Talk:Moon landing hoax
The ultimate argument against
50 years since the Moon landing - and not a single release of material to Wikileaks, 'Anti the American Satan' viewpointists, and similar places, official material released under the Freedom of Information rules/normal release after X years (including passing mentions) etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
definition of "fact" = what one chooses to believe?
The "basic facts" listed in the article are not facts at all. It is IRRATIONAL to confuse what one knows with what one believes. The most telling aspect of this subject matter is the FACT that those who believe in the moon landings try to debunk conspiracy theorists with arguments/rebuttals they encountered many decades AFTER they chose to believe, i.e. they didn't need independent verification and would have believed a fake landing without questions simply because they saw it on tv. The way people react to the suggestion the moon landings were faked is no more rational than the way people respond when somebody questions their religious faith. That's because faith is what convinces people in the moon landings, not independently verifiable facts. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!, now where did I put that rum?... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that I'm not taking you seriously. This is because you didn't even try to read the article beyond the first sentence. Therefore, I'm not going to bother with you, at all, period. You're an idiot, an intellectually shallow buffoon. Bye. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- If as you say, it is irrational to confuse what one knows with what one believes, then you must believe that you know nothing. If you know nothing, then you cannot possibly know that the moon landing did not occur.220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The real conspiracy
- Lunar eclipses allow you to perform miracles such as converting water into tang. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is tang?
- Having such a 'quirky Easter egg' would be a far better 'conspiracy' than what the hoaxers come up with. Anna Livia (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gasp, you don't know the powdery substance you add to water to get a vitamin-c rich drink loosely based on NASA-developed spacefoods? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Another argument against
If there was a hoax (rather than back-formation 'what happened is what we actually intended' and similar) - why stop in 1972, as everything was set up for further 'missions'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, fine. I'll play your devil's advocate. Because they successfully convinced the Russians who were doing REAL space launches that we won and they gave up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is slightly cheaper, after all, to send unmanned missions to the Moon (as you don't have to fund the return journey, pay or insurance of persons involved etc).
- And also they were getting in Project Mars Attacks. Anna Livia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Should I still devil's advocate the conspiracy position? I'm not sure if that helps your refine this argument or not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)