9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And they could have all gotten rich going public.

Not a single person would have believed them and they would have lost everything.

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But they had to design and test the equipment such that it is actually complete the task, why would they develop equipment able to computer the task, and then not complete the task?

They did their job indeed, based on the specifications they received.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Coincidentally, my father was a Staff Sergeant in the Army Air Corps during WWII, and he worked on the Apollo program as an Electrical Engineer at the Autonetics plant in Downey, California.

A perfect example of task compartmentalisation. Did he actually see what happened after take-off?

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That seems a bit weak to me.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. We are dealing with belief here, which is not a rational process. That is why there still are so many people who will look at the below picture, tell me with a straight face that this tin foil-clad, high school project-grade contraption actually landed on and departed from the Moon, and even become hostile towards me for suggesting it could be any otherwise.

Former UK Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen outs himself as a 'coincidence theorist'.

Source: https://x.com/ABridgen/status/2041839264372068435

Note that I don't know where that 2nd photograph came from, but it's not on the NASA fly-by website >

https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/lunar-flyby/

47 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Former UK Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen outs himself as a 'coincidence theorist'.

Source: https://x.com/ABridgen/status/2041839264372068435

Note that I don't know where that 2nd photograph came from, but it's not on the NASA fly-by website >

https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/lunar-flyby/

Quite a quandary for the nutters. If they believe the photos to support their non moon landing delusion, then they must acknowledge the Earth is not flat.

Or a flat earth believer has a conspiracy theory that the Earth is actually a globe!

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

Quite a quandary for the nutters.

You know its not compulsory to believe every single 'conspiracy theory' it's perfectly acceptable to pick and mix.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Not a single person would have believed them and they would have lost everything.

Who were they? Per you, at least one of the people involves was a Air Force Staff Seargent without a security clearance, that claimed the film was shot on base.

There would have had to be at least a hundred people, just to make the film.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

They did their job indeed, based on the specifications they received.

Who put together the specifications? Another thousand people.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

A perfect example of task compartmentalisation. Did he actually see what happened after take-off?

About four hundred thousand people working on the program. Who did the compartmentalization? Another thousand people.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I am not trying to convince you of anything. We are dealing with belief here, which is not a rational process. That is why there still are so many people who will look at the below picture, tell me with a straight face that this tin foil-clad, high school project-grade contraption actually landed on and departed from the Moon, and even become hostile towards me for suggesting it could be any otherwise.

I know, you are just playing with me. I am not trying to convince you either.

Why would the US build a system capable of the landing and not use it?

How does faking the landing benefit anyone?

On 4/7/2026 at 9:18 PM, Yellowtail said:

Engineers would have to know what the equipment had to do to design it. They would have to be confidant it would work to approve it. Why would they have a working system capable of landing on the moon, and then just fake it?

They have designed and tested all the stuff on the ground also built 100% replica simulators

to train in..it would be possible to fool even the astronauts in fact one of the 'Integrity' crew whilst 'flying around the moon' actually said she had to remind herself she's 'not on video'

also another said 'the earth shine is very distinct it creates quite an impressive visual illusion'

what we're seeing we're just not picking up with the cameras..................after all the amazing sights we saw earlier we just went Sci-Fi it just looks unreal !

So I'm sure there is still plenty for the conspiracy theorists to mull over.

Personally I don't understand why we don't already have a moonbase

but perhaps that is explained by another Sci-Fi movie

Apollo 18

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi4061109273/?playlistId=tt1772240&ref_=tt_ov_pr_ov_vi

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Actually, per the science, I think we've all been around the Moon?

Thought the moon went round us!

13 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Thought the moon went round us!

Exactly

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Thought the moon went round us!

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly

The center of the Moon’s orbit is not the center of the Earth, but rather the Earth-Moon barycenter, a common center of mass. This point lies approximately 4,671 km (2,902 miles) from Earth’s center, located deep within Earth’s crust—roughly of the way from the center to the surface.

6 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Quite a quandary for the nutters. If they believe the photos to support their non moon landing delusion, then they must acknowledge the Earth is not flat.

Or a flat earth believer has a conspiracy theory that the Earth is actually a globe!

You're not following. Bridgen is merely stating the very obvious, which is that those are Photoshop jobs. Not very good ones either, I could do better with Gimp.

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would the US build a system capable of the landing and not use it?

Capable of landing according to specs received and tests performed on Earth.

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How does faking the landing benefit anyone?

First and foremost, money. 250 billion funneled for the Apollo missions alone. And the soft power aspect as part of the US' cultural imperialism is massive. We could call it 'moonwashing': the fallout of this purported feat on the collective mind was instrumental in allowing the US to get away with their nefarious interventionism over the past 50 years.

Rammstein mocked this in their 2004 song Amerika, in which they wear Apollo attire:

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

The center of the Moon’s orbit is not the center of the Earth, but rather the Earth-Moon barycenter, a common center of mass. This point lies approximately 4,671 km (2,902 miles) from Earth’s center, located deep within Earth’s crust—roughly of the way from the center to the surface.

Assuming the Earth is spherical. There seems to be few posters who struggle with this.

17 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Assuming the Earth is spherical. There seems to be few posters who struggle with this.

The Earth is not spherical, any more than it is flat, or round.

5 hours ago, johng said:

So I'm sure there is still plenty for the conspiracy theorists to mull over.

Personally I don't understand why we don't already have a moonbase

but perhaps that is explained by another Sci-Fi movie

Apollo 18

And as if by script, after the publicity event this morning April 9th

they showed off the Apollo 18 flag that would have gone to the moon on that mission.

Also while answering a question from the Weather channel.. Victor Glover

started talking about 'the simulation' and all of a sudden the com link cut out..later they said it was due to a dead battery in the camera.

More fodder for the conspiracy theorists 😜

52 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Capable of landing according to specs received and tests performed on Earth.

First and foremost, money. 250 billion funneled for the Apollo missions alone. And the soft power aspect as part of the US' cultural imperialism is massive. We could call it 'moonwashing': the fallout of this purported feat on the collective mind was instrumental in allowing the US to get away with their nefarious interventionism over the past 50 years.

Rammstein mocked this in their 2004 song Amerika, in which they wear Apollo attire:

I still cannot shake the thought that this could all be a simulation. Life, civilizations, and politics all seem to follow the same pattern: rise, collapse, restart, repeat.

History keeps repeating itself because most people always believe the old mistakes cannot happen again, until they do. Some learn, but most do not.

That is why the simulation idea is hard to dismiss. And serious people have discussed it too, from philosopher Nick Bostrom to physicists like Silas Beane and Sabine Hossenfelder, with even Neil deGrasse Tyson treating it as worth considering.

But there is a big difference between playing with an idea and claiming you believe it in your heart because you think you know. A belief should be closer to a theory, something you hold honestly, but are willing to adjust or abandon when new evidence appears.

As far as I know, not much is proven about the biggest questions in life, and that is mostly true. We have learned a lot about how the universe works, but far less about why it exists, what consciousness really is, or whether life has any objective meaning. Even some also question the science about universe,

And I think this is beautiful said, and a great perspective of how to see our self

6 hours ago, johng said:

Personally I don't understand why we don't already have a moonbase

And! Because there are no germs on the moon, moon-dwellers could live forever.

6 hours ago, johng said:

Personally I don't understand why we don't already have a moonbase

but perhaps that is explained by another Sci-Fi movie

Apollo 18

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi4061109273/?playlistId=tt1772240&ref_=tt_ov_pr_ov_vi

The main reason is and have been cost versus usefulness and it is dangerous. Now most of the work can be done by robots, bigger ships like Elon builds than can transport modules for a future base.

17 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

A perfect example of task compartmentalisation. Did he actually see what happened after take-off?

Did you? No, of course not. All your belief is based on somebody else's disbelief. You don't know enough science to form a fact based belief.

17 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

We are dealing with belief here, which is not a rational process.

Exactly.... you have not used a rational process at all. You never seek answers for the myriad of uncomfortable questions that arise from your beliefs.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Did you? No, of course not.

I'm not the one claiming 'too many people would have to be in on it'. Most people are fed a story and the rest is belief.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

All your belief is based on somebody else's disbelief. You don't know enough science to form a fact based belief.

It is based on my own disbelief and the fact that I happen to have elementary common sense. Just one look at the 'lunar module' and I know this giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil and duct tape never travelled anywhere above the few centimeters it was pulled up for the cameras by strings and pulleys.

Science™!!!

Here’s a handy field guide to CT’ers’ cliches (I’m sure you’ll recognise most of it)….. Read through this thread and you start seeing the same phrases over and over. It’s a “comforting list to fall back on if you have no argument… like… a script….

Classic openers:

• “Do your own research” = Go watch the same dodgy videos I did

• “Watch this before it’s taken down” = Adds fake urgency

• “Just asking questions”/ “just saying” = Making claims without owning them

Shutting down debate:

• “That’s what they want you to think”

• “Fake news”

• “Agree to disagree”

• “Enjoy your ignorance”

(an exit strategy for when facts get awkward)

The ego boost:

• “Wake up”

• “You’re asleep”

• “Red pill”

• “Truth seeker”

(e.g. - I’m enlightened, you’re not)

The villains:

• “The Deep State”

• “Global elite / Cabal”

• “Powers that be”

(Vague, shapeless, and conveniently unprovable)

Turning nothing into “proof”:

• “Follow the money”

• “Coincidence? I think not”

• “Everything is connected”

• “Who benefits?”

(a pattern spotted (basic human need) → conclusion decided → done)

Built-in escape hatches:

• “It goes deeper than you think”

• “False flag”

• “Psyop”

• “That’s disinformation”

(Any evidence against the theory becomes… evidence for it)

Standard insults:

• “Sheeple”

• “Shill”

• “Coincidence theorist”

(Disagree = you must be stupid or corrupt)

 

And here’s the bit they really don’t get…

Science never claims to be 100% right. - That’s the whole point of it. It’s a process — constantly testing, questioning, updating, and sometimes admitting it got things wrong. That’s a strength, not a weakness.

Conspiracy thinking is the exact opposite.The conclusions are fixed from day one. No amount of logic, evidence, or contradiction changes anything — it just gets absorbed, reinterpreted, or dismissed. It’s not investigation, it’s belief with a defensive shield around it

The pattern? - It’s not critical thinking — it’s selective thinking - It’s not scepticism — it’s reflex contrarianism.

 

And the biggest tell?

They’ll happily call themselves “truth seekers”…
while clinging to ideas that can’t be changed by truth.

 

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I'm not the one claiming 'too many people would have to be in on it'. Most people are fed a story and the rest is belief.

It is based on my own disbelief and the fact that I happen to have elementary common sense. Just one look at the 'lunar module' and I know this giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil and duct tape never travelled anywhere above the few centimeters it was pulled up for the cameras by strings and pulleys.

Science™!!!

Calling the Apollo Lunar Module a “barbecue wrapped in tin foil” doesn’t expose a hoax—it just advertises a lack of understanding of how spacecraft are actually built.

 

That “gold crinkly stuff” isn’t decoration, and it certainly isn’t kitchen foil. It’s Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI), made from materials like Kapton and aluminised Mylar. The gold colour comes from the amber tint of Kapton—not from gold, not from “props,” and not from anything remotely improvised.

 

It exists for a very simple, very non-negotiable reason: space is thermally brutal. In direct sunlight, temperatures can exceed +120°C; in shadow they can plunge below -150°C. Without insulation, the electronics, fuel systems, and life-support hardware would fail almost instantly. That “crinkled” appearance isn’t sloppy—it’s deliberate engineering, reducing heat transfer and saving weight.

 

This brings us to the bigger point: weight. Every kilogram launched by NASA had to be justified. The Lunar Module wasn’t designed to look pretty—it was designed to work in a vacuum, in extreme temperatures, with minimal mass. That’s why it looks fragile by Earth standards. Because Earth standards don’t apply on the Moon.

 

The irony here is that what’s being mocked as “fake-looking” is actually exactly what you’d expect from something engineered for space, not for atmosphere or aesthetics. If it looked like a sleek aircraft or a sci-fi prop, that would be suspicious.

 

So the argument boils down to this: “It doesn’t look right to me, therefore it didn’t happen.” That’s not evidence—that’s intuition substituting for understanding. (see the list above)

And intuition is a poor tool for judging things that operate in environments most people have never experienced.

38 minutes ago, kwilco said:

That’s not evidence—that’s intuition substituting for understanding.

Tut-tut.

#geminihelpmeout

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I'm not the one claiming 'too many people would have to be in on it'. Most people are fed a story and the rest is belief.

It is based on my own disbelief and the fact that I happen to have elementary common sense. Just one look at the 'lunar module' and I know this giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil and duct tape never travelled anywhere above the few centimeters it was pulled up for the cameras by strings and pulleys.

Science™!!!

Have you been to the the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, I have, quite impressive

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Have you been to the the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, I have, quite impressive

I am sure it is very interesting.

43 minutes ago, kwilco said:

That “gold crinkly stuff” isn’t decoration, and it certainly isn’t kitchen foil. It’s Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI), made from materials like Kapton and aluminised Mylar. The gold colour comes from the amber tint of Kapton—not from gold, not from “props,” and not from anything remotely improvised.

 

It exists for a very simple, very non-negotiable reason: space is thermally brutal. In direct sunlight, temperatures can exceed +120°C; in shadow they can plunge below -150°C. Without insulation, the electronics, fuel systems, and life-support hardware would fail almost instantly. That “crinkled” appearance isn’t sloppy—it’s deliberate engineering, reducing heat transfer and saving weight.

French sage and physicist Pierre Duhem explained in To Save the Phenomena how modern “science” interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena. In other words, observational data is twisted to fit the models.

For example, when data showed that the Earth did not move, the science industry strived to “save the phenomena”. This is where Einstein came into play as the theory of relativity actually kept Copernicus’ theory alive, saving centuries of “science”.

Ref: Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I know this giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil and duct tape never travelled anywhere above the few centimeters it was pulled up for the cameras by strings and pulleys.

LOL.... know? 555

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I'm not the one claiming 'too many people would have to be in on it'. Most people are fed a story and the rest is belief.

When you offer a counter argument.... it is equivalent to making a claim.... You don't even understand simple logic.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Just one look at the 'lunar module' and I know this giant barbecue wrapped in tin foil and duct tape never travelled anywhere above the few centimeters it was pulled up for the cameras by strings and pulleys.

To 'know' something you have to understand the basic facts.... which of course... you do not.

Please elucidate by qualifying and quantifying the forces which the structural elements of the lunar module need to resist. The magnitude of these forces would determine the suitability of the materials used. So.... since you 'know' you must be able to determine why the foil is not sufficiently strong.

Your AN fans are eagerly awaiting your explanation.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

data showed that the Earth did not move

Who produced this data to which you refer?

Over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo 11 mission.

Over 18,000 private companies worked on the Apollo 11 mission.

Over 500 universities worked on the Apollo 11 mission.

Over 100 government agencies worked on the Apollo 11 mission.

Private companies contracted included: Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft, Rocketdyne, North American Aviation, Grumman Aircraft, IBM, TRW, Hamilton Standard, Honeywell, Raytheon, Black & Decker, Plantronics, and Hasselblad, just to name a few.

But yeah, it was all fake and kept a secret.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

But yeah, it was all fake and kept a secret.

A ton of facts are easily offset by an ounce of nonsense.