is this a honeypot? Do you ban just about anyone with an opinion different than yours? That's rich. It does seem kinda quiet in this forum considering all the entries in the welcome section.

I don't have a proof. Guess what, you don't have a proof either. Apparently Zzzzz's wild claim about Moon trip being cheaper than a fakery doesn't need any proof to pass your rigorous standards ;) All you have is that same hard evidence which some guys actually admitted looks fishy and isn't important. Can't argue with that kind of logic ;)

Folks throw at me all sorts of OT since the beginning of the thread and please note that I merely respond to them, exposing their strawmen. I admit it's been very very naughty of me tho and I had good fun while it lasted! I am not pushing anything nor lecturing; I will shut up the very moment you stop poking.

Agnostic? By all means! Where do I sign?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:38 am
You don't need to know everything, but you need to provide an explanation of one more plausible alternative to the moon landing actually happening.
I haven't signed up for that one. The name of the thread reads: Do you believe the moon landing was faked? The question posed in the first post goes: "If you believe it's fake, why?" I'm missing a disclaimer that would read something like: If you answer yes and you fail to provide a plausible alternative to the Moon landing as we know it, you will be banned from this forum. Yet I predicted foul play and received vague assurances that members don't get banned unless they fail to "respond properly to criticism." I smelled the rat, but thought what the hell. It's basically a chatroom with 4 or 5 people in it, what do I stand to lose?
Does anyone really want me to go hogwild guessing? How could that possibly improve my position? Giving baseless claims, providing zero proof? I'd prefer to keep my feet on the ground.


@Zzzzz
Good legwork Zzzzz, also your previous post. I know the fairytale. I was hoping for more creative answers that would be suitable for the Moon story. That goes also for the questions you dismissed. But in any case, good effort.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:08 am
I had created this thread and poll for the same reasons as anybody creates a poll and a thread on this forum: To start a sensible discussion based on the facts and the hard evidence.
What are the facts and hard evidence anyone could possibly bring to the table to discuss if not the footage and pictures? How do you expect to have a sensible discussion if you can't even for a moment accept the possibility that you might be wrong? Why aren't we talking about the hard evidence I linked in this thread in my first post, or other footage? Be it real or fake, it's the only relevant thing for both sides of the argument.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:08 am
Why didn't they[Soviets, sing]?
Were they in on it too?
Was the Cold War faked as well?
They are, tho offtopic, interesting and somewhat relevant questions and I admit I don't have the answers. I could only speculate, and I don't like to do that. Would you want me to speculate? How could you possibly expect me to have proof for any such speculation?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:08 am
Was Yuri Gagarin and Laika being sent to space faked too?
Was the DPRK in on this?
How did the U.S. government get all those lasers in order to create the lighting?
Were they secretly developing computer graphics technology?
If so, why would they spend the time they could have used developing technology to send a man to the moon developing computer graphics technology?
Why would they waste so much money developing computer graphics technology, building a massive rocket, hiring Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as actors, hiring a director (Stanley Kubrick?), catering for a film crew, making a film set, etc. instead of just using that money to sent a man to the moon?
What was the point of that speech Richard Nixon was supposed to read out in the eventuality that Neil and Buzz were to die on the moon?
Were they worried that they could be killed by one of the film props falling on them?
Yuri or Laika have nothing to do with the Moon landing.
Why would the DPRK be in on it? I don't follow.
You keep mentioning the lasers and I don't see the point. You don't need lasers to film The Moon Landing (1969) in a studio and take a bunch of photos.
I don't see any reason to believe that any extraordinary (if any at all, at that time) computer graphics technology was used.

To maintain that making a few film clips and pictures in a studio is more expensive than sending a human crew on a SUCCESSFUL mission to the Moon AND BACK is nothing short of ridiculous. I googled "why don't we go to moon anymore" and all I get is "high cost", "it's expensive", "dangerous", "ridiculously expensive", "levels of federal spending untenable" ... This is the most ridiculous claim I've seen in this thread, you beat even salad's claim that children reduce environmental impact. Even Jebus backs me up here in his questions:
Jebus wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:47 pm
Why would the U.S. government fake it? We know they had the money and the know how?
Where did that huge amount of money go?
implying that a fakery would have been much cheaper than the actual trip and there would be much left to be "redistributed".
Maybe you should start by convincing Jebus first. He seems to be confused in the same way I am in this particular matter, but we are both ready to listen to your reasoning, right Jebus? Always open to all possibilities. Maybe you could start by comparing the budget of some blockbuster of that time with the cost NASA put on taxpayers' tab launching any of the Apollo missions ;)

How come you know about Nixon's just-in-case speech? Isn't this a perfect example of supporting evidence? It means nothing.

Also, don't you worry if you can't prove those budget numbers, salad's got you covered. Just say the word and he'll pull the plug. You always win, isn't that amazing!

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8852
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:59 pm

sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Do you ban just about anyone with an opinion different than yours?
No. Very few people have ever been banned here.

Zzzz's friend Dizzy had a few accounts banned when he was trolling, but that was mostly for abusing CAPS LOCK after multiple warnings, not for trolling (which is allowed as long as you respond to arguments). His most recent account has never been banned.

One member was banned for repeatedly insisting that human breast milk is not vegan by using a ridiculously anal personal definition and refusing to be corrected on the matter (despite consensus and every available definition being against that). Said user was trying to get banned.

A new member was banned for self-promotion on his first post and then "freaking out" when the link was removed and he was politely asked not to link to his stuff like that on his first post as per the rules, and arguing with the rules instead of following them.

The previous admin banned one person who would not be banned under the new rules.

It's not easy to get banned. You basically have to consistently mouth off and then refuse to address other people's arguments.

sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
I don't have a proof. Guess what, you don't have a proof either.
What is your standard of proof?

Do you have proof that the Earth isn't flat?
Is there "proof" of anything at all?

What we look for in empirical arguments is the amount of evidence and the probability of something being true.
sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Apparently Zzzzz's wild claim about Moon trip being cheaper than a fakery doesn't need any proof to pass your rigorous standards ;)
I will let Zzzz address that if he wants. I understood what he was saying, you apparently did not.
sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
I admit it's been very very naughty of me tho and I had good fun while it lasted! I am not pushing anything nor lecturing; I will shut up the very moment you stop poking.
It is incumbent upon you to either shut up first and let others debunk you, and slink quietly away, or to respond to their arguments with evidence and explanation.

If you're not going to respond to arguments, then let it drop gracefully, implicitly accepting the debunk, and don't bring this up again.
It's not our job to give conspiracy theory quacks the last word if we don't feel like continuing to bash our heads against a wall.
sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Agnostic? By all means! Where do I sign?
Just answer "yes" to this question:

Do you accept that you have no idea if the moon landing(s) was(were) actually real or fake, and further do you accept that you have no idea if others have any idea of whether the moon landing(s) was(were) real or fake?


You only get out of this by being a true agnostic. You can't be a militant agnostic and claim other people do not know: that still carries a burden of proof because it's still making a negation claim against others' knowledge.

sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
I haven't signed up for that one.
If you can answer "yes" to the bolded question above, then you can get out of that. Otherwise it's your duty to uphold your burden of argument and respond to others points (which you still have not done).

If you fail at that duty, and Zzzz complains, you'll make it up on the hall of fame as one of a minute number of people to ever have been banned here for being unwilling to make an argument while also being unwilling to shut up.
sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
I'm missing a disclaimer that would read something like: If you answer yes and you fail to provide a plausible alternative to the Moon landing as we know it, you will be banned from this forum.
If you just answered "Yes that is my personal faith, I do not know it to be true, but just believe it on blind faith: I have no evidence for it, and no amount of evidence would convince me to the contrary." then I don't think anybody would have bothered you about it.

Why? Because that's not anything resembling an argument, and it doesn't require a response. It doesn't carry any burden of proof, because it's only talking about what you believe on faith and not what is actually true or what there is evidence for (or even claiming the evidence against your belief isn't good).

Zzz, Red, please correct me if I'm wrong here and you would have expected him to respond to argument from something like that.

sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Does anyone really want me to go hogwild guessing? How could that possibly improve my position? Giving baseless claims, providing zero proof? I'd prefer to keep my feet on the ground.
Yes, you need to provide at least ONE plausible explanation.

The same applies to theistic claims.
For example, when we observe a contradiction between free will and a god's supposed omniscience: the theist doesn't need to know exactly how his or her god works, and if there are multiple possible resolutions the theist does not need to make any claim as to which is correct, but merely show that there IS a possible resolution.
By showing a possible way omniscience and free will could be compatible, the theist defeats the argument that god is impossible due to that contradiction.

There are reasons we know the moon landings could not plausibly have been faked, and Zzzz covered many of them. You need to respond with at least one plausible alternative scenario. You don't need to know exactly how it was faked, but only show there are ways in which it could have been in order to show that Zzzz's arguments do not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was real.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:52 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:59 pm
Zzz, Red, please correct me if I'm wrong here and you would have expected him to respond to argument from something like that.
Are you asking if I was expecting him to respond to our posts? Or are you asking if I'd respond to the claim of just having faith and whatnot?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
If the first one is your question, then it's a maybe.
If the latter is your question, I'd be more concerned with him having blind faith rather than just the belief itself. I'd ask him things like "How do you know you can trust your faith in faith?" or "How does having faith make it true?"
Of course, I don't really think that believing that the moon landing was faked is necessarily harmful (although I do believe it to be an unscientific one), but hypothetically if someone came along and said that they believe that eating animals is okay because they have faith in that belief, I'd tackle it, as that is a harmful one.
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:51 am

sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
I don't have a proof. Guess what, you don't have a proof either. Apparently Zzzzz's wild claim about Moon trip being cheaper than a fakery doesn't need any proof to pass your rigorous standards ;)
You keep mentioning the lasers and I don't see the point. You don't need lasers to film The Moon Landing (1969) in a studio and take a bunch of photos.
The lasers is the proof! To create the lighting that you see in the pictures of the moon landing, you would either need to go to the moon, get a bunch of lasers or have computer graphics technology.

The shadows on the photos from the moon landing are parallel, because the light source is the sun which is so very far away to make those parallel lines. The shadows would diverge if you were to try and create the moon landing in a studio with the studio lighting you had to make the lighting.

To claim that this is not hard evidence, but that looking at the photos and giving a subjective opinion that it is hard evidence! It is simply anti-scientific and wrong.

I object to any further ridiculousness expressed by the denial of the moon landing, as all these claims made by those who deny the moon landing are easily rebutted by science and by hard evidence. All those who truly understand science will remain unperturbed by these claims.

The cries of moon landing deniers sounds like a dog barking at the moon.
Jeremy Corbyn is to antisemitism what Margaret Thatcher was to the anti-apartheid movement.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:36 am

sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Do you ban just about anyone with an opinion different than yours?
I've been away for a while, and was surprised to see the dust blown off this thread.

I used this line as a quote just because it is very hard to get banned on this forum, unless you really try. (IOW, keep doing what people ask you not to.) But that's not my concern at this point, I'm genuinely interested in your topic, but.... I'm also busy/lazy, so I'm requesting a bullet point type explanation (keep it small, I'm really busy(lazy) )

I love conspiracy theories. I think most are bullshit, but....not all. (MK Ultra - sure, Kennedy- almost definitely, moon landing -ehhh, I don't see why they'd fake it; plus the Russians would have ratted us out long ago. in response to the theory that we faked it to use as psychological warfare against the Kremlin; If you didn't make that point, others have.

Are you a C2C fan as well?
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Post by EquALLity » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:08 am

PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:36 am
sykkelmannen wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Do you ban just about anyone with an opinion different than yours?
I've been away for a while, and was surprised to see the dust blown off this thread.

I used this line as a quote just because it is very hard to get banned on this forum, unless you really try. (IOW, keep doing what people ask you not to.) But that's not my concern at this point, I'm genuinely interested in your topic, but.... I'm also busy/lazy, so I'm requesting a bullet point type explanation (keep it small, I'm really busy(lazy) )

I love conspiracy theories. I think most are bullshit, but....not all. (MK Ultra - sure, Kennedy- almost definitely, moon landing -ehhh, I don't see why they'd fake it; plus the Russians would have ratted us out long ago. in response to the theory that we faked it to use as psychological warfare against the Kremlin; If you didn't make that point, others have.

Are you a C2C fan as well?
MK Ultra was somewhat admitted to, and we know that they destroyed a bunch of documents, so yeah.
Kennedy? Can you explain?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:54 am

PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:36 am
(MK Ultra - sure, Kennedy- almost definitely, moon landing -ehhh, I don't see why they'd fake it; plus the Russians would have ratted us out long ago.
Your point about the Russians is spot on!

I used to think the USA govt had no role in JFK assassination, but after these files were released, I am not so sure. It would not surprise me if the CIA knew it was going to happen but didn't do anything. However, I haven't researched it enough so can't say.
Jeremy Corbyn is to antisemitism what Margaret Thatcher was to the anti-apartheid movement.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:48 am

EquALLity wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:08 am
MK Ultra was somewhat admitted to, and we know that they destroyed a bunch of documents, so yeah.
Kennedy? Can you explain?
I'm basing my assumption (that there was more to the Kennedy assassination than just some lone nut with a gun) on hours of listening to persons who are obsessed with the topic. It was before my time, and like most conspiracies I didn't pay it much attention, but there are several points that don't add up to the "official" story. Even for someone like me who only is interested in it in passing. The whole "magic bullet", plus Jack Ruby murdering Oswald.

Even if Oswald fired the shot, there is much more to the story than he just decided to kill the president. (IMO, of course)

It's not really a subject I'm interested in, but as I am interested in government corruption, I looked/listened into it a bit. And it seems like there is more to the story than what we serfs are privy.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:57 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:54 am
Your point about the Russians is spot on!
That's the main reason I can't get behind the "moon landing was faked" crowd. It makes no sense.

Why would we fake it?

To give a finger to the Russians! (They have almost equivalent technology, so they would know. And they would be able to show proof we didn't, to improve their comrades morale.)

To convince the populace! ( They would be happy with running water and electricity. Who cares if we landed on the moon if I have to forfeit 15% of my earning to the government....to land on our satellite....which has no food or resources I actually need..... ...but YAY! We put persons on the moon!!b :roll: )
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests