I'm about half convinced that the (original) moon landing was fake, but I also get annoyed that so many people think that ergo, the earth must be flat. One has nothing to do with the other -- there are plenty of reasons to fake space travel other than covering up a flat earth.
Yeh its annoying, the movement exploded out of nowhere 10 years ago. Algorithm manipulation, as per the Cass Sunstein strategy.
"Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law... Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories... the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light."
Pretty sure they did reflection tests with the moon before the landings, it was in national geographic 1967 or something. The landing sites? I can't remember if I've thought that through or not. Ill check it out. Im skeptical of the robots as well. I've seen some good evidence that Mars is really just some desert in Arizona or I can't remember where. It just doesn't make sense, if it was so easy to get there 7 times 50 years ago with no deaths, just do it again. Should be a breeze.
Can you go into depth on this? Or link where you already have, if you did.
Im really fascinated by your takes, most insightful being the Emery's Rule one yet you have what seems to be these blidspots when it comes to some things which are blatantly obvious, absent new/unheard of conflicting information and supporting proof.
Thank you.. I made a post about it before, its not super in depth though. Maybe one day I will. What convinced me was reading 'Wagging the Moondoggie', although its not perfect it does the job.
I understand people might think this is a strange blind spot for someone who considers himself highly rational. I don't know what to say, I'm just convinced. Its too fishy.
Emery's rule is a neat one... really fits the bill. Many thanks.
Yea so not really convinced anymore. Turns out that quote at the opening, like almost every other quote humans use to support a narrative, was taken out of context from the book CONQUEST of the moon.
That book which is basically scientific, educated guess, musings, of von Braun based on the technologies and methods he was aware of at the time. Which he tried to apply to the scenario of humans COLONIZING the moon lol. The size and scale of the ship was also to accommodate some foods and other materials to jumpstart self sufficiency in space.
The book you referenced isn't/doesn't give a strong argument against the landing, especially when it starts off with an out of context quote from the German scientist that was the brains of the us lunar program.
Also as a side note I didn't know the soviets were the first to land and object on the moon, the Luna 2. They did it using a direct path trajectory from the surface of the earth. The united states' CIA ran an operation to gain technological information of the program(instead of just asking for it lol) by taking photographs which gave US (nazi) scientist info on design and capabilities.
That's how the USA was able to leap ahead the soviets on space travel, their intelligence agencies simply stole/copied the tech, the same shit the US accuses the Chinese of right now hahaha 😂😂😂
Started reading the book you referenced. Didn't know von Braun what was quoted in the opening of the book.
My interest on the moon landing being a lie has piqued now, right up there with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being firebombed like the rest of the Japanese cities instead of nuked. Both do not respectively equate to the world being flat nor nukes not being real though.
Don't thank me. You're the one who gave a reference which itself is full of primary sources that can be interpreted in no other way other than the way the author (and anyone who is reasonable) can interpret them.
For example, I had no idea they landed/reached the moon so many times in the span of less than 5 years after NEVER setting foot in space less than a decade prior. Not even the Chinese with 1 billion population pool to pick from for labour and mental labours can manage this in 2010 to present day. And before that, the Russians were barely sending animals into space let alone the moon.
The lie is so....obvious now. But it's such a big lie my mind is coping and rationalising. "How could they keep such a big lie a secret?" Well, it's not a secret, its right there so no one has to look, so no one will.
I'm about half convinced that the (original) moon landing was fake, but I also get annoyed that so many people think that ergo, the earth must be flat. One has nothing to do with the other -- there are plenty of reasons to fake space travel other than covering up a flat earth.
Yeh its annoying, the movement exploded out of nowhere 10 years ago. Algorithm manipulation, as per the Cass Sunstein strategy.
"Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law... Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories... the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light."
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/119/
https://www.unz.com/runz/alex-jones-cass-sunstein-and-cognitive-infiltration/
What do you think of the reflectors left on the moon and photos taken of the landing site by Asian countries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Why is it so impossible? We take big robots to Mars all the time, is it really so much harder with a human instead?
Pretty sure they did reflection tests with the moon before the landings, it was in national geographic 1967 or something. The landing sites? I can't remember if I've thought that through or not. Ill check it out. Im skeptical of the robots as well. I've seen some good evidence that Mars is really just some desert in Arizona or I can't remember where. It just doesn't make sense, if it was so easy to get there 7 times 50 years ago with no deaths, just do it again. Should be a breeze.
If you think the Mars rover is strolling around Arizona you should kill yourself now now now like yesterday
Another solid argument from an unhinged leftie
Can you go into depth on this? Or link where you already have, if you did.
Im really fascinated by your takes, most insightful being the Emery's Rule one yet you have what seems to be these blidspots when it comes to some things which are blatantly obvious, absent new/unheard of conflicting information and supporting proof.
Thank you.. I made a post about it before, its not super in depth though. Maybe one day I will. What convinced me was reading 'Wagging the Moondoggie', although its not perfect it does the job.
I understand people might think this is a strange blind spot for someone who considers himself highly rational. I don't know what to say, I'm just convinced. Its too fishy.
Emery's rule is a neat one... really fits the bill. Many thanks.
Yea so not really convinced anymore. Turns out that quote at the opening, like almost every other quote humans use to support a narrative, was taken out of context from the book CONQUEST of the moon.
That book which is basically scientific, educated guess, musings, of von Braun based on the technologies and methods he was aware of at the time. Which he tried to apply to the scenario of humans COLONIZING the moon lol. The size and scale of the ship was also to accommodate some foods and other materials to jumpstart self sufficiency in space.
The book you referenced isn't/doesn't give a strong argument against the landing, especially when it starts off with an out of context quote from the German scientist that was the brains of the us lunar program.
Also as a side note I didn't know the soviets were the first to land and object on the moon, the Luna 2. They did it using a direct path trajectory from the surface of the earth. The united states' CIA ran an operation to gain technological information of the program(instead of just asking for it lol) by taking photographs which gave US (nazi) scientist info on design and capabilities.
That's how the USA was able to leap ahead the soviets on space travel, their intelligence agencies simply stole/copied the tech, the same shit the US accuses the Chinese of right now hahaha 😂😂😂
Started reading the book you referenced. Didn't know von Braun what was quoted in the opening of the book.
My interest on the moon landing being a lie has piqued now, right up there with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being firebombed like the rest of the Japanese cities instead of nuked. Both do not respectively equate to the world being flat nor nukes not being real though.
Finished it. It's very compelling. I'm very skeptical off the moonlanding now :/
Wow I did not expect that.. very rare.. thanks again
Don't thank me. You're the one who gave a reference which itself is full of primary sources that can be interpreted in no other way other than the way the author (and anyone who is reasonable) can interpret them.
For example, I had no idea they landed/reached the moon so many times in the span of less than 5 years after NEVER setting foot in space less than a decade prior. Not even the Chinese with 1 billion population pool to pick from for labour and mental labours can manage this in 2010 to present day. And before that, the Russians were barely sending animals into space let alone the moon.
The lie is so....obvious now. But it's such a big lie my mind is coping and rationalising. "How could they keep such a big lie a secret?" Well, it's not a secret, its right there so no one has to look, so no one will.