• @Susaga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Call me Lenny/Leni
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -27 months ago

      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.

      • @Susaga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        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?

        • Call me Lenny/Leni
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -17 months ago

          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.

          • @Susaga@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            27 months ago

            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?

            • Call me Lenny/Leni
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -17 months ago

              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.

      • @Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.