Do you think America landed on the moon?


A lot of these are well researched points… I will not debate right now because I do not have the time

Also, yeet, a person believes what they believe. Does not mean they are stupid


@Misfit could you do counter these? You are like a fact disposal area and an excellent debater: You probs would do a better job than me.


I will debate later… just not now.

Lets keep it civil… sorry for the angry comment cousin joe… that theory just upset me


That’s why the Mars Rover footage has rats in it and looks eerily similar to somewhere on earth…






I have no quarrel with you guys

  • I used to be exactly where you were at. I loved Star Wars and Star Trek growing up. I actually wanted to become an Astronaut, until I realized you pretty much have to be a Freemason to get in…


Anyways, I just present to you the truth. You’re either ready to recieve it or not. If not, I hope it plants a seed and then one day you might. Cheers! :grinning:


The radio signals beamed back to Earth from Opportunity and Curiosity are picked up by an international system of radio dishes called the Deep Space Network — so if this was a conspiracy then many different nations would need to be involved, and not just the USA.

Satellites can also see clear images of the rover on mars, as well as tracks left by these rovers.



NASA has not gone back to the moon cause they are scared. Megatron is hiding there.

But no, really, they never went to the moon cause it’s just a saucer in space. It’s flat and upright, and the edge is too thin to land on, they can’t land on the face of it cause they’d slide off. Hope that clears things up.


This is pure fiction! We all know that the moon is a donut!!!


Freemasons are involved in many different nations and swear oaths of secrecy. The benefits of being a high ranking member are great, but the costs of breaking your oaths are also great.

Stanley Kubrick was a high ranking Freemason and received many benefits. He was also killed (supposed “heart attack”) just days before the movie Eyes Wide Shut (which exposed a lot of secrets) was released.

  • For a secret society to exist, they would need to stay secret :shushing_face:

If you truly want to educate yourself in this matter, a few good places to start would be:

  • Brotherhood of the Bell (1970) Probably one of the only movies you will see Freemasons in action

  • Pawns in the Game (1958) By William Guy Carr, high ranking Naval Officer, who exposes a lot of this stuff

  • Anything on Youtube by William Cooper, also high ranking Naval Officer, who exposes a lot of this stuff

Be prepared, because once you start looking into this stuff, you can’t go back. Truth has that effect on people… which is why so many people choose to stay blind.


Very good point, BUT …

WHY NASA was / is not able to show 1 single picture from the …

  • LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) on the moon :question:

… all they presented in +40 years are pictures with DOTs on it, claiming that WOULD be the LEMs (Lunar Excursion Module) :exclamation:

All clear now about the moon landing :question:



I don’t really care about the moon landing debate personally so don’t know the talking points of either side but I did see the conspiracies debunked on QI once so I’m satisfied to say it happened. even if it didn’t who really cares? its such a weird thing to get emotionally invested in. I can get why people get really into theories like hitler escaping death, 9/11 being a false flag or theorising that the current government intends to secretly work towards something terrible because they all have real implications but “I dont think that rocket really went to the moon” is such a nonissue. whats the gain? the cold war is over its litterally irelevent.


07%20PM 10%20PM
Here are a large amount of pictures of natural rocks that look like animals. In nature this kind of thing is bound to happen, and while you can argue that it is rare, when the mind sets itself to find evidence it will make excuses to do so.

You know how people look for shapes in the clouds? Often, they will find an object to classify the cloud in. You can do that with EVERY cloud. You can also do that with every complex rock, every scratch in the dirt. For example, that “rodent” does look like a rat. But look at the front leg. Notice how where the paw would be it stops, and the top merges with the “head”. This is because its simply the corner of a rock.
For the “bone”, it is very easy to find long elongated rocks. Additionally, that must be a fucked up leg bone if it is one. Notice how its body type is more of a sheet than a cylinder. And that socket joint at the top is simply too large.

For the third one, spiky rocks are found EVERYWHERE. That doesnt make it a spine. Also notice how the vertebrae in the first picture are slanted downwards at an unatural angle while meanwhile the acutal vertebrae is straight up.

Dont use circumstantial evidence.


Do me a favor… google “satellite images” and tell me how many actual real satellites you see? I’ll help you out… you won’t see any because they’re all CGI

Sure, you can get some high altitude aircraft / objects taking nice “GPS photos”, but here’s some stuff you should know…

  • Satellites came from the mind of Science Fiction Author Arthur C.Clarke (1945)
  • There are supposedly thousands of satellites whizzing around in earth orbit at 22,000 mph without ever crashing into each other
  • Satellites apparently must be made of some magical aluminum, as the thermosphere (where they reside) is 2500 degrees C, yet normal alluminum melts at 660 degrees C
  • GPS existed long before satellites (WW2) where radio waves were bounced off the ionosphere (it’s actually how GPS works today - satellites whizzing in orbit are a hoax, and unnecessary)
  • If satellite exists, why so much spent on underwater fiberoptic cables? Because that’s the way information actually travels (not relayed back and forth to some object moving in space at 22,000 mph)


Come on people, don’t just blindly accept what you’re told

Research the Truth, ask Questions



The thermosphere is a very low density gas (very few particles) so even though the individual particles have a lot of energy (high temperature), they don’t hold much heat energy overall.

An imperfect analogy - you couldn’t stick your hand into water at 90ºC without sustaining serious injury. But you can sit in a sauna with an air temperature of 90ºC quite happily for quite a long period. The temperature is the same, but the amount of heat is very different.

Satellites will still be heated up by radiation, of course, but this is quite easily countered by constructing them of reflective materials.


If I hold a needle for 10 seconds in a flame, it will reach a high temperature. If I heat up a kettle with a little water with the same flame, it will hardly rise in temperature after 10 seconds. Why? Because you need more heat (energy) to raise the temperature (the average kinetic energy) of the much more molecules of the kettle+water than you need for the few molecules that are in the needle.
So the radiation flux of the sun (1,4 kW/m2) will easily heat up the few molecules that are behind every m2 when it reaches the thermosphere, but behind a m2 satellite there are a billion times more molecules to heat up. Apart from the fact that the satellite will reflect most of the incoming radiation.


Satellites are very obviously not fake- we possess the technology times tenfold to make orbit.

And do not discount how damn large the Earth is- especially when you are orbiting it. Thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth? No problem. They do not even come close.

This evidence is inconclusive.
Large communicatuons satellites cost huge amounts of money but they can deliver coverage over wide areas pretty much irrespective of geography. Their biggest issue when compared to fibre is that they have a very limited bandwidth in comparison. A satellite might only occupy a couple of GHz of radio spectrum, one fibre with DWDM could deliver the equivalent of all the bandwidth of every traditional satellite in operation.

Fiberoptics are much more efficient deliverers of energy and information- which is why they are used.


Hah! Towing the party line I see…


This is a parrot. It’s very good at repeating what someone else says, but does not think for itself.

So your argument is basically this… image

Okay Einsteins… so maybe the air is thin, but what you forgot is that it’s not the air particles that make it hot…

It’s the Sun!

Yeah, that solar radiation part. That same solar radiation that heats up all those air particles, will turn that aluminum into goo. And last time I checked, solids are pretty dense.

Try and tell this guy not to worry about solar radiation in the thermosphere


I’m not making fun of you guys… I’m just telling you not to just repeat what you’ve been told. Think for yourself.


Yeah, I’ll give you that rock formations can look like animals. I’ve never argued against that. What I’m saying is…


…this specific thing here, that’s on the supposed Mars Rover footage, which is supposed to be on Mars, is an animal.

  • A lot of people would prefer to lie to themselves, rather than accept the truth. Here’s a test:

The thing that the red line is pointing too in the picture above… is it an animal or a rock?

  • Animal
  • Rock

0 voters

Remember, silence is also an answer :grinning:


Don’t forget the upstream issue for consumers.

Although satellite can deliver decent downstream bandwidth, there is no for ordinary consumers to send upstream data to satellites.


I’m not going to counter argue with the moon landing deniers over here. I don’t see the point in debating whether water is wet.

About 2 yrs ago I spent a week looking at both sides of this argument, and arrived conclusively at the most probable of truths. The moon landing did in deed happen.

I’m in no way a conventionalist when it comes to traditional information or theory. For example the pyramids of Giza being built by the pharohs, and them being tombs etc. I believe there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they were most likely power generators. The pyramids are the most fascinating topic I have ever encountered.

Anyway, just demonstrating that I have an open mind. But the facts presented to support the moon landing occurrence and debunk the deniers are scientifically irrefutable.

However, people see what they want to see.