When someone tells you that man has not reached the Moon, itβs another detector of idiots; the pity is that they discredit other conspiracies that are actually true, although not as they believe.
Login to reply
Replies (36)
π―
People who believe in the moon landing simple have an extraordinarily low bar for evidence they will accept thereof, and an otherwise infantile understanding of the claims presented as fact.
The sad thing is that if you have a friend who is an astronomer, you can verify it.
Like I said, a very low bar. About 2 dozen people have ever been claimed have left LEO, you and I will never know anyone personally who has claimed to have done so.
The entire thing is so preposterous it's embarrassing.
That reminds me of 'flat earth' and 'chem trails'.
I'd be interested if any of the moon landing believers, who are intellectually honest, can watch this logical analysis and still come out on the other side as believers.
Matt Walsh pushes all of the same logical fallacies in the video below.
Try and see if you can objectively examine the evidence (or the lack thereof), or whether you'll enter into a cope spiral.
Starts at 10:30
View quoted note β
When someone tells you that an event 60 years ago happened exactly as described by the state it tells you how deep state propaganda runs in all of us.
There are different people at different times that cast doubts about events like 9/11 and most of us were forced to reevaluate the timeline.
Now what helps is thinking more in probabilities.
In 2001 I had 20% doubts about the 9/11 official narrative - that shifted to 99%
Regarding Covid epidemic I had 80% doubts in 2020 - that shifted to 95%
Moon landings I had 0% doubts at first and now ended up with 70% doubts.
I see overwhelming evidence for a globe model of earth. I like to entertain different models (e.g. simulation,...) but within my current perception I have only 1% doubts that the earth is not round.
Are there absolute truth. Yes, but from subjective interpretation everything is just a broken fractal of the bigger thing.
Be careful of those who want to sell you historic events as the truth.
When someone tells you that man has not reached the Moon, itβs another detector of idiots; the pity is that they discredit other conspiracies that are actually true, although not as they believe.
View quoted note →
Maybe we can agree that strangers things have happened.
Some narratives are meant to deflect and cast doubt on other narratives.
So the interesting part is how to differentiate one from the other.
I'd encourage people to not accept things at face value but to give probabilities. Then observing how these probabilities change over time as new (mis/dis)information becomes available.
Be precise.
There's a difference between:
"Man" have reached the surface of the moon
A "human" actually set foot on the moon
Some doubt the first.
Some doubt both.
Some doubt neither.
I really don't know. I can verify some things. For others I need to rely on second hand information.
So I give probabilities from my limited point of view having done a good a mount of reading knowing/understanding around 50 pros and cons.
Have man reached the moon 80% yes
Have humans set foot on the moon 80% no
I have 95% certainly humans have landed on the Moon at least once since the 1969 and 80% certainty they repeated this several times in the early 70s.
Teach us then.
What does this prove exactly? π€
Do you believe for some reason people canβt leave LEO? If so, what is this reason?
I just knew this would offend a lot of pseudo intellectual bitcoiners π€£
I used to have similar probabilities. But something changed in the last years. I cannot even say which of both possibilities are more probable in my mind now π€
This is interesting!
A pressure gradient with no container next to a perfect vacuum. That's the claim. Think about it, this is the Disney-inspired brain at work.
What?
I'm saying that placing your beliefs in the hands of a handful of people who claim to have left earth can be picked apart with basic problems like a perfect vacuum.
What makes more sense, and what could be experimentally validated:
1. The earth has a pressure gradient of layers of gas, and gravity keeps those gasses from entirely escaping into space, which is a perfect vacuum.
2. The earth is a closed/contained system because that is the only way it could exist next to a vacuum.
The first is a belief that cannot be experimentally validated and is never observed in any other instances, while the latter can be easily demonstrated. You cannot maintain pressure in an open system.
Launched on April fools day (the real new year). They're mocking everyone..
Let me get this straight. Are you trying to persuade me that humans canβt build air tight equipment that doesnβt collapse when put in vacuum?
No. I'm saying that the official story is that the earth is a pressurised environment right next to a vacuum with no barrier.
That is absolutely ridiculous. It cannot be this way.
This is your evidence? π€£
Thereβs an easy medicine for this. Do proper research on the subject. Like you hopefully did with Bitcoin (at least 100 hours).
That's the thing: I believed it, until I researched it π€
The rabbit holes are deep and manyfold.
Chem trails are real...
Theyre used to create rain and remove dioxide carbon.
Climate changes
I haven't seen any evidence besides "trust me bro". Not even an explanation that would make sense.
I'm open to changing my mind as soon as I see something convincing.
Pretty blunt statement, calling idiots, people who refuse to believe something almost totally supported on βbelieve the expertsβ argumentβ¦
I wonder which other βconspiracy theories that are actually trueβ would that be?
VocΓͺ jΓ‘ viu o ar?
This, very much. The more you know about it, the more improbable it looks, the more shaky the story is.
What convinced you we didnβt land there?
I'm not convinced we didn't. But I am neither that we did.
Yes, most of that is fake, or a successful human moon landing doesn't follow from the premise. I'm frankly disappointed with the lack of first principles thinking. "here's a rocket" - so? "here's some grainy pictures" - so? "here's some rocks we have nothing to compare against to see if they are real" "there are some reflectors in there" - not that those couldn't be placed robotically " wouldn't the USSR have said something" - don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the global world order, for all we know they are best buddies behind the scenes "why spend all that money" really? we are down to believing government budgets and questioning what use they would have for a black budget? this utter normie slop, and you know it. The arguments in favor boil down to "USG says so", "most people believe it" therefore "it's uncool to think otherwise" and "it would really hurt my pride as an American if it wasn't". Just let it go...
I can make an appeal to you. Are you Christian or atheist?
The moon landing story is full of holes, that is fact.
You know well what to do when you see a government narrative that is full of holes, don't you?
Don't you??
π€¦ββοΈ