1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Earth's gravity is depressing

Yeah man. Gravity sucks.

7 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

If you believe there were men walking on the moon you in a world of hurt.

FAKERY

Can't land a mess of tent poles covered in shower curtains on a damn light in the firmament.

💯0%

I guess we cannot expect to fool EVERYBODY, can we?

Are we being watched?

Is there an alien base on the moon?

I'm not saying I believe this, but just putting it out there.

Maybe NASA did go to the moon, but they didn't tell us what they really found there.

And the footage they showed us isn't the real footage.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

So while wearing full suits, that couldn't bend, they took boots on and off.

this on/off, was it done while they couldn't bend inside the lander, or outside the lander?

Let's say one guy fully suited up and the other put his boots on him while unsuited (inside lander).

How did the second guy get his boots on/off after suiting up?

You ever worn a dry suit?

10x more flexable than a spacesuit, but still really hard to get your own fins on or off.

This is yet another example of the bullsh!t asymmetry effect - also known as also known as Brandolini's Law - which states that the amount of energy and time needed to refute false, misleading, or poorly researched claims is an order of magnitude larger than the effort it takes to create them.

You want to argue how astronauts put on their overboots & use the drysuit / fins analogy which is preposterous.

At this stage the discussion becomes pointless - & you’re not questioning history. You’re auditioning for the Dunning-Kruger Hall of Fame….

The sun doesn’t dim itself to argue with a candle…..

23 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Are we being watched?

Shouldn't you be on THORAZINE, for something?

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Shouldn't you be on THORAZINE, for something?

1 hour ago, Sir Dude said:

As an aside, I also wonder why it seems so hard to now go back to the moon with a manned mission considering they made it so many times in the Apollo missions with less computing power that a modern calculator so long ago, and now it seems so complicated... and if you look at the proposals for doing it again, it is way more complicated than back in the late 60s. It should be a sinch or routine now to return considering the advancement between then and now.

Seems odd to me with the tech we have now that they are still making excuses for not returning. Yes, the recent Artemis mission worked but they just did a fly-by orbit of the moon and didn't land. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's a tough one to swallow that returning is so hard if it was done so well multiple times back in the day over 50 years ago.

Edit - You can't say there is nothing more to learn about the moon to justify not going back, as the moon contradicts so many things and the case for why the moon shouldn't exist is better for the one as to why it does exist.... it is an strange object that is mysterious and basically shouldn't be there, as there are no other examples of a moon like this we have found anyhwere.

It’s only “odd” if you ignore the context.

Apollo wasn’t routine, it was the biggest peacetime engineering project in history. At its peak, around 400,000 people worked on it, consuming roughly 4% of the entire US federal budget.

Then the political race was won, funding evaporated, the production lines closed, the specialised workforce retired, and the hardware was scrapped.

Today, NASA isn’t rebuilding Apollo, it’s building something far more capable, safer, and designed for long-term missions rather than a few flag-and-footprints visits.

As for “the Moon shouldn’t exist”, that’s simply false. The leading giant impact hypothesis explains its formation remarkably well and is supported by multiple lines of evidence. “I don’t understand it” isn’t evidence that it defies science.

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The sun doesn’t dim itself to argue with a candle…..

The Moon Landing is hailed as one of the greatest achievements in history, but it has not advanced civilization at all and had no impact on anything.

What did they find there? Just a bunch of useless rocks?

There's hardly any footage of anything interesting.

A 30 minute National Geographic documentary is enthralling, but on the moon it's just a bunch of rocks.

It makes no sense.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

The Moon Landing is hailed as one of the greatest achievements in history, but it has not advanced civilization at all and had no impact on anything.

You mean....

Not yet, of course.

Sometimes, advances in Science require a bit of time to bear fruit.

It was a Stanley Kubrick production ....right ?

regards Worgeordie

Edited Saturday at 10:20 AM3 days by worgeordie
correction

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Apollo wasn’t routine, it was the biggest peacetime engineering project in history.

Except, it was not created in peacetime.

It was created during the Cold War, which was pretty hot, VERY HOT, at times.

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I always wondered why Buzz Aldrin's space suit had smooth soles, but the fortprints it left were ridged.

(where would they store overshoes, how would they get them on and off in such inflexable suits, were they stored inside the lander, didn't seem much room, did they bring the overshoes back? If so, why aren't they on display with the suit?)

Not to mention the multiple shadow angles and shiny lander feet which should have been covered in dust.

And the camera crosses behind and in front of rocks.

And the perfectly composted photos on cameras that didn't have viewfinders.

What about the camera film that worked in freezing vacuum, how could they even change film rolls?

Google....

The PGA boot would then be inserted into the enlarged upper portion of the lunar overboot, using the donning strap at the rear of the boot to help position the PGA boot within the lunar boot. The surplus material would be refolded and then held closed by reengaging the snap fasteners and the retaining strap. The boot would further be held in place by by a strap assembly extending from the side of the heel and across the instep. This strap incorporated a latching mechanism which could be easily manipulated by the astronaut, even while wearing EVA gloves.

http://heroicrelics.org/info/suits/a7l-lunar-overboot.html

2 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

It was a Stanley Kubrick productuction ....right ?

regards Worgeordie

You mean, A Clockwork Orange?

Yes, it was Kubrick who created one of the greatest films of all time.

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

Supposedly, those guys told my dad they were in the area filming a "moon landing" in case the real one didn't work out too well.

The guys deeply involved in one of the greatest conspiracies in human (and alien) kind, just happened to blurt out the plan directly to your dad?

Sounds reasonable.

24 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

The Moon Landing is hailed as one of the greatest achievements in history, but it has not advanced civilization at all and had no impact on anything.

What did they find there? Just a bunch of useless rocks?

There's hardly any footage of anything interesting.

A 30 minute National Geographic documentary is enthralling, but on the moon it's just a bunch of rocks.

It makes no sense.

Agreed - though The race to the Moon was never really about the Moon. It was about proving technological, military, and political superiority during the Cold War.

The Moon itself was effect just a very expensive finish line.

That said the US gained:

Global prestige: Landing first demonstrated that the US could accomplish what the Soviet Union could not, after losing the early milestones (first satellite, first human, first spacewalk).

A military message: If you can precisely guide astronauts 384,000 km to the Moon and back, you can build world-class rockets, guidance systems, computers, and missiles.

Technological advances: Apollo accelerated progress in computing, integrated circuits, telecommunications, materials science, navigation, software engineering, and systems management.

Scientific knowledge: The missions returned 382 kg of lunar rocks, installed long-running experiments, confirmed the Moon’s age and origin, and transformed our understanding of the early Solar System

So, it wasn’t all a huge waste, wasteful yes, and perhaps that’s why we stopped going back - but important discovery was made - whether the scope and cost of going there was worthwhile is naturally debatable.

35 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Except, it was not created in peacetime.

It was created during the Cold War, which was pretty hot, VERY HOT, at times.

Agreed - but the distinction exists because the it was the biggest engineering undertaking outside of an active wartime arena.

The Cold War was not actually a war - it fundamentally was a geopolitical, ideological, economic, technological, and military rivalry, rather than a conventional war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

It was called a “war” because both sides were in constant strategic competition, but they deliberately avoided direct conflict, largely because a shooting war between two nuclear superpowers could have escalated into nuclear annihilation.

Hopefully that’s the semantics dealt with.

Edited Saturday at 11:01 AM3 days by richard_smith237

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed - though The race to the Moon was never really about the Moon. It was about proving technological, military, and political superiority during the Cold War.

The Moon itself was effect just a very expensive finish line.

That said the US gained:

Global prestige: Landing first demonstrated that the US could accomplish what the Soviet Union could not, after losing the early milestones (first satellite, first human, first spacewalk).

A military message: If you can precisely guide astronauts 384,000 km to the Moon and back, you can build world-class rockets, guidance systems, computers, and missiles.

Technological advances: Apollo accelerated progress in computing, integrated circuits, telecommunications, materials science, navigation, software engineering, and systems management.

Scientific knowledge: The missions returned 382 kg of lunar rocks, installed long-running experiments, confirmed the Moon’s age and origin, and transformed our understanding of the early Solar System

So, it wasn’t all a huge waste, wasteful yes, and perhaps that’s why we stopped going back - but important discovery was made - whether the scope and cost of going there was worthwhile is naturally debatable.

You're not too far off the mark.

The Cold War and Russia had a lot to do with it.

Maybe The Cold War had everything to do with it.

Maybe they had to lie to the masses because it was a major psychological warfare waged on the Russians --- ie they wanted the Russians to believe they had superior technology to get a psychological advantage in the Cold War.

Or maybe they did have the technology, but they are hiding what they found there. No way there's just a bunch of useless rocks and nothing else of value.

Edited Saturday at 11:04 AM3 days by save the frogs

53 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

Google....

The PGA boot would then be inserted into the enlarged upper portion of the lunar overboot, using the donning strap at the rear of the boot to help position the PGA boot within the lunar boot. The surplus material would be refolded and then held closed by reengaging the snap fasteners and the retaining strap. The boot would further be held in place by by a strap assembly extending from the side of the heel and across the instep. This strap incorporated a latching mechanism which could be easily manipulated by the astronaut, even while wearing EVA gloves.

http://heroicrelics.org/info/suits/a7l-lunar-overboot.html

Please stop using sensible facts - people struggle putting flippers on - that’s the real argument here !!! 🤫

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

The Moon Landing is hailed as one of the greatest achievements in history, but it has not advanced civilization at all and had no impact on anything.

What did they find there? Just a bunch of useless rocks?

There's hardly any footage of anything interesting.

A 30 minute National Geographic documentary is enthralling, but on the moon it's just a bunch of rocks.

It makes no sense.

Same when the Indians 'Went to the moon' recently.
No livestreams, nothing interesting - Just some ropey footage seemingly filmed on a Nokia + some 1980s space invaders graphics.
Must be true though - they wouldnt lie to us would they?

Fun fact: The government (US taxpayers) spend $65,000,000 on 'NASA' - EVERY DAY.

46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed - but the distinction exists because the it was the biggest engineering undertaking outside of an active wartime arena.

I thought you stated: Agreed

But then, you find the need to couch this term with conditions.

Will you NEVER just agree with anything I write here?

Or, is this not your nature to do so?

You should now feel great relief that the missiles did not fly in 1962, and have not flown, up to today.

Tomorrow, they might, though.
And, if they do, you can say, I Told You So.

59 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed - though The race to the Moon was never really about the Moon. It was about proving technological, military, and political superiority during the Cold War.

I do NOT agree.

The Moon Shot was about testing how far a man in a spacesuit could hit a FIVE IRON....

The Russians and the Chinese would have called foul the minute the USA declared they had landed on the moon if they had not done so.

Don't forget that Russia's space programme/space race put them on a soft landing on the moon before the USA.

In 1966 the Soviet Union accomplished the first soft landings and took the first pictures from the lunar surface during the Luna 9 and Luna 13 missions.

Moon landing - Wikipedia

Edited Saturday at 12:06 PM3 days by Why bother

10 minutes ago, Why bother said:

The Russians and the Chinese would have called foul the minute the USA declared they had landed on the moon if they had not done so.

Don't forget that Russia's space programme/space race put them on a soft landing on the moon before the USA.

In 1966 the Soviet Union accomplished the first soft landings and took the first pictures from the lunar surface during the Luna 9 and Luna 13 missions.

Moon landing - Wikipedia

Maybe, but the back side of the moon is more beautiful.

47 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I thought you stated: Agreed

But then, you find the need to couch this term with conditions.

Will you NEVER just agree with anything I write here?

Or, is this not your nature to do so?

You should now feel great relief that the missiles did not fly in 1962, and have not flown, up to today.

Tomorrow, they might, though.
And, if they do, you can say, I Told You So.

I’d agree with you if you were correct - in this case the distinction & context matters.

When I was about 12 or 13, my father took me to Cape Kennedy (as we called it back then) to see the Apollo 14 mission take off. It was quite a sight. Years later I heard a Stanford U. Geology professor explain how he taught the Apollo astronauts how to decide which rocks to collect.

I never heard any discussion about the moon landings being faked until years later.

1 hour ago, Tourist2 said:

Same when the Indians 'Went to the moon' recently.
No livestreams, nothing interesting - Just some ropey footage seemingly filmed on a Nokia + some 1980s space invaders graphics.
Must be true though - they wouldnt lie to us would they?

Fun fact: The government (US taxpayers) spend $65,000,000 on 'NASA' - EVERY DAY.

Ah, so the Indian Buddhists are in on the conspiracy, hiding the evidence that Muhammad rode a winged horse to the heavens and cleaved (clave? clove?) the moon in twain.

But they can't hide it forever!

See this photograph of Rima Ariadaeus, not yet sanitized from the NASA library.

4 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Yeah man. Gravity sucks.

Yes.

It sucks the BIG ONE, in my view.

Just think how much energy is required to reach escape velocity, where we are, in this gravity depression.

It also sucks the big one that Space is Curved.

So much easier for Elon to get to Mars if only he had no need to contend with gravity.

I am sure he feels just the same as I.

Edited Saturday at 01:14 PM3 days by GammaGlobulin

22 minutes ago, Callmeishmael said:

When I was about 12 or 13, my father took me to Cape Kennedy

When I was young, we called it what it should be called:

Cape Canaveral

5 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

As an aside, I also wonder why it seems so hard to now go back to the moon with a manned mission considering they made it so many times in the Apollo missions with less computing power that a modern calculator so long ago, and now it seems so complicated... and if you look at the proposals for doing it again, it is way more complicated than back in the late 60s. It should be a sinch or routine now to return considering the advancement between then and now.

Seems odd to me with the tech we have now that they are still making excuses for not returning. Yes, the recent Artemis mission worked but they just did a fly-by orbit of the moon and didn't land. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's a tough one to swallow that returning is so hard if it was done so well multiple times back in the day over 50 years ago.

Edit - You can't say there is nothing more to learn about the moon to justify not going back, as the moon contradicts so many things and the case for why the moon shouldn't exist is better for the one as to why it does exist.... it is an strange object that is mysterious and basically shouldn't be there, as there are no other examples of a moon like this we have found anyhwere.

back then, both money and to some extent risk was not an issue it is today.

its still the same ole primitive propulsion, we only truly make progress when a new propulsion materialize

As usual, in order to avoid any unnecessary Question-Mark Emoji, and to forestall any similar future Emoji, ...

Let me preempt the receiving of such Emoji by providing the REAL MEANING of this Topic,

As digested by Gemini...

Important NOTE: If you posted on this Topic, then your name might be mentioned here by Gemini, and so PLEASE pay close attention.....

Synopsis

Mechanism: The provided text is a transcript of an unmoderated digital public forum thread. Evidence: A user initiates a discussion regarding the timeline and demographics of future lunar missions. The original premise is rapidly discarded, and the thread devolves into an entrenched, cyclical debate regarding the historical authenticity of the Apollo lunar landings.

Surface Analysis

Mechanism: The initial prompt functions as a superficial catalyst for ideological conflict. Evidence: The stated topic—future lunar exploration by Chinese or Indian space agencies—is abandoned by the fourth post. Participants immediately pivot to re-litigating a 50-year-old engineering milestone. The surface-level interaction consists of conspiracy claims regarding photographic anomalies and spacesuit mechanics, followed by corresponding factual refutations.

Subtextual Analysis

Mechanism: The discourse serves as a practical demonstration of Brandolini's Law and the mechanics of confirmation bias within digital communities. Evidence: The text reveals a structural divide in information processing methodologies.

• One faction relies on skepticism rooted in anti-institutional distrust, framing the Apollo program exclusively as Cold War psychological warfare.

• The opposing faction relies on established physical sciences, documented historical records, and artificial intelligence retrieval.

• The interaction proves that empirical evidence (eg, the documented mechanics of A7L lunar overshoes, the behavior of dust in a vacuum, the specific modifications of Hasselblad cameras) is entirely insufficient to override emotionally driven, anti-establishment narratives. The discussion is not a pursuit of objective truth, but a performance of group identity.

Behavioral Typology of Forum Participants

Mechanism: Participants self-segregate into rigid archetypes to sustain the systemic conflict of the thread. Evidence:

• The Provocateur (GammaGlobulin): Utilizes the Socratic method and intentional absurdism (eg, banana leaves, Thorazine, five-iron golf swings) to generate engagement. This user maintains a detached posture, intentionally instigating friction with both the skeptics and the empiricists to prolong the discourse.

• The Denialists (BritManToo, Woke to Sounds, save the frogs, Tourist2): Employ the Gish gallop rhetorical technique. They introduce a high volume of rapid, sequential assertions (shadow angles, boot print discrepancies, budget statistics) that require disproportionate effort to refute. Their primary mechanism is doubt-generation based on a deliberate lack of specialized engineering knowledge.

• The Empiricists (richard_smith237, gamb00ler, NoDisplayName): Deploy factual documentation, archival links, and physical principles to counter denialist claims. They exhibit observable fatigue. User richard_smith237 explicitly cites the "bull<deleted> asymmetry effect," acknowledging that the energy required to counter false claims vastly exceeds the energy required to invent them.

• The Autobiographers (simon43, Callmeishmael): Inject primary-source personal recollections of the 1969 event. Their empirical data points are entirely ignored by the active combatants. This confirms that the thread's core function is adversarial conflict rather than the establishment of historical consensus.

THANK YOU.

Edited Saturday at 02:23 PM3 days by GammaGlobulin