-40
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
-40 points (20.6% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27062 readers
263 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The moon landing happened. It's obvious. Even without the evidence that it happened (which we have in abundance), there's the fact that the soviet union didn't even try to claim it was fake (when they had every incentive to do so).
If you claim to not believe in the moon landing, you're either a troll or an idiot. You were banned for trolling because they were being kind in their interpretation of you.
My favorite flavor of this conspiracy theory: The moonlandings happened. But the pictures were staged.
I prefer the Mitchell and Webb approach: They faked the moon landing on the moon to save on the catering budget.
Isn't that basically just a rebrand of the "Kubrick faked the moon landing, but insisted on doing it on location" theory that's been around for decades?
Or someone who just doesn't consider a matter conclusive if a voice of authority weighs in. It's not like the Bielefeld conspiracy where you can just walk to Bielefeld and touch around, the moon landing belief comes from exclusively second-hand source material during a dubious era of people bluffing and moving goalposts to prove their worth (which is dumb, America has earned a worthy place even without its achievements). It's no different from the arguments I witness everyday where people out each other with second-hand "evidence" and calling it first-hand even though it's easy to fake. To cite the Soviet Union's incentive is purely circumstantial, like saying someone isn't lying about a murder on the basis they seem like they have no reason to, which is to say it ignores the potential existence of unforeseen possibilities.
Second-hand? We have a fucking video. The people who were there wrote fucking books. We have the fucking capsule they returned in. We took souveniers. There's a flag on the surface of the moon. If that's second-hand, what do you count as first-hand? Do you need to be physically on the moon before you admit we went there?
It's not that the soviets had no reason to. It's that they had EVERY reason to, and didn't. They could win the space race and break public trust in the USA with one good piece of evidence, so long as that evidence existed. If there was any actual proof that it was fake, the soviets would have done everything possible to find it.
You honestly expect me to believe that:
...All while the president can't fuck a secretary without people finding out? That seems less likely than the US being able to go to a moon in that moon rocket they built.
Second-hand refers to whenever there's a middleman or medium (such as TV or audio) relaying what happened to you. Like if Dante's Inferno was written this century, the book would be considered a second-hand account of Hell, or if the Emperor of Japan said he had the regalia of the three Shinto Kami as proof of his divinity (often with people unsuccessfully asking if he has proof of having proof or proof that it is proof), it would be a second-hand account of his authority. We would be going by their word, and anyone writing anything that disputes it would make it a "he said she said" spat. People get angry at me often if they show me a recording of someone saying something and I say it's not 100% definitive because it's not unchallengeable, as opposed to someone taking me to the action, directing me there. If, for some reason, the moon landings were to be challenged in a court of law (no, time has shown Mythbusters is not a court of law), these would be the inquiries/protocol taken. And suppose things came up such as "we recorded over the original footage" or "we brought these souvenirs back but cannot verify that a human brought them back" or "Buzz Aldrin punched someone who questioned him about the landings", do you think maybe such quirks would raise a few eyebrows? The Soviets we cannot speak for, especially since both Cold War blocs were putting words in each others' mouths all the time, in fact we know the capability of the Soviets to keep a good secret was enough that they could create whole top-secret cities that civilians still don't know about, which means we cannot say the US government couldn't have faked something without it leaking out, that's the whole point of being able to keep any classified documents.
No, that audio and that person are first hand sources. There was no hand between them and the thing that happened. You, having heard of what happened from them, are now the second hand. If you disagree, what do you think is the first hand source?
For a moment, consider the fact you are an imperfect being capable of fault, and you may not know everything that is or was. In this situation, where you are capable of being wrong, is there any hypothetical piece of evidence that could exist that would prove to you if it happened or not? What would it take to change your mind?
Audio/video/pictures/souvenirs can be faked. If one were to ask someone with these (for any situation) "what separates these from someone presenting these where there may be potential for suspicion that any were faked", whatever the responder says that demonstrates the standing of the source material would raise it to the status of first-hand support.
The Cold War was, to use a metaphor, a period where everyone was seeing who can pee higher on the wall, filled with many top secrets, goalpost movings, lowered morale, and governments finding new reasons to tax people (Carl Sagan's CD album currently floating in space took many millions of tax dollars to produce and put there, many things would've taken more). It's technically "not impossible" they went to the moon, but everything given to support it does not support anything aside from what amounts to agnosticism on the subject. Some people believe the moon landing happened. I respect these people. Some of us, however, are in doubt. Around the same time the landing was said to have happened, Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and while I would give quite a bit more nuance/depth/complexity to the quote (for one thing, "extraordinary" is relative), what we have been given in support for the landings was not extraordinary in a strict sense.
You've mistaken "first hand" with "verified". What you're describing is "unverified first hand sources". Hardly matters, because third party sources DID verify it.
Despite the massive block of rambling, semi-relevant text, I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer the question I asked you. What evidence would you need?
If so, they didn't do it in a way that could be considered conclusive. Someone else here tried to argue that the old equipment can be seen on the moon through the average person's telescopes, to which I responded that even agencies say this isn't true, but if it was, it would be a good example of something I'd take, supposing you really need me to mention specific examples. Generally, though, all it takes is to sound like more than authority-backed hearsay and appealing to the circumstantial.
Bruh, we can see the flag/lander on the moon from earth with telescopes, and a high powered laser will bounce off the retro reflectors and send the beam right back. There are plenty of first hand evidence available if you can afford to buy/rent/use the equipment.
"The moon landing being faked" is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories, right up there with flat or hollow earth. It takes active effort to disregard all that evidence to be a crackpot.
No we can't, according to the government. The reflectors just prove there was a means to put them there, it doesn't require a specific way they were put there.
Independent civilians picked up the live signals being beamed back from the positions of the landings. These signals were both video and audio. Multiple nations have independently imaged the landing sites with footprints visible. You can even see the shadows of the flags on the moon. That would be a whole lot of design and engineering nowadays, let alone in the 60's. You can read about these and more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
But yeah, clearly the most logical conclusion is that we designed a probe to make fake human footprints, plant a flag, drive around a buggy, take lunar rock samples, plant mirrors on the surface, and obtain all of the scientific data that we have, all in the 1960's. Then, we just kept sending these probes (which somehow do not appear in any photographs, not even tracks from one) for decades. On top of that, no one involved has spilled the beans, not even on their deathbeds.
I wonder which of these scenarios is more likely. I don't think you're a troll or an idiot, I think you're a full-fledged dumbass.
How would you verify the source though?
I for one wouldn't call someone a dumbass for thinking a conclusion that has no societal bearing, especially if it's one thing from the far reaches of their mind.
You need to be on the moon to believe it then?
It came from the far reaches of your ass, maybe, but definitely not your mind.
Not what I said, I simply asked how you'd verify. And why do you care?
How would you verify, since you're the one that doesn't believe the facts right in front of your nose?
I care because to deny something like the moon landing is to deny the blood, sweat, and tears that went into it, it's one of humanity's greatest achievements. To deny it is to deny all science and logic. You're seriously surprised that people would get pissed off at you when you basically call all of NASA liars? Not just NASA, but also basically all astronomers?
You're even more ignorant than I thought if you can't even comprehend why people would care.
I wouldn't exactly call watching a technological medium about an event, or supposed proof of it locked away where it can't act as proof, the same as having the event right in front of my nose, neither would I say to deny the moon landing is to deny science and logic since what we're speaking of is an event, not strictly a scientific phenomenon. I do not call "astronomers" liars, I simply believe the landing did not happen, and to phrase an event (one which was more for national interest than humanity's) as if it's a measure of our value and worth like that is to look way too much into it.