"Wagging the moondoggie" Part 2

Saiko

Member
That thread is too convoluted for me so I decide to take another approach. I'll start with three questions to those who you believe the Apollo landings were faked:

1 How did the government get literally thousands of people working on the program to either participate without knowing it was fake or to join them in concealing the deception?

2 Do you believe the spaces shuttle missions were also faked? If so apply question 1 to this.

3 Do you believe that the ISS exists? If not apply #1 to this.
 
That thread is too convoluted for me so I decide to take another approach. I'll start with three questions to those who you believe the Apollo landings were faked:

1 How did the government get literally thousands of people working on the program to either participate without knowing it was fake or to join them in concealing the deception?

2 Do you believe the spaces shuttle missions were also faked? If so apply question 1 to this.

3 Do you believe that the ISS exists? If not apply #1 to this.

1) Compartmentalization - most people involved didn't realize it was fake; parts of it were real and live (i.e. rocket launch, splash-down); brotherhood of secrecy; coercion; patriotism; fear of the soviets; etc.
2) no.
3) yes.
 
I probably don't have much to add here, but my take on the whole thing is- somethings amiss.

I'm not sold on the idea it's a total fake. Maybe that's my social programming, maybe it's truth. I don't really know at this point.

The fact that NASA has managed to "delete" the onjy official video evidence of one if the most significant accomplishments of humanity is at best coincidental and bizzare, at worst nefarious and in line with a cover up.

Also suspect to me is the fact that the footage the world saw was a rebroadcasting of the broadcast. Why? Also that some of the footage WAS refilmed on earth if I remember correctly.

Plus you have officials from other countries like Russia (I get it, they hate our guts and of course would say we faked it) and Japan (an ally) coming out and saying the whole thing was faked.

As for your questions:
1) I agree with @Hurmanetar, compartmentalization, coercion, quid pro quo scenarios, fear (to be used with coercion) and good old fashioned ego!

2) no

3) yes
 
1) Compartmentalization - most people involved didn't realize it was fake; parts of it were real and live (i.e. rocket launch, splash-down); brotherhood of secrecy; coercion; patriotism; fear of the soviets; etc..
Given that most people who work at NASA are highly intelligent well-trained engineers such a level of "compartmentalization" would be unprecedented. It would in fact have been a greater feat than going to the moon. The rest of what you claim is IMO not valid. That stuff works for a few dozen people at a time but not for thousands. It comes across as if you're nor attempting to assess actualities but have a strong belief and are willing to posit anything that supports said belief.
 
1) I agree with @Hurmanetar, compartmentalization, coercion, quid pro quo scenarios, fear (to be used with coercion) and good old fashioned ego!
See my post above for why that doesn't wash. It's no different than me claiming "the government had ET's wipe their memories" Not impossible but highly implausible and more to the point there is no evidence for that. If one is going to claim that the evidence for something is suspect then hold to that guideline across the board.

I'll add that just because there's issues with things from Apollo it doesn't mean that it was faked.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's why I said I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I generally buy that yes, we went to the moon. But there are some strange irregularities. Maybe that's just how reality is, messy and irregular. Maybe it's because the moon landings were fraudulent. I accept the mainstream narrative for now, but am keeping my mind open to evidence that could make me see otherwise.
One big question for me is, if we carried out several missions to the moon in the '60's, how and why is it we've never been back, or come even close to doing so? How/why has not one single other country had even one successful moon landing? Especially the Soviets. They were way ahead of the US and are still really the only country that continues with manned flights to the ISS. So, what? The US beat them to the punch and they just thought "well, never mind then." Not that that is proof of anything, just another question in a long line of them.
 
One big question for me is, if we carried out several missions to the moon in the '60's, how and why is it we've never been back, or come even close to doing so? How/why has not one single other country had even one successful moon landing? Especially the Soviets. They were way ahead of the US and are still really the only country that continues with manned flights to the ISS. So, what? The US beat them to the punch and they just thought "well, never mind then." Not that that is proof of anything, just another question in a long line of them.

I have thought about that a lot myself. It is without a doubt strange. But not unprecedented. And unless we are to dispute the Mars landings of both US and Russia, if one can send a probe to Mars, it isn't that much of a stretch to send people to the moon. To me Russia not attempting a manned moon expedition seems even stranger if they know (or even suspect) the US hasn't done so as that would be a clear way to show the entire world that it was faked. Not to mention giving them the global admiration many Russain leaders so desperately crave. So I agree that there's a lot of seemingly strange things involved but they don't add up to faked moon landings.
 
Given that most people who work at NASA are highly intelligent well-trained engineers such a level of "compartmentalization" would be unprecedented. It would in fact have been a greater feat than going to the moon. The rest of what you claim is IMO not valid. That stuff works for a few dozen people at a time but not for thousands.

Your argument boils down to incredulity.

It comes across as if you're nor attempting to assess actualities but have a strong belief and are willing to posit anything that supports said belief.

My speculation about how secrets were kept is plausible and based on historical precedent and S.O.P. for clandestine operations. You speculate that my speculation is not plausible based on your estimation of human nature, the ineptitude of government, and the number of folks involved. That's fine; but this line of argument can go no where because it all boils down to speculation and WAG'd estimation of plausibility.

You cannot prove it is impossible to keep such a secret, but if it is proven that fakery occurred, then that proves it is possible to keep such a secret. So the question of whether it is possible to keep a secret is tertiary and somewhat of a red herring to the overall argument about whether conspiracies occurred. If they occurred and the conspiracy escaped exposure, then secrets were kept.

Information and its credible narration - like money - is a commodity. Oligarchs have developed elaborate means of hoarding and controlling both.
 
My speculation about how secrets were kept is plausible and based on historical precedent and S.O.P. for clandestine operations. You speculate that my speculation is not plausible based on your estimation of human nature, the ineptitude of government, and the number of folks involved. That's fine; but this line of argument can go no where because it all boils down to speculation and WAG'd estimation of plausibility.

You cannot prove it is impossible to keep such a secret, but if it is proven that fakery occurred, then that proves it is possible to keep such a secret. So the question of whether it is possible to keep a secret is tertiary and somewhat of a red herring to the overall argument about whether conspiracies occurred. If they occurred and the conspiracy escaped exposure, then secrets were kept.

Information and its credible narration - like money - is a commodity. Oligarchs have developed elaborate means of hoarding and controlling both.

It is not, in any way, plausible. And more tellingly it is - as you admit - mere speculation. As I stated you are simply going through your belief that the landings were faked and offering fanciful nothings about how. Lay out for me a clear picture of how it was, or at least could have been, accomplished.Far from what you claim there is no known op as public and with as many people involved that has ever been done.

Spend some time and research the space program in the decade before the landings. Note how it was structured the people involved etc. You will see that to pull off something like that would be far more of an accomplishment than going to the moon. In fact it would be difficult enough given the tech we currently know about.

The fact of the matter is that you have no valid explanation of how it could have been done but that doesn't matter to you. Which is interesting as it amounts to your stating "I consider the evidence for the moon landings to be flawed but I accept that a massive op for which I have no evidence or clear explanation of how took place."

The difference between our positions is that I'm open to you - or anyone laying - out a coherent version of how thousands worked in-depth on what you claim to be a fake. So far you have offered nothing but vague speculation.

On and your comments about secrets also don't hold but I don't want to derail this thread. All I'll say is I'm not one of those in the habit of buying a narrative just because it's the one officaldom offers.
 
Last edited:
It is not, in any way, plausible.

This is your opinion.

As I stated you are simply going through your belief that the landings were faked and offering fanciful nothings about how. Lay out for me a clear picture of how it was, or at least could have been, accomplished.

I don't need to. I find it plausible that the secrets could have been maintained.

Spend some time and research the space program in the decade before the landings. Note how it was structured the people involved etc. You will see that to pull off something like that would be far more of an accomplishment than going to the moon.

I did and came to a different opinion than you regarding plausibility.

The fact of the matter is that you have no valid explanation of how it could have been done but that doesn't matter to you.

I have a speculative explanation that I find plausible. You speculate that it's impossible. Arguing over the plausibility matters little to me because it cannot be settled directly; however, whether or not it is valid can be settled by determining whether or not the landings were fake.
 
Given that most people who work at NASA are highly intelligent well-trained engineers such a level of "compartmentalization" would be unprecedented. It would in fact have been a greater feat than going to the moon. The rest of what you claim is IMO not valid. That stuff works for a few dozen people at a time but not for thousands. It comes across as if you're nor attempting to assess actualities but have a strong belief and are willing to posit anything that supports said belief.

This guy (see below) actually worked on the Apollo progam and he disagrees with you, so there. This isn't to say that your conclusion is wrong, you're just using poor logic. Anyone can make any sort of presumptions thay want. It doesn't matter. This is basic stuff, saiko. Step it up.

 
Well, I started all this.

The people we saw at Mission Control, sitting behind the ancient-computer screens, admitted that they were staring at blank screens, looking busy. You can look that up since it was a recent story.

Most people at NASA were not involved in the Apollo program.

It was propaganda.

But go ahead and trust the Gub'mint.

Because the U.S. government has never lied about anything! Or furthered their own interests. They never, ever do that. And Britain, and Russia and China ... They never lie to their own people to further their goals. Never happens!

I don't really care if people question the moon landing. I think they should question their own governments, everywhere.
 
TThis isn't to say that your conclusion is wrong, you're just using poor logic. Anyone can make any sort of presumptions thay want. It doesn't matter. This is basic stuff, saiko. Step it up.

I get that you enjoy trolling but please. Spare me the nonsense. Perhaps logic to you means "wild guesses" but my logic is solid. Also I didn't reach any conclusions. I requested that people answer a question. with a valid explanations. So far no one has. Sorry but vague generalizations or a list of "well maybe theys" doesn't cut it. Of course for those whom strongly believe evidence or clear analysis is secondary.

The question remains: 1 How did the government get literally thousands of people working on the program to either participate without knowing it was fake or to join them in concealing the deception?
 
Well, I started all this.
Since you already have a thread where you steer the discourse the way you like I'd ask you to either deal with this thread as it is in he OP or leave it alone. Your way is the classic convoluted and steer the witness approach.

BTW advising me not to trust governments is really silly. It makes you seen more desperate than thoughtful and critical.
 
The people we saw at Mission Control, sitting behind the ancient-computer screens, admitted that they were staring at blank screens, looking busy.
Credible source for your claim please. Otherwise I'll view it as BS. Especially since the screens were state-of-the art.
 
This is your opinion..
OMG! Of course it's my opinion. I wasn't at mission control or on one of the Apollo spaceflights. But I have given clear reason for that opinion. Reasons that you have yet to offer a clear refutation of.


I have a speculative explanation that I find plausible. You speculate that it's impossible. Arguing over the plausibility matters little to me because it cannot be settled directly; however, whether or not it is valid can be settled by determining whether or not the landings were fake.

That's a clear cop-out. And better spin-doctoring than many who work doing it. However it won't work. Plausibility can be, and is, clearly and logically assessed. That fact is implicit in the definition. Your subterfuge becomes more evident in the spin of "You speculate that it's impossible." No where have I claimed that it's impossible and you misapply the term speculate. Assessing things based on and matching known evidence is not speculation. Claiming a possible unlikelihood without any evidence is speculation.

The actuality is that it is implausible and you have as yet to make any case otherwise. Then you offer the circular logic that it doesn't matter to you because the point is determining if the landings were real or not. But that's what we're doing. Whether "Sven shot the cow" can be assessed by exploring whether he has the ability to use a gun.


You've manged to influence this thread starting to become convoluted. Let's get back to the questions. Your actual answers as they stand are:

1 - I have no idea how but I believe they did
2 - No
3 - Yes
 
Last edited:
Since you already have a thread where you steer the discourse the way you like I'd ask you to either deal with this thread as it is in he OP or leave it alone. Your way is the classic convoluted and steer the witness approach.

BTW advising me not to trust governments is really silly. It makes you seen more desperate than thoughtful and critical.

What a bizarre response. I barely even posted in that thread and certainly did not "steer" discussions. Most of the posts in that thread were by other members and I merely watched it unfold (and some of them evolved badly, if you bothered to read the whole thread.)

You know nothing about me but I am "desperate" and not "thoughtful" or "critical." And even though I didn't post that much in my own thread, I am somehow guilty of leading the witness and using "classic convoluted" [something].

Come on now. Why did you start this thread?

Get over yourself, dude. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Not participating in this bs thread. You didn't even read the source material but are attacking people who did. Post your objections in the original thread instead of starting a new one with no original content.

Bye bye.
 
Back
Top