Did we land on the moon? Go on the record and answer.

[–] • 0 pt

I think you misunderstood my comment or did not read it fully. You are the OP and you've stated in it that you do not think we've been to the moon or ever had the technology to get there.

There is a difference between someone genuinely questioning aspects of us landing on the moon and determining that the way it was presented to the public was likely not honest, straightforward or accurate to how it actually happened, and then someone who flat out believes that it not only never happened at all and was completely faked, but that we couldn't go to the moon then and still cannot go to the moon now, or further and that there is not even a moon for us to try to get to.

In classic kike pilpul fashion, a shill might pose a question and ask for proof they are wrong, but then they ignore all answers showing they are wrong and disregard the proof.

People get tired of posting the same proofs over and over to shills when we know that the shills will just disregard it immediately.

Of course not wasting time posting the proof you know will be disregarded immediately translates to the shill saying you aren't posting it because you do not have any proof to post because it was all fake and gay.

Kike shills know this. It's pilpul.

We lose if we waste time providing proof while knowing that it will just be disregarded as no proof is good enough for the shill
We lose if we do not waste time arguing with the shill and refuse to post the proof for them to then disregard.

It has become such a ridiculous topic to try to discuss due to the bombardment of shills pushing kike lie that it is all fake and gay to muddy the water and prevent anyone from actually coming to any real understanding of what the hell actually happened or didn't happen, and if it did happen, when did it happen.

This is why you do not argue with shills. Plus many of them make shekels every time someone replies to them, so the longer they detract and distract from any real discussion taking place, the better they are doing their job and the more money they make.

Anyway, I've posted my thoughts on the question posed in the OP in a previous post on this topic, but I'll include it here as well. Just if you are an actual person who has been persuaded by kike propaganda to believe what you believe and not a shill, perhaps something I share in my thoughts on the topic might alter your thoughts on the topic.

https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/487599/87f4707f-2143-4cee-bd9d-f58cba6c698c

I believe that it did happen, but that the first landing actually occurred quite some time before the 'live' broadcast to the public. What was shown to the public was not fully 'live', but was instead a combination of live participants (actors, directors, controllers) following a script and fake interacting with both original landing footage, the ongoing live landing, and also with footage of re-created scenes to help with blending and selling the production as occurring perfectly and as planned.

The United States government couldn't afford for the event to be anything short of absolutely perfect, let alone risk it being unsuccessful, due to the political world climate at the time. They needed it to be successful and for this success to be seen by the world as having occurred perfectly as planned and without issues.

Can you imagine the world watching the astronauts suffocating live on air due to a pinhole leak in a seal, or as they burned alive in a cabin fire (as happened during testing of the module and which demanded a total redesign)?

A total failure being broadcast live and to the whole world would have been extremely detrimental to the status and power of the United States government and its military on the world stage, as well as damaging to the US citizenry's view of their government and their nation's power and status. It was also an event of great national pride that it was the United States that took this step for all mankind. If the US got egg on its face in front of the whole world right when nations were barely restrained from going to war, who knows what might have come about as a result.

It was likely a controlled and scripted presentation with a mix of pre-recorded footage from when the successful landing actually did occur combined with some live footage as well as re-created and custom-scripted scenes.

As it was likely live elements synced in with the pieces of edited recordings, perhaps aspects of the original footage couldn't be shown, or aspects might not have occurred ideally, or possibly that some scenes would require scripting and had to be re-created via a 'set' like a movie in order to re-create some scenes as they wanted them to be presented. This would also explain the Kubrick connection, as well as the inconsistencies of why some footage seems to have elements that are out of place or inconsistent with what would be expected in reality, while most of the other footage does have those elements behaving as would be expected in reality.

I doubt that they would have been able to rehearse most or even much of it at all beforehand, so it likely required controllers and directors for instructing the participants of when to make responses or to ask certain questions in order to keep timing and syncing between the live actions of participants, the actual landing footage, and re-created footage. (such as there being background voices in some recordings counting down/up for when to respond to a live question to try to simulate and account for distance and signal delay, etc.)

With a mixture of original footage and re-created footage being interacted with by live participants with a script, directors and controllers, it would have appeared much like it did. You could imagine it as a sort of stage play with actors who interact with a recording on a TV (or even think Jurassic Park with "John Hammond" interacting with the recording of himself on the screen).

I think you misunderstood my comment or did not read it fully. You are the OP and you've stated in it that you do not think we've been to the moon or ever had the technology to get there. There is a difference between someone genuinely questioning aspects of us landing on the moon and determining that the way it was presented to the public was likely not honest, straightforward or accurate to how it actually happened, and then someone who flat out believes that it not only never happened at all and was completely faked, but that we couldn't go to the moon then and still cannot go to the moon now, or further and that there is not even a moon for us to try to get to. In classic kike pilpul fashion, a shill might pose a question and ask for proof they are wrong, but then they ignore all answers showing they are wrong and disregard the proof. People get tired of posting the same proofs over and over to shills when we know that the shills will just disregard it immediately. Of course not wasting time posting the proof you know will be disregarded immediately translates to the shill saying you aren't posting it because you do not have any proof to post because it was all fake and gay. Kike shills know this. It's pilpul. - We lose if we waste time providing proof while knowing that it will just be disregarded as no proof is good enough for the shill - We lose if we do not waste time arguing with the shill and refuse to post the proof for them to then disregard. It has become such a ridiculous topic to try to discuss due to the bombardment of shills pushing kike lie that it is all fake and gay to muddy the water and prevent anyone from actually coming to any real understanding of what the hell actually happened or didn't happen, and if it did happen, when did it happen. This is why you do not argue with shills. Plus many of them make shekels every time someone replies to them, so the longer they detract and distract from any real discussion taking place, the better they are doing their job and the more money they make. --- Anyway, I've posted my thoughts on the question posed in the OP in a previous post on this topic, but I'll include it here as well. Just if you are an actual person who has been persuaded by kike propaganda to believe what you believe and not a shill, perhaps something I share in my thoughts on the topic might alter your thoughts on the topic. >https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/487599/87f4707f-2143-4cee-bd9d-f58cba6c698c > >--- >I believe that it did happen, but that the first landing actually occurred quite some time before the 'live' broadcast to the public. What was shown to the public was not fully 'live', but was instead a combination of live participants (actors, directors, controllers) following a script and fake interacting with both original landing footage, the ongoing live landing, and also with footage of re-created scenes to help with blending and selling the production as occurring perfectly and as planned. > >The United States government couldn't afford for the event to be anything short of absolutely perfect, let alone risk it being unsuccessful, due to the political world climate at the time. They needed it to be successful and for this success to be seen by the world as having occurred perfectly as planned and without issues. > >Can you imagine the world watching the astronauts suffocating live on air due to a pinhole leak in a seal, or as they burned alive in a cabin fire (as happened during testing of the module and which demanded a total redesign)? > >A total failure being broadcast live and to the whole world would have been extremely detrimental to the status and power of the United States government and its military on the world stage, as well as damaging to the US citizenry's view of their government and their nation's power and status. It was also an event of great national pride that it was the United States that took this step for all mankind. If the US got egg on its face in front of the whole world right when nations were barely restrained from going to war, who knows what might have come about as a result. > >- It was likely a controlled and scripted presentation with a mix of pre-recorded footage from when the successful landing actually did occur combined with some live footage as well as re-created and custom-scripted scenes. >- As it was likely live elements synced in with the pieces of edited recordings, perhaps aspects of the original footage couldn't be shown, or aspects might not have occurred ideally, or possibly that some scenes would require scripting and had to be re-created via a 'set' like a movie in order to re-create some scenes as they wanted them to be presented. This would also explain the Kubrick connection, as well as the inconsistencies of why some footage seems to have elements that are out of place or inconsistent with what would be expected in reality, while most of the other footage does have those elements behaving as would be expected in reality. >- I doubt that they would have been able to rehearse most or even much of it at all beforehand, so it likely required controllers and directors for instructing the participants of when to make responses or to ask certain questions in order to keep timing and syncing between the live actions of participants, the actual landing footage, and re-created footage. (such as there being background voices in some recordings counting down/up for when to respond to a live question to try to simulate and account for distance and signal delay, etc.) >- With a mixture of original footage and re-created footage being interacted with by live participants with a script, directors and controllers, it would have appeared much like it did. You could imagine it as a sort of stage play with actors who interact with a recording on a TV (or even think Jurassic Park with "John Hammond" interacting with the recording of himself on the screen).

parent
link

(post is archived)