So, we didn't go to the moon then

Some dude just told the or his kid to go sit next to him and ask that sinple question. Santa claus at the supermarket?

 

What I find fascinating is, that these people believe that we didn't go to the moon, but were able to make something as complex as a smartphone-computer. Whenever I see someone write "They clearly photoshopped that!" in the context of moonlanding-conspiracies, I'm blown away by the level of ignorance that one has to live in. The fact that there is a program that can manipulate graphics in a way that you can instataniously see it on a highly dense grid of very small leds that can all be controlled at refresh-rates of 60Hz is a miracle. There is a lack of understanding that some few people were able to achieve these spectacular things working together for decades by passing their knowledge.

It's like 5-graders trying to debunk Newton, because they just don't know, the exact Dunning-Kruger-Effect.

 

Don't know why you're asking me as I never claimed to support the given numbers NASA presents. Ask them.

Alright. True, one could hop over to a car passing it at those speeds. However, that's still a very small window to hop over because the car is still passing the other one.

You haven't actually answered my question. (and let's put aside for now how you didn't even address the other ones)

If we took two airplanes traveling, eh, let's say 4,000 miles per hour and they're about 50 miles apart from each other and you decided to "hop" over, obviously, you're going to fall to your death. Because you cannot physically reach that plane. Even if you had a jetpack, you would become a bloodstain on the ground, no?

In this scenario, the "airplanes" are the Earth and the Moon and the "jetpack/person" is Apollo 11. Let's use the following quote since he's recognized as a scientific authority by many:

"If you can't explain something to a child, you don't understand it."

So in order to ensure for me that you understand what you're saying, please explain to me, in layman's terms, how a rocket, something that can only go 36,000 mph can reach an object 200,000 miles away, moving at least 67,000 miles per hour.

Explain in the same terms I just mentioned how the relative motion of the moon, how its absolute speed would be compared to the motion of the sun, and then tell me how a spaceship can get to, and safely from, the moon.

Wow. Well done. Look at that. The most intellectual and biggest contribution to a discussion I've ever seen.

No, really. Well done. I can clearly see what motivated you to type those words out. Clearly, I can see that it was a true burning desire to attempt to invalidate the topic at hand through subjectivity at best.

I'll make you some cookies later. Once I learn how to bake and once we can't hear that rat pissing on cotton.

...What... in the hell do smartphone computers have to do with the moon...?

I mean, there's fallacies and then there's THIS...

 

The sun is moving both the moon and the rocket at the same speed in space.

 

The idea is not that we cannot make it to the moon with our technology. We have sattelites around our planet... But there is secret, deep state alien conflict and thats why we never returned. Anyone saying we dont have the technology probably suffers of 1st degree flat earth burns.

 

He speaks with enthusiasm about it to the little girl, referencing to her believe he was there. He is neither dement nor revealing a top secret to her, he just references to the fact, that they "didn´t go there" again.

Good to point that out. He is obviously referencing to the time, when they stopped. He really says "we didn´t", but with the intention to confirm her question as a legitimate very good one, not to deny that it ever really happened.

 

That's not it!

 

Alright bro. You win. Just say what it is...

 

You are wasting peoples time mate, everytime I see some guys actually trying to explain things to you conspiracy-theorists having in mind to help you further your horizon. You don't care for facts and/or science, you just want to believe that you live in your made up world and spread your delusions everywhere you can.

...If you don't know what computers have to do with the moonlanding I can't help you, read a book.

 

Hilarious. People, for fuck sake, he said “we didn’t go there” meaning “we didn’t go back” for such and such reasons. He’s not saying he never went to the moon, he’s saying why we didn’t go back.

Basically he’s saying after they accomplished their mission to go to the moon no one wanted to fund or care about another moon expedition/landing.

 

Why are you getting emotional? You randomly make assumptions about myself in an attempt to invalidate my own stance, which isn't necessary and is largely illogical. I'm making an objective analysis of an event in history, I don't know what you're doing.

Remember, valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis.

If a view cannot be sufficiently supported by evidence, then folks usually take more of an ad-hominem stance by questioning the person's character (as you just did) rather than the argument presented. The fact that you decided to question my character only tells me you have a personal bias for the moon landing and only deepens my opinion that advocating the moon landing isn't a valid viewpoint at all.

If you wish to question my character, fine, but at least try to checkmate me. Otherwise, you're just making yourself and those that agree with your post on principle (say, pressing the like button) look bad. I never said I believed in some conspiracy. Does doubting the moon landing really make me a crazy conspiracy theorist and thus, delusional? Do I have pale skin, green hair, and a big, almost constant grin? Am I not free to analyze it and think:

"Hm. Something ain't right here."

If I'm suddenly a conspiracy theorist for not taking words and shoddy evidence at face value, then I could easily turn around and say you're a religious fundamentalist, no different than someone who (especially when it comes to belief without evidence as that is religon's quintessential tenet) puts a great amount of faith in, say, the Bible. Someone no different than a little sheep with no ability to think through things, independent of authorative figures, be it a book or be it an organization. But of course, if I actually meant that, I'd easily be hypocritical, now wouldn't I?

I don't care about the possible implications of the moon landing being a hoax. You want to talk about conspiracies, start a thread about conspiracies. I'm talking about whether or not the moon landing actually happened, which to me, lines up with the title of the thread. That's it.

I'll ask for at least a modicum of civility from you from this point on.

I called your post a fallacy because you tried to compare smartphone computers (not computers in general, there's a difference) to an event that occured far before smartphones were even invented.

Here, I'll give you something you can try to use to prove I'm ultimately in the wrong. This question was largely ignored before, so I'll ask you.

NASA themselves freely admitted to losing 13,000 reels of data (about 900 boxes, though I might be wrong, it may be closer to 2,600, depending on the actual size of the boxes and the reels themselves) of man's greatest achievement in history. Explain to me how it's easier to believe that NASA, a large organization of minds, could be so incompetent as to lose literally EVERYTHING that could've proved, without a doubt, that the moon landing happened rather than it is to think that they never had the data in the first place.

If the Catholic Church had stated:

"We had undeniable proof and data on the existence of God. But we lost it."

Obviously, you would assume that they never had the data in the first place, then. Why is the moon landing an exception?

I have an answer for why the moon landing is an exception, but I'll only mention it if you decide to ignore that question.

Of course I don't "believe", belief is the enemy of knowing. If I simply "believed" in the moon landing, I'd be no different than a religous person. Of course, while I don't mean any actual acrimony towards religious folks, if I took it at face value, I wouldn't be contributing to my interest in increasing my understanding of reality.

Funny how you're also seemingly getting a bit emotional. I fail to see how I insinuated ignorance, I'm just asking you questions because you yourself implied you have an advanced understanding of mechanics and such. You're supposed to be able to easily enlighten me so I can ultimately agree with you that the moon landing happened. Right?

Just because YOU say relative speed doesn't matter doesn't mean it doesn't. However, you actually made me realize something about this part of the conversation from something you say a little further down. This particular part of the discussion already makes a lot of assumptions on a lot of things and you point out one of them. I'll mention it a bit further below.

So you assert that I could be a troll for stating a child couldn't understand hopping vehicles (even though that's not what I said at all) or that I'm probably just less intelligent than the average person.

Why are you getting emotional? I could get into the reasons again for why that isn't necessary, but you could always just scroll up.

As for the explaining part, exactly. Einstein knew what he was talking about here. If you cannot explain any concept to (he used the words "a six year old") a child, you do not understand that concept.

The words "quantum mechanics, rocket science, general relativity", these are what we'd call "jargon". (other things can be jargon as well like charts and graphs, hell, those are arguably worse than just words) And jargon only really works when you're working around people that understand exactly what you're talking about. Here's an example:

If I was a computer engineer at work and I said to my co-workers:

"We're going to make 2 computers layer 2 adjacent."

They're going to understand EXACTLY what I'm talking about because they know what that jargon means, in this scenario, they went through the same education and training as I did.

Now if I were a college computer science professor and I said to my students:

"We're going to make 2 computers layer 2 adjacent. Any questions?"

I'm going to get this reaction:



Well said, Picard.

Because said professor is dealing with LAYMEN. And when you're a layman, obviously, you understand little to nothing about the concept you're trying to learn. If the professor can explain Layer 2 adjacency to laymen, it shows he has a good understanding of what that jargon means.

And yes, obviously college students are not six year olds, but the principle is the same. He'd only have to put it in just more simple terms and perhaps even easily explain those terms in order for the kid to get it.

Now I understand the jargon (which is part of the reason why I think the moon landing is a bunch of bull), but I asked you to explain it in layman terms so that you could show me that you have a good understanding of what you're talking about. If you can't (or simply refuse to), then neither I nor anybody with a sound mind (or someone who thinks they have a sound mind) has any reason to think you understand any more than I do. Feel me?

This is the part I was talking about earlier. You just told me that jets don't work in the vacuum of space. This whole time, the earlier discussion assumed that rockets can.

Please explain to me why a jet can't operate in the vacuum of space, but a rocket can. And mind you, I'm not talking about having the fuel burn out and the exhaust shooting out the back. That can happen, I concede that. But if space is a vacuum, what is the rocket pushing off of to make it move? A jet needs air to push itself in the direction it wants. How is a rocket an exception?

Layman or more specifically, in plain terms, so you can show me you have a deeper understanding of this than I do and I can, as well as anybody reading this, with an education in mechanical engineering or not, ultimately concede that the moon landing is plausible. And maybe try it without making implications on my character, huh?

 

LOL

Let's have a look.

I'm not talking about how the rockets burn the fuel, I already conceded that. I'm talking about how they move.

You haven't explained how they "accelerate mass in the direction opposite they want to go". You're just telling me things without giving me something to address the how or why.

Newton's Third Law isn't in question here. If anything, that's precisely the reason why I'm wondering how they move in the first place.

A rocket isn't a gun. When a gun is fired, a small explosion is created that propels the projectile forward and throws the gun itself back. That's what makes recoil. Exhaust from a rocket isn't a projectile, it's a stream and there isn't an explosion being made. (not that one could be made in space since explosions are a violent expansion of gas and you already admitted that space is a vacuum)

"If you don't agree with me because I can't explain anything, I can't help you."

LOL What?

I have a pretty good idea on which little birdy said that to you, but I'll leave it aside for now.

If I told you:

"ATMs are the harbingers of our destruction. They will rise up and assimilate humanity."

Am I wrong when I say:

"Websites are written in HTML code."

Come on, man, this is an obvious red-herring fallacy. Who gives a shit? Why do you care? We're not talking about that, we're talking about the moon landing. And to restate, I'm not asking how rockets work in space, I'm asking how they move.

You haven't done or said a single thing to convince me that you have a greater education than I do. You haven't done or said a single thing to convince me you are intellectually superior and that you understand more about reality than I do. The post quoted above is filled with assumptions, which doesn't tell me you are more informed than the average person. But yeah, see ya holmes, and have a good streak.

 

Funny, thought you gave up. Alright.

Your entire post is based off of the following three presuppositions:

A: That heat can be created in a vacuum.

B: That gas can be created and can expand in a vacuum.

C: That pressure can be created in a vacuum.

You told me earlier that space is a VACUUM. (a near perfect vacuum, if we're being specific, and no, you did not say it was near perfect, I'm just quoting "science") Heat, gas, and pressure CANNOT exist in something that will violently suck all gas into an infinite void. If anything, you just explained to me how a rocket can move in Earth's atmosphere, which isn't up for discussion here. How can gas expand around a rocket, having pressure and heat being generated, but if the guys in the ISS open that window over there, they all die instantly? How can gas expand around a rocket when said rocket is in a vacuum?

If it can, then space ISN'T a vacuum. If it can't, then how do rockets move in space?

If we all knew our governments lie, then not only would this debate not be taking place, but it'd be well established in any sound mind that the moon landing never happened. However, that is not the case here. There are obviously still people who believe (emphasis on "believe") in the moon landing. There may not be any educational value here for you, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to be addressed here. You could certainly be aware that our governments lie and you might even be aware of the fact that the moon landing never happened, but since I clearly have opposition, this doesn't mean all of us know that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

@Phil Calmarto I'm still waiting for an answer for my question on why the moon landing is an exception to the fact that anybody would obviously assume the Catholic Church was lying if they told you they had boxes upon boxes of evidence and data on God, but then admitted to have lost it. Would you like to read my answer or am I still a crazy conspiracy theorist whose words should be largely disregarded?