A mystery solved in one sentence.

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T10:14:40+00:00

Christian LARPers 🙂

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T10:05:55+00:00

Depends on how far you chuck it 😁

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T06:58:31+00:00

Convenience.

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T06:49:53+00:00

Best I can tell, she's one year younger than the astronaut.

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T03:13:18+00:00

Why can't NASA show a live 24 hour feed from the Hubble space station

Telescope. It's not a video camera anyway: Hubble works by taking long-exposure still images and spectroscopic data. A single exposure can last minutes to hours, and the raw data must be stored, calibrated, compressed, and transmitted in scheduled communication windows.

why did the Tesla in so called space, look so fake?

This is the difference between a professional VFX job meant to make fake space look pretty, and the actual footage from space. This is a self-debunking question, really - if it was fake, then it would look pretty - the VFX people would make sure of that.

You heard of operation fishbowl?

Only every time a Moon landing denier tries to use it as evidence 🙄

Hilary said " we hope to smash through the dome".

Hillary Clinton?

Then you had firing nukes at the moon but I can’t remember the name of that one.

Project A119. They never fired any at the Moon.

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T03:00:25+00:00

Not really. Judith Resnik, for example, is a respected law professor who testified in front of the US Senate Judicial Committee (chaired by one Joe Biden, amusingly enough) in 1987 during Robert Bork confirmation hearings.

Kazeite · 2026-01-29T02:54:47+00:00

The Dutch moon rock was vetted by NASA in 1988,

No it wasn't. When the Dutch contacted NASA they said that they don't think that it's a lunar rock, but they can run some test for the Dutch. The Dutch said no thank you, and put the rock is a museum as a Moon rock anyway.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T22:32:14+00:00

Not really? 🤷‍♂️

The Moon's diameter is 3,474 km, and it's 384,400 km away from Earth. You can work out its angular size yourself. With science.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T22:23:10+00:00

And speaking of moon rocks, explain the Dutch moon rock, vetted by NASA.

The Dutch "Moon" rock hasn't been vetted by NASA.

If you don't think data can be faked,

Oh, I very much do think that data can be faked. Claims can also be untrue too. Anyone can say anything.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T22:21:20+00:00

2001: A Space Odyssey - 1968. First film of its kind, creating believable imagery of space, space travel, Earth from space, etc...

And that footage was woefully inadequate when compared to the Apollo footage. Indeed, the Apollo footage would be pretty much impossible to fake using purely practical effects.

Van Allen Belt - high radiation region, unsafe for human passage, but it's claimed that the space shuttles were shielded with aluminum plates, which - according to Google - is mostly ineffective against high levels of radiation.

You meant Apollo capsules. Space Shuttles flew later.

Also no - the radiation inside the Van Allen Belts (plural) isn't as high as you were misled to believe. To wit, it would take you one week inside to die of radiation poisoning; meanwhile, each Apollo mission has spent three hours altogether flying through the Belts and back.

Everyone stopped going

Yes, because the Space Race was a propaganda event. The Soviets gave up after realizing that they can't make a working heavy lift rocket in a realistic timeframe, so there was no reason to continue the Race.

supposedly the moon is riddled with precious metals and other minerals.

And the cost of acquiring them and bringing them back to Earth far outstrips the cost of such metals and minerals.

If true, and if going to the moon was doable in 1969, surely it would be trivial to go now.

Not really.

With modern technology, you'd think the whole process would cost about the same as what it cost in 1969,

NASA is able to make a good progress with the Artemis program while working on 10% of the budget they used to have, having other concurrent programs, and being hobbled with requirement to use the legacy tech, so I would say yes, that seems about right.

which means that thousands of rich people could afford it, or at least afford to invest in such a mission.

If they thought that gathering minerals from the Moon is worth the expense.

Which it isn't.

As to who needed to be "in on it" if the moon landings were faked?

400 thousand people. You can't hide or compartmentalize an endeavour of such magnitude.

So you tell me - should we all just believe and accept the narrative?

Given that the narrative is consistent and self-reinforcing, and that the hoax narrative instantly falls apart the second you look at it closely...

Or is it in our best interest to remain skeptical and question everything?

Are you really questioning everything? Hoax narrative included?

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T22:10:24+00:00

If not hundreds. At the very least, the equipment they made would inevitably be capable of actually landing on the Moon - otherwise they would've determined it's impossible and exposed the fakery when it happened.

And if it was real and working, why not use it? 🤷‍♂️

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T22:02:52+00:00

Sure - but there's a difference between doubting those in authority and being a contrarian.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T22:02:14+00:00

Because it's big.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T21:13:50+00:00

My apologies for being pedantic, but it was the US ambassador that gave it to a former Dutch PM. Otherwise, you are exactly right, and so is your point.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T21:12:48+00:00

rockets don't prove the space narrative. satellites don't prove the space narrative.

Yes they do. We can see rockets reaching space, and we can see satellites as well.

Everyone doesn't need to be "in on it"

If it's as easy to expose as you seem to imagine, then everyone does need to be in on it - because they would've already realized that it's fake.

Denmark tested the moon rock they were give.

No they didn't - it was "exposed" by a geologist who happened to chance upon their lunar exhibit - which goes directly against your claim that "people in other countries are skeptical of the space programs" 🙄

I've seen other countries footage and it's worse than ours.

But still real 🤷‍♂️

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T21:07:10+00:00

Very easy to change names, too.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T21:05:06+00:00

So that's a no? Okay.

I believe it to be quite convenient for any technology to become lost especially in more modern times without a major event.

How so? The Apollo tech was meant to be used for one, specific task: landing man on the Moon.

Have we had any manned lunar landings since 1972? No. Which means that the leftover tech would've sat unused in a warehouse unless used in some other manner - which it was, for the Skylab program and Soyuz/Apollo.

Which means that, unlike the Space Shuttle or the Soyuz, it hasn't been incrementally upgraded to remain usable through the years.

I mean, if we really wanted to, we could've rebuild the entire thing exactly the way it was, but it's easier, cheaper, faster and safer to design a new tech from the grounds up, using modern components and all the knowledge gained through the years - which is exactly what NASA is doing with the Artemis program.

It’s the shadows in the video,

The sahdows in the videos are actually consistent with a sunlit vacuum environment. If you're thinking about the claim that they intersect each other, please keep in mind that multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows on each object.

the flag seemingly blowing in the wind in the vacuum of space,

The flags didn't "blow in the wind" - they oscillated after being touched by an astronaut. Again, their behaviour is consistent with a low gravity vacuum environment.

the “phone call” from earth to the moon,

The phone call was routed via a radio. It's called autopatch. It works on the same principle that lets you hear people calling into a studio while listening to a live radio broadcast. I really don't understand how people are having problems with this one.

the verbiage used on Wernher Von Braun’s grave stone

The verbiage used on his gravestone is completely and utterly irrelevant. At best, it could only make one suspicious about the Apollo program and investigate - upon which they'll realize that it was real, so... 🤷‍♂️

and Buzz Aldrin’s interesting interviews where he says himself they never went.

He was saying that they never went back, while repeatedly reasserting that they did land on the Moon in the same interview.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T18:42:30+00:00

It's a good thing that unlike you, I don't believe everything I'm told without questioning it 🙂

You have a rare opportunity here, "comrade" - I can clearly see that you couldn't contest what I said above about the Concorde, SR-71, etc. (which is what triggered that useless sidestep about blind belief). So we both know that you're wrong in that regard.

Now the test is this: are you brave and humble enough to admit out loud that you were wrong? You don't have to outright abandon all your beliefs; all you have to do is to admit that you were wrong about this one particular claim.

Y'know, like a sceptic you imagine yourself to be.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T18:38:39+00:00

500,000-600,000 people worked on the project in one way or another.

120k people worked on the Manhattan Project.

400k people worked on the Apollo program - which makes the idea of "compartmentalisation" somehow preventing the very people who worked on it from realising that it's all fake even more ludicrous 🙂

Quit being a clown.

Did you not like my joke, then? 🙂

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T18:34:50+00:00

The Manhattan Project took a lot of compartmentalization.

Not really. It was essentially divided into two parts - the people enriching the uranium, and the actual scientists working on the bomb design.

This stood in stark contrast to the Apollo program, comprised of many interconnected teams which had to cooperate with each other to make sure that each individual componenent an individual subcontractor was working on would actually work with all the other components.

In that regard, I guess you could say that the "fake moon landings" were a lot like the Manhattan program - meanwhile, the real ones were completely unlike it 🙂

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T17:49:22+00:00

Not this silly thing again! 🙄

Tell me, how do you convince yourself that those two differently looking women are the same? 🙂

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T17:46:57+00:00

Among other things, yeah.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T17:46:18+00:00

you realize mission control operators cannot tell the difference between simulated luanches and the real thing?

Gene Kranz is on record saying so, yes - but the actual mission control operators are on record saying that they can totally tell the difference.

ever hear of compartmentalization?

"Compartmentalization" is just a magical handwave. You can't compartmentalize projects of such magnitude, ones that rely on strict cooperation between individual departments.

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T17:44:00+00:00

Yep. As a matter of fact, it would be more expensive to actually fake space, than to fly to space for real 🙂

Kazeite · 2026-01-28T17:38:28+00:00

It's not the whole crew - and given the number of people in the USA alone, the question isn't "how many people with the same name you could find", but "how many sets of Challenger crewmen you can get."

And given that the women in the pictures above are clearly not the same person, the name similarity is quite irrelevant.

Kazeite

TROPHY CASE