6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I understand your point, and I agree that people should question things. But I also think we have to be careful not to let suspicion become evidence by itself. That is why I lean toward science, measurement, and repeatable results. We may not know the ultimate truth, but we can still separate stronger claims from weaker ones by how well they stand up to testing.

Being inherently subjective beings, I don't think we can reach total objectivity. We can strive for it, though… and also strive for honesty and integrity. What is that? It is to make the right choice, even if it isn't the easiest one (and it often isn't).

9 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Plenty of people would believe them....

Not in their circles. It would be professional and social suicide.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Being inherently subjective beings, I don't think we can reach total objectivity. We can strive for it, though… and also strive for honesty and integrity. What is that? It is to make the right choice, even if it isn't the easiest one (and it often isn't).

I agree that we can only strive for objectivity, not fully reach it. And yes, honesty and integrity matter. But the difficulty is that a person can be honest and still mistaken. That is why I put more trust in careful testing, measurement, and independent verification than in conviction alone.

Doing the right thing is important, but when it comes to understanding reality, the right path also has to include methods that help protect us from fooling ourselves.

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I agree that we can only strive for objectivity, not fully reach it. And yes, honesty and integrity matter. But the difficulty is that a person can be honest and still mistaken. That is why I put more trust in careful testing, measurement, and independent verification than in conviction alone.

Doing the right thing is important, but when it comes to understanding reality, the right path also has to include methods that help protect us from fooling ourselves.

Can't disagree with that.

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I could do what you all do and copy/paste an AI-produced reply... but I will pass on the jardon-laden pantomime

Sounds more like.... I don't want to think about things that will upset my apple cart system of beliefs.... Got it!

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This is what Pierre Duhem meant in his essay To Save the Phenomena: modern “science” interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts, in order to explain and “save” the observable phenomena. In other words, observational data is twisted to fit the preferred models.

Inertia exists everywhere. Just like you.... many scientists resist new information. But, unlike you, they still DO consider it and come to their senses when confirmation of results are received and reviewed. Truth triumphs over beliefs. Who believes the ether theory now? You?

Light is one of the most mysterious things in the universe. It was and still is extremely difficult to understand it. Science did not have the tools to analyze its behavior for centuries. Old theories about light are laughable now.

7 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I don't want to think about things that will upset my apple cart system of beliefs...

On the contrary, I do… my shift away from the heliocentric belief being a prime example.

6 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Inertia exists everywhere. Just like you.... many scientists resist new information. But, unlike you, they still DO consider it and come to their senses when confirmation of results are received and reviewed. Truth triumphs over beliefs. Who believes the ether theory now? You?

Light is one of the most mysterious things in the universe. It was and still is extremely difficult to understand it. Science did not have the tools to analyze its behavior for centuries. Old theories about light are laughable now.

Exactly the point I was making. Phenomenon saved.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Exactly the point I was making. Phenomenon saved.

Indeed

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Exactly the point I was making. Phenomenon saved.

But the inertia of science is overcome keeping the body of knowledge growing and alive. The preference of belief over facts makes the nutters moribund.

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

But the inertia of science is overcome keeping the body of knowledge growing and alive. The preference of belief over facts makes the nutters moribund.

Much of the Science spoken about on AN, is not Science at all. Just nonsense built upon falsehoods.

Understanding Nature leads to sound Science.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

On the contrary, I do… my shift away from the heliocentric belief being a prime example.

Avoiding answering someone's question saves you from exploring reality and allows you to strictly hew to your pillars of beliers.

19 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Much of the Science spoken about on AN, is not Science at all. Just nonsense built upon falsehoods.

Understanding Nature leads to sound Science.

There is no gap between science and Nature. The entire universe is part of nature. There is no part of the universe that is not of interest to scientists.

Wake up... it's not the 1890's anymore. Your 'gold standard' of medical science turned out to be iron pyrite.

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

But that isn't how to answer someone's question..... that's studious avoidance.

You didn't ask a question in that post, though. You stated that I ignore facts which challenge my stance in order to avoid facing a contradiction in my premise… the implication being that I am not equipped to take a step back, look at things objectively and challenge my own beliefs.

My answer was that I have already demonstrated my ability to do that, as I changed my stance on the most universal and deeply embedded belief there is, which is the globe model. It wasn't an easy thing to do, it was a process which took several years through careful observation, study and consideration.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You didn't ask a question in that post, though. You stated that I ignore facts which challenge my stance in order to avoid facing a contradiction in my premise… the implication being that I am not equipped to take a step back, look at things objectively and challenge my own beliefs.

My answer was that I have already demonstrated my ability to do that, as I changed my stance on the most universal and deeply embedded belief there is, which is the globe model. It wasn't an easy thing to do, it was a process which took several years through careful observation, study and consideration.

How did the thousands of people the wrote the specs for Apollo 11 keep it a secret?

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You didn't ask a question in that post, though.

You're right... I shouldn't assume you can follow a thread of conversation. Simple transactions are best with you.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

My answer was that I have already demonstrated my ability to do that, as I changed my stance on the most universal and deeply embedded belief there is, which is the globe model. It wasn't an easy thing to do, it was a process which took several years through careful observation, study and consideration.

Nice try..... you don't have any actual facts to support your globe model. You instead turn to steadfast albeit misinformed beliefs and feelings derived from seriously weak human senses.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How did the thousands of people the wrote the specs for Apollo 11 keep it a secret?

More like hundreds of thousands of people involved. No secret to keep , unless you are a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist.

Nobody has mentioned that the Russians pretty well shutdown their radio system as Apollo 11 approached and landed on the moon. They knew it was the real deal, and gave the USA every opportunity to succeed at that time.

Its only since the advent of social media that the nutters have a voice.

I still struggle to understand their reasons for doubting what happened and their almost evangelical actions in denying it. What do they hope to achieve - convince the majority that their beliefs/science are wrong?

What do they get out of this?

On 4/10/2026 at 4:54 AM, gamb00ler said:

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.

I'm just as aware of the official explanations as anyone else, it isn't difficult in the slightest. And in case of doubt, I can do what everyone else does and enter a prompt into an AI interface for a nice, smooth and logically linked bulleted list.

It is your prerogative to watch the available footage and believe it. As I said, it is a shame the Artemis crew couldn't provide new footage with today's tech… as it is a shame NASA lost 'the good tapes' from Apollo 11…

33 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

you don't have any actual facts to support your globe model.

Very true words spoken there… Colloquially referred to as a Freudian slip.

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How did the thousands of people the wrote the specs for Apollo 11 keep it a secret?

They didn't have a secret to keep, their job was to write the specs based on data fed to them.

30 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

What do they hope to achieve - convince the majority that their beliefs/science are wrong?

Already achieved, c.f. the title of this thread.

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They didn't have a secret to keep, their job was to write the specs based on data fed to them.

And how did the thousands of people that fed them the data keep it a secret?

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.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

And how did the thousands of people that fed them the data keep it a secret?

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.

The vast majority of these people just did their compartmentalised jobs and had no visibility beyond their immediate, limited framework.

This compartmentalisation of tasks is a process which has been used before, for example to hide the Final Solution from people involved under Nazi Germany (c.f. the "Functionalist vs. Intentionalist" debate): limiting people to specific, rigid and immediate tasks prevents a broader understanding and also has the psychological effect of removing any sense of responsibility and/or desire to understand the bigger picture among the subjects concerned.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

You're right... I shouldn't assume you can follow a thread of conversation. Simple transactions are best with you.

Nice try..... you don't have any actual facts to support your globe model. You instead turn to steadfast albeit misinformed beliefs and feelings derived from seriously weak human senses.

40 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Very true words spoken there… Colloquially referred to as a Freudian slip.

Your globe model is that sure.... all the planet and moon sized objects that can be observed are roughly globe shaped but somehow despite being formed by the same forces and similar materials... Earth somehow ended up flat.. LOL

16 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Your globe model is that sure....

I don't have a 'globe model', I simply know, because I am far more knowledgeable than you are on the topic, that the heliocentric model is a pagan ideology enforced by the Jesuits as a counter-movement to Luther's Reformation, and that 'science' was merely a means to achieve this paradigm shift.

21 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

all the planet and moon sized objects that can be observed are roughly globe shaped but somehow despite being formed by the same forces and similar materials... Earth somehow ended up flat.. LOL

They are sonoluminescent bodies.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I don't have a 'globe model', I simply know, because I am far more knowledgeable than you are on the topic, that the heliocentric model is a pagan ideology enforced by the Jesuits as a counter-movement to Luther's Reformation, and that 'science' was merely a means to achieve this paradigm shift.

Hilarious beyond belief! Like an onion with so many layers.... entirely constructed without a single observation of the universe required.

35 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Hilarious beyond belief! Like an onion with so many layers.... entirely constructed without a single observation of the universe required.

I'll leave 'the universe' to George Lucas. Regarding humans and their habitat, the Biblical model makes a whole lot of sense.

55 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

that the heliocentric model is a pagan ideology enforced by the Jesuits as a counter-movement to Luther's Reformation, and that 'science' was merely a means to achieve this paradigm shift.

I"m glad you confessed that you hold your beliefs because of some religious spat centuries ago. That will really clear it up for any fence sitters out there. After all, religious folks have never been known to make up absolutely fantastical systems and myths to convince the targeted infidels.

8 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I"m glad you confessed that you hold your beliefs because of some religious spat centuries ago.

I am not religious, though I did expect hostility following my blaspheme at the Science religion.

As I said, the Biblical model makes a lot of sense.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am not religious, though I did expect hostility following my blaspheme t the Science religion.

As I said, the Biblical model makes a lot of sense.

You must be getting desperate in your attempts to cover up your naivety. You've stooped to the tired taunts that are ubiquitous throughout the conspiracy spectrum. As you're not religious, I guess you should be forgiven for not having a clearer definition of what constitutes a religion.