Current Events > It's still really hard for me to believe we landed on the moon.

(+) Yeah! (+)

wait, this clown actually doesnt believe we landed on the moon?

ahahahhahahhahahahaha

---

monkmith posted...

so what about the thousands of people that worked at NASA over the course of the whole program? how do you keep them from figuring out that the program they're working on is a lie?

That's not how it works, a few thousand people, but most likely only 20 people probably know about the agenda. The engineers and janitors don't know and how would they know? Do you know the secret plans of what your company is doing. I couldn't tell you what my company is doing.

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah the moon landings must be hoaxes then. Or time travelers gave us the technology in the 60s and then wiped the knowledge from our memories.

Or you're just buying into conspiracy theories again.

Again, if you want to buy the lame ass excuses from NASA then be my guest

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Plus, we were fighting a losing war in Vietnam and a cold war at the time, so don't give me no damn excuse about no money.

The Space Race was another arena of the Cold War. But since abandoning Vietnam, successive administrations have calculated -- rightly or wrongly -- that there simply aren't enough votes to be won by spending immense amounts of taxpayers' money on serious, manned space exploration just for the sake of science. Most politicians are fixated purely on their own personal careers and don't give a shit about the nation, the planet, or the future beyond the next election.

---

Firewerx posted...

The Space Race was another arena of the Cold War. But since abandoning Vietnam, successive administrations have calculated -- rightly or wrongly -- that there simply aren't enough votes to be won by spending immense amounts of taxpayers' money on manned space exploration just for the sake of science. Most politicians are fixated purely on their own personal careers and don't give a shit about the nation, the planet, or the future beyond the next election.

Wouldn't a space colony or something be lucrative though? Lets look at exploration for example, Christopher Columbus landed in the new world and didn't see any gold or ****. Guess what, we still went back!

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Again, if you want to buy the lame ass excuses from NASA then be my guest

No what I want is your explanation

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Wouldn't a space colony or something be lucrative though?

But nobody wants to get his hands dirty doing the massively expensive spadework that promises to yield no economic (equals political) rewards until long after he's left office. It's all about short term gains; politicians don't want to put in work if it means only their successors will benefit from it.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Wouldn't a space colony or something be lucrative though? Lets look at exploration for example, Christopher Columbus landed in the new world and didn't see any gold or ****. Guess what, we still went back!

Yeah America claiming a piece of the moon would totally go over well with the international community. Let's take over the middle of the Indian Ocean while we're at it and build ocean colonies

---

Firewerx posted...

But nobody wants to get his hands dirty doing the massively expensive spadework that promises to yield no economic (equals political) reward until long after he's left office. It's all about short term gains; no one has any real vision.

then this contradicts human behavior because 99% of the New World should be uninhabited then because Desoto the explorer didn't find gold mines in Texas for example. Only Mexico City and the Rockie mountains would be colonized with this logic. The fact that there's unclaimed land is enough to gather interest.

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah America claiming a piece of the moon would totally go over well with the international community. Let's take over the middle of the Indian Ocean while we're at it and build ocean colonies

How do you know? Did the astronauts examine every sq inch/100% of the moon and conclude that there is absolutely nothing of value on this rock? Why are we in Antarctica then?

---

ImAMarvel posted...

I like JBallen

can I ask why

ImAMarvel posted...

Space is indeed lucrative. It's extremely lucrative, in fact. However, two things you're forgetting:

1) Politicians are extremely short-sided and only give a shit about short-term policies and goals that benefit their own careers and those that are in American politicians' pockets.

2) The colonial period in the New World was stretched out over centuries. Christopher Columbus found the new world in what, 1492 iirc? The first major colonies weren't even founded until like a century later.

If politicians are extremely short sided and greedy then why did we go to the moon in the first place to just say we landed on a dead rock to impress common American population? I'm sure all this money wasted could've went to something way better?

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

How do you know? Did the astronauts examine every sq inch/100% of the moon and conclude that there is absolutely nothing of value on this rock? Why are we in Antarctica then?

I imagine they did more research than having real strong feelings and calling people sheep for not agreeing with them.

We can figure out the chemical composition of far away solar systems. We don't need to mine moon rocks for 50 years to figure out the moon.

---

Jballen has never been anything other than a troll for his entire time here guys like cmon

JBaLLEN66 posted...

That's not how it works, a few thousand people, but most likely only 20 people probably know about the agenda. The engineers and janitors don't know and how would they know? Do you know the secret plans of what your company is doing. I couldn't tell you what my company is doing.

the engineers dont know what they were building? and the janitors dont hear people talking? and 20 people? so the obvious ones like mission control and the fucking astronauts themselves, all together account for over 100, thought what? that they were actually on a moon when they were filming that scene in a warehouse?

this isn't a company doing a project, its the government, and the government leaks. case in point, the manhattan project.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I imagine they did more research than having real strong feelings and calling people sheep for not agreeing with them.

We can figure out the chemical composition of far away solar systems. We don't need to mine moon rocks for 50 years to figure out the moon.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11272

dude go home

---

monkmith posted...

the engineers dont know what they were building? and the janitors dont hear people talking? and 20 people? so the obvious ones like mission control and the fucking astronauts themselves, all together account for over 100, thought what? that they were actually on a moon when they were filming that scene in a warehouse?

this isn't a company doing a project, its the government, and the government leaks. case in point, the manhattan project.

20 people, 30 people, whatever, I'm just trying to explain to you that just because 1000 people are involved in a project doesn't mean all of them know what is going on. You don't need the janitors, scientists, and engineers to know about the agenda. The only people that matter are the directors and astronauts.


---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11272

dude go home

You just told me we can't trust what the government says and then cite the government. I was talking about research anyway. Scientists can look at space without living in it.

Anyway, that infographic say it's all preliminary guess work and would require money and technology. It also cites the potential concerns and how a country can't just go up and take over the moon.

Still waiting on how this proves we never went to the moon.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

then this contradicts human behavior because 99% of the New World should be uninhabited then because Desoto the explorer didn't find gold mines in Texas for example. Only Mexico City and the Rockie mountains would be colonized with this logic. The fact that there's unclaimed land is enough to gather interest.

I think that first of all, the perceived cost-benefit ratio of exploring and colonizing outer space is somewhat different to that of colonizing an unmapped continent on the far side of the ocean. A colony in the New World at least stood a chance of becoming self-sustaining within a few months after setting sail. Secondly, royal sponsors of colonial missions rarely had to weigh the political costs of spending other people's money on their pet projects.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

20 people, 30 people, whatever, I'm just trying to explain to you that just because 1000 people are involved in a project doesn't mean all of them know what is going on. You don't need the janitors, scientists, and engineers to know about the agenda. The only people that matter are the directors and astronauts.

i'd imagine the engineers would have had something to say at the local bars if they were spending all their time building paper mache rockets...

also, i like how you skipped over my comparison argument. i guess a nuclear bomb is less important then a dick measuring contest? or maybe there were just fewer people working on it...

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

20 people, 30 people, whatever, I'm just trying to explain to you that just because 1000 people are involved in a project doesn't mean all of them know what is going on. You don't need the janitors, scientists, and engineers to know about the agenda. The only people that matter are the directors and astronauts.

All these conspiracies take is one brave soul to bring down. The American government would have to be the most competent evil government in history to manage the conspiracies they're accused of. It would cost trillions. You're ironically putting lots of faith in the government.

---

monkmith posted...

i'd imagine the engineers would have had something to say at the local bars if they were spending all their time building paper mache rockets...

also, i like how you skipped over my comparison argument. i guess a nuclear bomb is less important then a dick measuring contest? or maybe there were just fewer people working on it...

Maybe 9/11 was a hoax too because you only need like 3 people to order and shoot missiles lol

---

Let's just say that the moon landing isn't the only thing this guy has a habit of denying

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

20 people, 30 people, whatever, I'm just trying to explain to you that just because 1000 people are involved in a project doesn't mean all of them know what is going on. You don't need the janitors, scientists, and engineers to know about the agenda. The only people that matter are the directors and astronauts.

Here's the thing. The Apollo program and the Moon landings took place during the depths of the Cold War, in an era of constantly predicted nuclear destruction from the skies. The USSR would have kept a beady eye on every man-made object that the Americans launched into the stratosphere, and tracked its every move. If the Apollo rockets had been going anywhere other than where NASA had told the public they were going, then the Soviets would certainly have known it very quickly. There's no way the hoax could have remained unexposed.

Yet throughout the life of the Apollo program, the Soviets did not make a single accusation that the lunar missions, the landings, were a hoax. Why did they signally fail to seize the opportunity to humiliate Nixon in his hour of victory, by exposing him as either a liar or an ignorant dupe of his own agencies? Was it because they felt it was just too ungentlemanly to make him look like a laughing stock?

There is no explanation you can offer for Soviet complicity in the "hoax" that doesn't demand a ridiculous suspension of disbelief. If it's a choice between accepting the Moon landings as an established historical fact or of turning the known world upside down and back to front out of some goofy, perverse contrarianism, I know which alternative is far more plausible and which one requires a hell of a lot more gullibility.

---

FrankJaegr posted...

Its because the water wants to naturally stick to the earth so when you spin the clothes on a spinning earth they will try and separate from the clothes to rejoin their rightful place on the earth.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

If politicians are extremely short sided and greedy then why did we go to the moon in the first place to just say we landed on a dead rock to impress common American population? I'm sure all this money wasted could've went to something way better?

A display of technological superiority over the Soviets. The Space Race started as a means of launching ballistic missiles, elevated into means of communications and spying (satellites), and ended with a bit of a dick measuring contest (the moon). America wanted to prove it was better than the USSR, and vice versa.

And in the grand scheme of things, a politician did look to the short term. When Kennedy challenged the nation to get to the moon before the end of the century, he was including all but 11 months of his potential 8 years in office.

---

Firewerx posted...

Here's the thing. The Apollo program and the Moon landings took place during the depths of the Cold War, in an era of constantly predicted nuclear destruction from the skies. The USSR would have kept a beady eye on every man-made object that the Americans launched into the stratosphere, and tracked its every move. If the Apollo rockets had been going anywhere other than where NASA had told the public they were going, then the Soviets would certainly have known it very quickly. There's no way the hoax could have remained unexposed.

Yet throughout the life of the Apollo program, the Soviets did not make a single accusation that the lunar missions, the landings, were a hoax. Why did they signally fail to seize the opportunity to humiliate Nixon in his hour of victory, by exposing him as either a liar or an ignorant dupe of his own agencies? Was it because they felt it was just too ungentlemanly to make him look like a laughing stock?

There is no explanation you can offer for Soviet complicity in the "hoax" that doesn't demand a ridiculous suspension of disbelief. If it's a choice between accepting the Moon landings as an established historical fact or of turning the known world upside down and back to front out of some goofy, perverse contrarianism, I know which alternative is far more plausible and which one requires a hell of a lot more gullibility.

easy, why would the soviet union call bull **** on the moon landings and how would they do it?

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Its because the water wants to naturally stick to the earth so when you spin the clothes on a spinning earth they will try and separate from the clothes to rejoin their rightful place on the earth.

K181 posted...

Believe it or not, spending shitloads on something for over a decade and hiring the best and the brightest during that time frame works.

This. You don't hire just any bum to fake the moon landing.

Wasssup Now posted...

This. You don't hire just any bum to fake the moon landing.

lmao

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

easy, why would the soviet union call bull **** on the moon landings

Not quite sure whether you're edging into "playing stupid games of goofy and perverse contrarianism" territory or "have the educational attainment of a small cabbage" territory with this. Could it be both?

---

Firewerx posted...

Not quite sure whether you're edging into "playing stupid games of goofy and perverse contrarianism" territory or "have the educational attainment of a small cabbage" territory with this. Could it be both?

can you answer a simple question please

---

Wake up, sheeple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyon6nchsC0

JBaLLEN66 posted...

easy, why would the soviet union call bull **** on the moon landings and how would they do it?

How would the incompetent ass American government engineer a fake moon landing conspiracy and why?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

How would the incompetent ass American government engineer a fake moon landing conspiracy and why?

I give up....First you have to ask yourself what benefits would this bring the Soviets. Proving the USA false would have been a difficult task for starts and is the risk even worth the reward? Hell no, I could get in to the economics and trade pitfalls, but I'm not going to get in to that. However, the most obvious answer to this question is because it wouldn't have been very smart because the USSR had much more secrets to hold on to hence why it's not around anymore lol. For example, a lot of Russians didn't even know about Stalin's gulag/death camps until the 80s when Mikhail Gorbachev instituted Glasnost....So tell me why this is a good idea again?

---

If the technology America pretended to use for the Moon landing wasn't real, how would it be difficult for a country, the second most powerful on Earth, with its own team of scientists who would be able to see that such a thing was indeed not real, to prove that it wasn't real?
---

SwiggitySwoogit posted...

TC probably finds walking and chewing gum at the same time hard to believe too.

You probably get baited every time and believe everything I say as evidenced by you being triggered here yet again lmao

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

If the technology America pretended to use for the Moon landing wasn't real, how would it be difficult for a country, the second most powerful on Earth, with its own team of scientists who would be able to see that such a thing was indeed not real, to prove that it wasn't real?

I'm not denying the existence of rockets dear lord. Lets say you are a NASA engineer right. You go to work, your boss tells you what to do xyz, you do your assigned job, you go home, you sleep, and rinse and repeat. It's not like everybody is put in a secret secret room where Nixon is in the room and tells you about the secret plan. It's a really simple concept, idk how this is so hard to understand.

---

Well, that wasn't what I was saying at all, but yes, the conspiracy you believe in is literally impossibly big, no matter how much you and your kin try to go "oh no, it's just a few people in a dark smoke room". And yes, engineers would absolutely have to be in on it.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Well, that wasn't what I was saying at all, but yes, the conspiracy you believe in is literally impossibly big, no matter how much you and your kin try to go "oh no, it's just a few people in a dark smoke room". And yes, engineers would absolutely have to be in on it.

In car manufacturing plant, do the engineers and assembly line workers know about the motor company's big plans to outsource jobs 7 years in the future???

---

1) Engineers are not the same as assembly line workers

2) Your comparison is so dumb even you have to know it. A more apt one would be "do the engineers who design the car have to know how to make an engine that can cause a car of this and that weight ratio to move at the speeds we want it to?"

And the answer is yes.
---

FrankJaegr posted...

Agreed lol. That thing looks pathetic. I doubt it could get me off the house let alone to a fucking Walmart.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

1) Engineers are not the same as assembly line workers

2) Your comparison is so dumb even you have to know it. A more apt one would be "do the engineers who design the car have to know how to make an engine that can cause a car of this and that weight ratio to move at the speeds we want it to?"

And the answer is yes.

You are acting like I am denying the existence of rockets entirely. A NASA engineer can perfectly go to work and design a rocket and leave without knowing about whatever agenda the of the President has intended for it. It's not like everyone at NASA was put in this bunker and in front of Richard Nixon and told to stfu, now that sounds pretty conspiracy like lol. It's easy, NASA engineer A goes to work, his project lead tells him to design this, he designs it, he goes home, he grabs a beer and watches football, repeat. We don't need Nixon involved in this.

---

A NASA engineer cannot design a rocket meant to take a shuttle to space or a command module to the moon without knowing that according to known science what they're actually designing is capable of doing just that.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

A NASA engineer cannot design a rocket meant to take a shuttle to space or a command module to the moon without knowing that according to known science what they're actually designing is capable of doing just that.

They designed a rocket meant for space travel like they are doing right now :/

---

Or we built rockets and went to the moon. Occam's razor

Did we also fake the samples and idiot scientists have been examining fake rocks and movie frames for 50 years? How many people have they had to silence over the years to maintain this coverup of a dick waving contest? This requires the US to be so good at silencing critics that they scared the global science community into doing deliberately bad science

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Or we built rockets and went to the moon. Occam's razor

Did we also fake the samples and idiot scientists have been examining fake rocks and movie frames for 50 years? How many people have they had to silence over the years to maintain this coverup of a dick waving contest? This requires the US to be so good at silencing critics that they scared the global space community into doing deliberately bad science

I didn't know telling up to 50 people to stfu and not say anything or you and your family members will face consequences was such a impossible task to do.

---