Did we land on the moon?

Do you believe that we landed on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 51.6%
  • No

    Votes: 50 31.8%
  • Don't know / not sure

    Votes: 26 16.6%

  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .

typtre

Robin
I still believe in the moon landing. The graphics of the launch of the Saturn V were too high definition for their time to fake with the available CGI (where CGI even existed). Given the existence of missiles (esp ICBMs) today, it's reasonable to believe that tech came from somewhere. Moreover, if such advanced tech was used just for the launch, it's not hard to believe they also had the tech for the moon landing itself. Perhaps the biggest point in question is the size of the moon lander. Sure, the moon has 1/3rd the gravity they say, but the lunar lander is less than 1/10th the size of the Saturn V.
Is anyone claiming the rocket launches are CGI?
Anyways, as someone who graduated with a science degree, I still believe in genuine science. I get that people want to doubt the moon landing, but I find doubting it to be of incredible insignificance to the overall problem. Doubting long-accepted science only removes your credibility with someone who accepts science.
What do you mean "accepts science"? Science is a means to gain knowledge. There is nothing to accept. Nothing to believe. What do you mean "doubting long-accepted science"? To do science is to ask questions to (hopefully) gain answers. If the answer is to dogmatically trust what has been established as true by charlatans before you, then science has failed and your critical thinking has succumbed to the equivalent of religious dogma.

To be true to your degree in science, you should embrace the opportunity to start from scratch since you are now free from from the halls of indoctrination. The halls that kept your mind occupied with deadlines and binary tests.
Looking at this from a spiritual perspective, that's exactly what Satan wants because he wants people to doubt your message about truth. In their mind, Satan says: "That religious guy is crazy enough to think people didn't land on the moon, thinks the earth is flat, believes conspiracy theories, etc."

The bigger problem I see, from a spiritual perspective, is that we live in an age where truth is being questioned, disregarded, "disproved", and disappearing, and its happening in both the left and right political camps. It's happening more in the left, but it's also happening in the right.
An old relevant saying of mine: "If you search hard enough, you will find it, even if it's not there." The statement applies to truth and evidence: If you search hard enough for evidence of your beliefs, you will find such "truth" even if it doesn't exist.
Like the curvature... :rolleyes:
Anything can be "proven" - even the greatest of lies - because we as humans don't possess the infinite knowledge to know anything with absolute certainty.
Satan is making great strides in getting us to question truth, so be very cautious what ideas you keep AND what you throw away.
I could not agree with you more here.
Do you see the irony in what you yourself are claiming here?

As the phony prominent authority figure scientist Carl Sagan put it:
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.
So how do you find what is true, if you have never questioned truth itself?

It should be obvious by now the general public can not be trusted to know what is true, given how dumb the world went because of the scamdemic. If the general public can be fooled so easily (in less than a year!), then does that not warrant a deeper scrutiny of generally accepted truths?


Accidentally released footage of some behind the scenes shuttle action:
 
Is anyone claiming the rocket launches are CGI?

What do you mean "accepts science"? Science is a means to gain knowledge. There is nothing to accept. Nothing to believe. What do you mean "doubting long-accepted science"? To do science is to ask questions to (hopefully) gain answers. If the answer is to dogmatically trust what has been established as true by charlatans before you, then science has failed and your critical thinking has succumbed to the equivalent of religious dogma.

To be true to your degree in science, you should embrace the opportunity to start from scratch since you are now free from from the halls of indoctrination. The halls that kept your mind occupied with deadlines and binary tests.

Like the curvature... :rolleyes:

I could not agree with you more here.
Do you see the irony in what you yourself are claiming here?

As the phony prominent authority figure scientist Carl Sagan put it:

So how do you find what is true, if you have never questioned truth itself?

It should be obvious by now the general public can not be trusted to know what is true, given how dumb the world went because of the scamdemic. If the general public can be fooled so easily (in less than a year!), then does that not warrant a deeper scrutiny of generally accepted truths?


Accidentally released footage of some behind the scenes shuttle action:
I used the rocket launches as evidence that humans had sufficient technology to go to space, therefore it's not a stretch to believe they also had tech to land on the moon. Clearly and ironically, that point went right over your head. lol

"There is nothing to accept"? Don't make me laugh. "Science" here refers not only to the "scientific method" (of which you are referring to), but to the collective body of knowledge gathered by human beings through the scientific method. The fact is, humans build on each other's knowledge. If you can't trust humans who came before you, how can you trust in the religious dogma, or history, or even trust that the words of your language even mean what you believe they do? You can't.
I believe in science because I've done the math in my field and seen how it works. I doubt you have. No, I haven't done the math for everything, but I've seen enough of it to conclude the feasibility of certain conclusions.
What you're proposing is the ludicrous idea that we should dump everything and discover everything from scratch. Sure, I agree that would give you a good certainty of the truths you believe in. But if you're going to propose that that way is the best way to truth, then you need to be agnostic about whether or not we landed on the moon, holding the stance of "I don't know", rather than throwing your lot in with conspiracy theorists. The fact is, you've never done the science and built a rocket and tried to land on the moon.

Yes, the general public can be fooled, but not everything the public believes is wrong. We speak a language. Most of that language still functions and works the same for everyone, albeit a large portion is challenged. Should we doubt our language and go prove the meaning of every word to ourselves? No. Not only is that a herculean task, language would evolve as you performed your "science".

There are many things we are taught as children. Are our parents deceived? Sure, to some degree, but as we get older, we learn to piece out the truth. Some truths are critically essential for our lives, such as the truth of religion. Some are not, such as the moon landing, and there really isn't harm in believing in a number of "facts" whether they are true or not. For example, does China exist? We hear about it every day, but is all that propaganda invented to give us a hypothetical adversary or model for society? You could go to China to find out, but how much does it's existence really matter? If China is invading, its existence matters. If not, it could simply be some ideal upon which people want to model their society or not. In any case, there's no harm in believing China exists.

In regards to the recent deception of the general public, I believe this is because society as a whole is falling under Satanic spell, and consequently we are moving away from truth. Therefore, I'm inclined to accept as more reliable those truths that people found and believed in pre-2000 or older. (After all, it is upon these ideas, science, and facts that our modern technologically advanced world is built.) Again, not everything is accurate, but the darkness of our modern times suggests we are dramatically losing truth, right and left.
 

typtre

Robin
I used the rocket launches as evidence that humans had sufficient technology to go to space, therefore it's not a stretch to believe they also had tech to land on the moon. Clearly and ironically, that point went right over your head. lol
Does it look like they had the technology to leave the moon? Does their explanation on the propellant used and its lack of flame, hold up to your scientific standards?

The cute scientific explanation:


Reality:

"There is nothing to accept"? Don't make me laugh. "Science" here refers not only to the "scientific method" (of which you are referring to), but to the collective body of knowledge gathered by human beings through the scientific method. The fact is, humans build on each other's knowledge. If you can't trust humans who came before you, how can you trust in the religious dogma, or history, or even trust that the words of your language even mean what you believe they do? You can't.
Trust, but verify would then be the appropriate amendment to my statement for things as easy as learning a language or walking to China.
But how about the things the High Priests of Science tell us which can only be confirmed by their equipment, their equations, their data, their media, their books etc. which the regular person has no ability to verify for themselves? Method, verification and observation, then, becomes very important.

I believe in science because I've done the math in my field and seen how it works. I doubt you have. No, I haven't done the math for everything, but I've seen enough of it to conclude the feasibility of certain conclusions.
How about the math of the earths curvature? Have you done the math? Have you observed and verified your results?
How about the orbit and trajectory of the moon? Is it at all possible to observe a full and new moon? Have you done the math? Have you observed and verified your results?
Why does the earth tilt 66.6 degrees and go around the Sun at 66.6 thousand miles per hour? Have you consulted Satan? :)

Have you ever taken any of this at the word of authority?
Have they ever presented you with a problem, anticipated your reaction, and had you provide the(ir) solution?

Why have you not done any of this outside of schuul?
There are many things we are taught as children. Are our parents deceived? Sure, to some degree, but as we get older, we learn to piece out the truth.
How do you piece out the truth if you never verify it?
Did you ever, without the invisible hand, evaluate a counter to the globe model?

Samuel Rowbotham in his book, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe (1836), absolutely manhandles the modern scientist already in the preface:

To the various critics who reviewed unfavourably the first edition of this work, and to those also who wrote and published replies to it, my thanks are due and now respectfully tendered. They pointed out several matters which, on proper examination, were not, as evidence, entirely satisfactory; and as my object is to discover and hold to that only which is true beyond doubt, I have omitted them in the present edition. The true business of a critic is to compare what he reads with known and provable data, to treat impartially the evidence he observes, and point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies with first principles, but never to obtrude his own opinions. He should, in fact, at all times take the place of Astrea, the Goddess of Justice, and firmly hold the scales, in which the evidence is fairly weighed.

I advise all my readers who have become Zetetic not to be content with anything less than this; and also not to look with disfavour upon the objections of their opponents. Should such objections be well or even plausibly founded, they will only tend to free us from error, and to purify and exalt our Zetetic philosophy. In a word, let us make friends, or, at least, friendly and useful instruments of our enemies; and, if we cannot convert them to the better cause, let us carefully examine their objections, fairly meet them if possible, and always make use of them as beacons for our future guidance.

In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong. We need not seize upon every crude and ill-developed result which offers, or only seems to offer, the slightest chance of becoming evidence in our favour, as every theorist is obliged to do if he would have his theory clothed and fit to be seen. We can afford to patiently wait, care-fully weigh, and well consider every point advanced, in the full assurance that simple truth, and not the mere opinions of men, is destined, sooner or later, to have ascendancy.

"IN VERITATE VICTORIA."​

THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.

Again, not everything is accurate, but the darkness of our modern times suggests we are dramatically losing truth, right and left.
Yes... Yes, we are :confused:
 
Does it look like they had the technology to leave the moon? Does their explanation on the propellant used and its lack of flame, hold up to your scientific standards?

Trust, but verify would then be the appropriate amendment to my statement for things as easy as learning a language or walking to China.
But how about the things the High Priests of Science tell us which can only be confirmed by their equipment, their equations, their data, their media, their books etc. which the regular person has no ability to verify for themselves? Method, verification and observation, then, becomes very important.

How about the math of the earths curvature? Have you done the math? Have you observed and verified your results?
How about the orbit and trajectory of the moon? Is it at all possible to observe a full and new moon? Have you done the math? Have you observed and verified your results?
Why does the earth tilt 66.6 degrees and go around the Sun at 66.6 thousand miles per hour? Have you consulted Satan? :)

Have you ever taken any of this at the word of authority?
Have they ever presented you with a problem, anticipated your reaction, and had you provide the(ir) solution?

Why have you not done any of this outside of schuul?

How do you piece out the truth if you never verify it?
Did you ever, without the invisible hand, evaluate a counter to the globe model?

Samuel Rowbotham in his book, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe (1836), absolutely manhandles the modern scientist already in the preface:
In regards to the "High Priests of Science", there are two camps in the scientific community on just about everything, not including the conspiracy theorists who say everything is wrong. Our modern problem is that the MSM props up the Satanic side they want to win, e.g. evolution. But that doesn't mean there aren't legit scientists who are being ignored.
It's true that we can't verify the intense theories and ideas in science on our own, but the average person can see technology. As I like to say, don't trust science until it makes it to engineering. Then you know it works. These days, we have advanced tech in the form of cell phones, movie cameras, tanks, and so on. These things aren't spoofed. You'll get to find out more about the advanced tech the gov has if Civil War 2 begins.
I find it silly you think advanced tech is faked when it fact it requires advanced tech to do the faking in the first place. And if people are smart enough to make advanced tech for faking, they are smart enough to make advanced tech for actually DOING. Maybe you underestimate the number of smart people in the world. idk

As for the moon, if you want to debate about the math, you can go on theflatearthsociety.org. No I didn't do moon calculations, but if you look at the moon, you can see that the shadow of the earth on it is always round, no matter where the moon exists in the sky. If the earth was flat, we should at some angles see a flat shadow. You can do the intuitive geometry in your head or on paper if you'd like.
The math I've done has been in chemistry, magnetism, and fundamental sciences. To me, that math was sufficient to show that there's underlying basis for the science and tech we have today. No, it's not perfect.

Again, if you're going to argue that we need personal verification, then you should be taking the agnostic approach of admitting "We don't know" instead of posting these "evidence" videos that are likely themselves STAGED.

As for the angle of the earth revolving around the sun and its speed, I'll have you note a number of things. 1) 666 is the bad number, not 66.6. 2) 666 is the number for Nero and only applies to him afaik. 3) Degrees and miles/hour are just unit scales. We could chose radians and meters/second, in which case the values would be different. I could chose the unit "sekkaposts" to count your posts on this forum in such a way that you now have 666 sekkaposts. Are you from Satan? Let's have a good laugh, shall we?

Rowbotham is a poor philosopher. Anyone who says "my object is to discover and hold to that only which is true beyond doubt" obviously doesn't understand the limits found in epistemology and needs a few good lessons from an existentialist. I don't see how he "manhandles" anyone - he just arrogantly proclaims he already has the truth and thinks he can cherry pick evidence that he feels best support his claims. What else is new?
 

typtre

Robin
In regards to the "High Priests of Science", there are two camps in the scientific community on just about everything, not including the conspiracy theorists who say everything is wrong. Our modern problem is that the MSM props up the Satanic side they want to win, e.g. evolution. But that doesn't mean there aren't legit scientists who are being ignored.
I know. Like Samuel Rowbotham and Nikola Tesla.
On the opposite side, we have the Einsteins, Keplers and Darwins... All appraised by the Royal Society. The Elite who truly, lovingly, cares about you being able to know the truth!
It's true that we can't verify the intense theories and ideas in science on our own, but the average person can see technology. As I like to say, don't trust science until it makes it to engineering. Then you know it works. These days, we have advanced tech in the form of cell phones, movie cameras, tanks, and so on. These things aren't spoofed. You'll get to find out more about the advanced tech the gov has if Civil War 2 begins.
I find it silly you think advanced tech is faked when it fact it requires advanced tech to do the faking in the first place. And if people are smart enough to make advanced tech for faking, they are smart enough to make advanced tech for actually DOING. Maybe you underestimate the number of smart people in the world. idk
Observation does not match reality. You should not explain it away by saying that it is too high tech for me, the village idiot, to understand.
Quite right you are. NASA, perhaps the greatest money laundering business of all time, has probably invented, and hidden, an entire civilization's worth of technology.
As for the moon, if you want to debate about the math, you can go on theflatearthsociety.org. No I didn't do moon calculations, but if you look at the moon, you can see that the shadow of the earth on it is always round, no matter where the moon exists in the sky. If the earth was flat, we should at some angles see a flat shadow. You can do the intuitive geometry in your head or on paper if you'd like.
I see. You still assume a non-globe would float around in the "universe" and that the moon is still orbiting in it with "gravity". Perhaps water should flow over the sides aswell? In a full or new moon, there is not a sliver of a shadow on the moon... It is magnificently whole. I must be too dumb to understand the real geometry at work here.
The math I've done has been in chemistry, magnetism, and fundamental sciences. To me, that math was sufficient to show that there's underlying basis for the science and tech we have today. No, it's not perfect.
Magnetism, eh? Good on you. I hope you open your mind and become the best shadowbanned scientist you can be :)

Again, if you're going to argue that we need personal verification, then you should be taking the agnostic approach of admitting "We don't know" instead of posting these "evidence" videos that are likely themselves STAGED.
I am open to be proved wrong. I have yet to encounter anyone argue their case on logic and reason alone.

As for the angle of the earth revolving around the sun and its speed, I'll have you note a number of things. 1) 666 is the bad number, not 66.6. 2) 666 is the number for Nero and only applies to him afaik. 3) Degrees and miles/hour are just unit scales. We could chose radians and meters/second, in which case the values would be different. I could chose the unit "sekkaposts" to count your posts on this forum in such a way that you now have 666 sekkaposts. Are you from Satan? Let's have a good laugh, shall we?
The Sun worshipers do not care about the decimal point. But sure, it might be a coincidence. Not claiming anything here.

Rowbotham is a poor philosopher. Anyone who says "my object is to discover and hold to that only which is true beyond doubt" obviously doesn't understand the limits found in epistemology and needs a few good lessons from an existentialist. I don't see how he "manhandles" anyone - he just arrogantly proclaims he already has the truth and thinks he can cherry pick evidence that he feels best support his claims. What else is new?
Not that it changes his experiments at all, which can be tried and replicated by anyone without the need to trust in authority or any math off-limits to the mind of the common man, but why is he a poor philosopher?
His selective arrogance is based on the results of his experiments, what do you mean cherry pick?
Back up your claims.
 

Volador26

Pigeon
It is possible that they said we landed on the Moon just so USA wouldn't look bad against the Russians.
If the moon landing is indeed fake then I wonder what else could be?
This is actually one of the best arguments *for* the lunar landing. At no point did the Soviet Union deny that the U.S. successfully put a man on the moon. To your point about not looking bad against the Soviets (our enemy in those days were the Communists, not the Russian people...a key fact that was long ago forgotten, but I digress...) which of these scenarios is more likely?

A) The lunar landing is fake, and both the US and Soviets have a secret deal wherein the USSR goes along with the charade (and gives up a key, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime proganda victory)

OR

B) The US succeeded in putting a man on the moon through the efforts of over 500,000 people, the brilliance of men like Van Braun, the skill of men like Armstrong, etc....and the USSR accepted this fact and moved on to other space projects?

I’ll leave it to the readers to decide.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
This is an overly simplistic false binary presentation of the problem, driven in large part by your cognitive dissonance, which is the psychological inability of many to accept that an event or fact that is far outside their Overton window could actually be true.

The Soviets knew that JFK was assassinated by a deep state operation, yet they didn't clamor this with their media and press spokesmen. They understand very well the limits of their media reach and soft power, and that they were well outside the reach of the average American. But more precisely, they also don't engage in trying to red pill foreign audiences when their own people were even more severely controlled and repressed. In that sense, both the US and USSR governments played that game of controlling the masses (we did it much better though).

Furthermore, there was some tacit collaboration between the two governments, as evidenced by the financial support of the Soviets through the Lend Lease programs. The MIC was very happy with the Cold War, and so were the Soviets.

The situation is a bit different today, Russia wouldn't mind red pilling western audiences, but they have been completely outflanked by the deep state, which has much larger resources with the western MSM, think tanks, foundations, academia and popular culture. All this together constitute a soft power superpower. The Russians tried to push the envelope, successfully setting up RT as a global channel, but they were sent a signal five years ago when its founder, who was a friend of Putin, was whacked in DC, a crime which the MSM of course put on Putin. RT's content has been far less edgy since, they didn't talk much about 9/11 after that...
 

Nikos225

Chicken
I'm late to this discussion, and it most likely was already mentioned somewhere in the thread, but I urge everyone to watch "American Moon"by Massimo Mazzucco. It has probably been deleted from YT at this point (I saw it a few years ago) but other platforms might have it.
 
I first had doubts about the moon landing around 2015, but didn't come to a definitive conclusion. As the years went on, I was sympathetic to moon deniers because it was clear that those in power are lying about everything. If you catch someone in one lie, such as your wife, it's natural to evaluate other things they've stated to you as fact. I started to believe that it was more likely we didn't land on the moon than not.

I'm ready now to come out as a moon landing denier. This video sealed the deal for me:


Therefore, I don't believe we landed on the moon. It's okay if you don't agree with me, and I won't try to convince you otherwise. That said, if you want to participate in this thread, refrain from emotional attacks.
Probably one of the better treatments of the moon landing hoax - and there seems to be surprisingly few - comes from the late Dave Mcgowan and can be found on his website centerforaninformedamerica.com, under the title Walking the Moon Doggie, or something like that
 

Volador26

Pigeon
Probably one of the better treatments of the moon landing hoax - and there seems to be surprisingly few - comes from the late Dave Mcgowan and can be found on his website centerforaninformedamerica.com, under the title Walking the Moon Doggie, or something like that

If I may be so bold as to offer another video to check out, Bill Whittle’s What We Saw series is a rock solid explanation for how the lunar landing took place. I recommend it even for the hard core...I hate to use the word “denier” because nowadays that word is just a sick Marxist smear...but you know what I mean.
It’s a well done, labor of love, that presents what took place in a clear logical manner. Speaking for myself, I know I definitely can’t present the case as throughly and accessibly as Bill Whittle does.
He’s a very knowledgeable guy, has spent years of his life into aviation and astronomy and is a solid guy. Though I am no longer a conservative (nationalist monarachist is what I am now) I first became a fan of his work when I was a high school conservative....anyways. Worth a watch
 
What's the point of knowing if the landing was fake or not?

In proving definitely that humans are capable of deceiving fellow humans without shame?
...for that answer, you don't need to analyze rocket propulsion. Just ask any 5-year-old kid.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The point is, the 5yr old is less conditioned than the average adult, and not as constrained by cognitive dissonance... I don't think most adults in the West are receptive to the idea that we are being deceived on matters ranging from the vaccine control grid to the moon landing psyop.

If I may be so bold as to offer another video to check out, Bill Whittle’s What We Saw series is a rock solid explanation for how the lunar landing took place. I recommend it even for the hard core...I hate to use the word “denier” because nowadays that word is just a sick Marxist smear...but you know what I mean.
It’s a well done, labor of love, that presents what took place in a clear logical manner. Speaking for myself, I know I definitely can’t present the case as throughly and accessibly as Bill Whittle does.
He’s a very knowledgeable guy, has spent years of his life into aviation and astronomy and is a solid guy. Though I am no longer a conservative (nationalist monarachist is what I am now) I first became a fan of his work when I was a high school conservative....anyways. Worth a watch

Whittle looks like your bread and butter BoomerCon. I'm not very familiar with his work, but his close associate Jeremy Boreing is a piece of work, your basic ConInc sellout and attack dog.

 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I'm late to this discussion, and it most likely was already mentioned somewhere in the thread, but I urge everyone to watch "American Moon"by Massimo Mazzucco. It has probably been deleted from YT at this point (I saw it a few years ago) but other platforms might have it.

Yeah it's a pretty good video, it's particularly good at exposing the glaring flaws in the photograhy and video aspects due to their strong panel of Italian professional photo and film consultants, they do an exceptional job of showing how/why these specimen are fake. We've covered that video earlier in this thread, here is the link again:

 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Probably one of the better treatments of the moon landing hoax - and there seems to be surprisingly few - comes from the late Dave Mcgowan and can be found on his website centerforaninformedamerica.com, under the title Walking the Moon Doggie, or something like that

That video was from Jerrah White, an Australian moon landing debunker who does a very good job at breaking down the NASA deception.

He also does a good job calling out the double bluff gatekeepers pushing flat earth on the truther community who have come to realize that the moon landings were faked, like with this tweet, where he posts a short and sweet video by Bart Sibrell:

 
I don't think most adults in the West are receptive to the idea that we are being deceived on matters ranging from the vaccine control grid to the moon landing psyop.
I know... You are lacking 40 years of experience with hard communism and now you are a little behind us with knowledge of what is gov capable of :).
 
Top