I don’t really pay attention to down nor upvotes.
Don’t even really understand what it does, I currently see it as: x amount of people agree or disagree with OP.
The last time someone asked your very question and I answered, it was in the other AskLemmy, and answering this answer got me banned for three days from there for "trolling".
I wasn't "trying" to induce that effect, it's a genuine conclusion I have. And I did get temporarily banned from the other AskLemmy for it, so yeah, there's that. If there's any others that have more downvotes, they would be new to me.
If you sincerely believe what you posted in there, then you're obviously not looking for the actual truth. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.
You say that like that's never been brought up before. The Mythbusters episode about it even ended on that note. They said "manmade stuff is on the moon, so men must've been up there" but didn't discuss the part where there's more than one way manmade stuff could end up on the moon (which itself seemed unusually hasty for them).
If that's what you believe, I'm not the kind of person to impose and say it's an inferior conclusion so-to-speak, it's not as if people don't agree to disagree. What I'd like to know is why can't we here?
Cause you're talking about reality. We're not debating on if a movie was good, or if a sandwich is tasty, you're literally saying that every single scientist in the whole world is conspiring to trick you into thinking something happened.
This isn't an opinion, it's a 100% absolute fact that humans have set foot on the moon.
The number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy would be astronomical. You are wrong, and you are intentionally spreading misinformation. It would take you less than an afternoon to learn the truth, but you are going out of your way to remain ignorant.
It's not an opinion, it's a conclusion. People differ on what conclusions they come to. It's simply the nature of disagreement. People used to think it was crazy that the Earth revolved around the sun, something supported by the changing positions of the stars, despite the fact that Mars would have odd patterns in the sky as a result. I look at some of the supportive content for the moon landings the same way someone back then would've looked at the specific details of the stars. "This doesn't add up" they would say, in their case referring to the Geocentric theory. Some people debate over what killed the dinosaurs; that's "reality" too, but those who say the meteor didn't do shit and those who say it did aren't calling each other nuts. Many, many things much larger than a moon landing have been covered up before, such as the existence of several top secret Soviet cities meant to test nuclear material, or several US combat operations. And again, your conclusion is yours, my conclusion is mine, and it's not like I'm pressuring anyone to convert, so the misinformation bit is unfair.
You are very ignorant of the truth. Do you think we landed a probe on the moon that was able to take apart and bring back parts of Surveyor 3in 1969? That would be way more unbelievable than humans doing it instead. What a incredibly stupid and moronic hill you've chosen to die on.
That's based on the assumption of that being the process of what went on. As I said elsewhere, there seems to be a very unbreakably second-hand nature to this. It is my conclusion, just as yours, your hill, is yours. I'm not attempting to crusade on your own hill so much as I'm stating how people react to hearing what I think.
They react that way because its unbelievable how someone could actually be as stupid as to deny the moon landing in 2024. "You weren't there first hand" is not as good as a defense as you think, and you've used it over and over. Is that all you've got? I haven't been to the war in Ukraine, but I sure as hell know it's happening. Are you unable to know something is happening without it being in your face?
Then I guess a quarter of Europe is stupid to you. A lot of things fall under the definition of "first-hand"; if I said "here is a moon rock, you can test its properties out", that would be first-hand, as opposed to "I got a moon-rock as proof, but that doesn't matter because NASA has it and they'll never let you test it" or "here is footage, footage means it happened".
Yes, anyone that can't comprehend that we landed on the moon is stupid, like you. Correct! That is indeed how statistics work.
Hilarious that you'd link an article that says that it actually happened, too.
NASA has sent moon rock samples around the globe. They've been compared to rocks retrieved by probes and are the same (this was discussed at length in my previous Wikipedia link). But I guess that's suddenly not going to be good enough for you, you'll just come up with another reason to die on this hill. At least I can be happy knowing that we really did go to the moon, I'm sorry your brain will never be able to comprehend that amazing fact. It's sad, when it comes down to it. I feel bad for you.
There is more to me that a conclusion the two of us disagree on, and I would say to say otherwise is to look way too much into it, especially if you're going to phrase it as some sort of crusade, as when you ask if it's a hill I'll "die on" when I mention the difference between things gathered first-hand and second-hand, which still applies when you are talking about the minerals supposedly collected. Or to go by your own figure of speech, it's my own hill and you are the guest, so it's on you if I die on it. I also don't have to agree 100% with the articles I link to, I was simply showing you it's not simply something you can boil down to me being stupid. You speak of being happy about going to the moon and feeling sorry for me for not agreeing with you as if you confronting me about this disagreement demonstrates a happy mindset when I would be completely happy to agree to disagree.
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.
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:
The USA created a fake video of the moon that could pass for real in the 1960s;
They were able to stick a flag upright into the moon without manually positioning it;
They were able to synthesise a moon rock that could pass for real in the 1960s, when studying that rock progressed our science significantly;
They could create rockets, shuttles and capsules capable of taking people to the moon that we can see today in museums, complete with blueprints, and didn't use them;
They were able to cover up this secret so well that every engineer, scientist, set designer, cinematographer and government official kept the secret for 55 years;
They were able to do this 6 more times in the next 4 years;
Not one shred of evidence of any of this has been found, despite spies and sceptics looking for half a century;
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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?