31 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

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.

Midwit x AI = GammaGoblin

43 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Midwit x AI = GammaGoblin

Sorry Gobs but you earned it by wrongly labelling people 'denialists' and 'eMpiRacists' based on your (imho flawed) assumptions.
It's not hard to find glaring flaws in the official narrative - "We destroyed the tech", "We taped over the orginal video tapes of the moon landing to save money", "we got to the moon with a computer less advanced and powerful than your nokia". If you can bring yourself to look at it through a sceptical lens, the whole thing does look pretty ridiculous.

55 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Sorry Gobs but you earned it by wrongly labelling people 'denialists' and 'eMpiRacists' based on your (imho flawed) assumptions.

Are you talking to me?

Are you talking to ME???

I never generalize nor lable ANYONE anything.

People, including you and me, we are what we are.....

Flawed in almost every way.

Also, as for me, I am naturally skeptical about everything.

Someday, maybe not tomorrow, the Moon will escape the clutches of our planet Earth, and travel to places we can only imagine.

IF we were to colonize the Moon, then this colony would leave Earth's orbit, too.

Life on the Moon, or colonizing the Moon, would be far easier than living on Mars, just due to the toxic regolith of the Red Planet.

Are you sure that you thought this through, completely?

14 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

You mean, A Clockwork Orange?

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

There's a story going around that Kubrick directed the fake moon landing videos.

14 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

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.

At the time my dad told me the story, it seemed silly to me. Not entirely silly, but silly enough. Why would the guys in the bar still be wearing orange jumpsuits? And why would they be such blabbermouths? On the other hand, if you've ever been to that part of AZ, the terrain in places could actually pass for the moon surface. So there's some possibility that those guys were from NASA and they were filming a "moon landing." As we've since seen, the general public can be very gullible. If the mainstream media repeats the same nonsense over and over, the public will eventually believe it.

At this point, it's an open question in my mind. Not that it much matters.

8 minutes ago, jas007 said:

At the time my dad told me the story, it seemed silly to me. Not entirely silly, but silly enough. Why would the guys in the bar still be wearing orange jumpsuits? And why would they be such blabbermouths? On the other hand, if you've ever been to that part of AZ, the terrain in places could actually pass for the moon surface. So there's some possibility that those guys were from NASA and they were filming a "moon landing." As we've since seen, the general public can be very gullible. If the mainstream media repeats the same nonsense over and over, the public will eventually believe it.

At this point, it's an open question in my mind. Not that it much matters.

Every astronaut who walked on the Moon trained in Flagstaff, AZ. In the early 1960s, scientists at the newly formed United States Geological Survey (USGS) Branch of Astrogeology led this training, teaching geologic principals and field techniques to the astronaut crews.

https://www.usgs.gov/publications/walk-footsteps-apollo-astronauts-a-field-guide-northern-arizona-astronaut-training

Here's a NASA journal showing who trained when. Aug 14, 1969 in Flagstaff.

https://www.apollojournals.org/alsj/AstronautGeologyTraining.pdf

Edited Sunday at 12:54 AM3 days by NoDisplayName

16 hours ago, save the frogs said:

It makes no sense.

It makes no sense. . . because it's phakery.

Space is phake.

People have been gaslit for 57 years; longer if you count Roswell.

When will Man return to the Moon?

When a 7-11 opens.

When will Man return to the Moon? And, why?

WTF , Did they ever go there?

And I thought that it was a Disney made Series?

On 7/4/2026 at 6:49 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

I do NOT agree.

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

Have to disagree again - Alan Shepard used a 6 iron on the moon (40 yd shot)

33 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Have to disagree again

What?

You ALWAYS have to disagree, .......AGAIN......

What else is new?

Doctor, Doctor.....Give us the news.....

Why not just send us something new, or the news?

You are always the same, the same old, same old.....

Maybe better to just listen to this tune, rather than listening to....YOU....?

39 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Have to disagree again - Alan Shepard used a 6 iron on the moon (40 yd shot)

OK.

But, a FIVE IRON is the perfect pitch which would have made the ball go quite a bit farther.

I forgot to check out the number of the club.

But, I do know the Physics involved, and the FIVE IRON would have been far better.

Edited Monday at 05:43 AM2 days by GammaGlobulin

15 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

Every astronaut who walked on the Moon trained in Flagstaff, AZ. In the early 1960s, scientists at the newly formed United States Geological Survey (USGS) Branch of Astrogeology led this training, teaching geologic principals and field techniques to the astronaut crews.

GeographicReference

https://www.usgs.gov/publications/walk-footsteps-apollo-astronauts-a-field-guide-northern-arizona-astronaut-training

Here's a NASA journal showing who trained when. Aug 14, 1969 in Flagstaff.

https://www.apollojournals.org/alsj/AstronautGeologyTraining.pdf

15 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

Every astronaut who walked on the Moon trained in Flagstaff, AZ. In the early 1960s, scientists at the newly formed United States Geological Survey (USGS) Branch of Astrogeology led this training, teaching geologic principals and field techniques to the astronaut crews.

GeographicReference

https://www.usgs.gov/publications/walk-footsteps-apollo-astronauts-a-field-guide-northern-arizona-astronaut-training

Here's a NASA journal showing who trained when. Aug 14, 1969 in Flagstaff.

https://www.apollojournals.org/alsj/AstronautGeologyTraining.pdf

On 7/5/2026 at 7:48 AM, NoDisplayName said:

Every astronaut who walked on the Moon trained in Flagstaff, AZ. In the early 1960s, scientists at the newly formed United States Geological Survey (USGS) Branch of Astrogeology led this training, teaching geologic principals and field techniques to the astronaut crews.

https://www.usgs.gov/publications/walk-footsteps-apollo-astronauts-a-field-guide-northern-arizona-astronaut-training

Here's a NASA journal showing who trained when. Aug 14, 1969 in Flagstaff.

https://www.apollojournals.org/alsj/AstronautGeologyTraining.pdf

So there were NASA people training there in the summer of '69. Interesting. Like I said, the terrain of the Northern Arizona area would be a good place to train. Maybe a good place to film a "moon landing."

Maybe someday the truth will be known. As for now, it's all ancient history.

26 minutes ago, jas007 said:

So there were NASA people training there in the summer of '69. Interesting. Like I said, the terrain of the Northern Arizona area would be a good place to train. Maybe a good place to film a "moon landing."

Maybe someday the truth will be known. As for now, it's all ancient history.

Assuming your dad's beerhall story is correct, what do you think is more probable?

Some NASA operatives involved in the grand conspiracy blurted out cold war secrets, or some random guys in orange overalls were pulling your dad's leg?

There are quite a few people I would like to see on the moon including the entire UK government. However there would have to be one, just one, caveat if it happened and that is just give them enough fuel to get that and no more.

4 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

There are quite a few people I would like to see on the moon including the entire UK government. However there would have to be one, just one, caveat if it happened and that is just give them enough fuel to get that and no more.

I assume that as you say that you "would like to see on the moon including the entire UK government" that you wish to accompany them?

Please do so with my best wishes.

16 hours ago, Why bother said:

I assume that as you say that you "would like to see on the moon including the entire UK government" that you wish to accompany them?

Please do so with my best wishes.

I will give you that honour