Belief in the Moon Landing for Democrats Only, Apparently

[dmallord]

Disbelief in moon landings seems to stem from individuals who believe someone is lying to cover up government covert activities.

They look for any nuances that can be bent to fit some conspiracy theory.

I'd start by asking them, if it were a coverup, what did the government gain by doing so?

Why would millions of dollars go into research and development if the government didn't have something to gain? Ten of thousands of people worked on those projects and were/are around to speak about their roles. Not all of them can be lying about what their part in those projects were. Personal testimony is one of the best kinds of evidence.

 

[Treeview]

Not all of them can be lying about what their part in those projects were.

You're right. If those tens of thousands could all be trusted to keep the secret and follow the security rules we would have no need for any laws or regulations. People would abide by the rules....no speeding, farting in elevators, cheating on taxes, etc.

 

[ll74]

https://www.thehighersidechats.com/...aud-apollo-mission-inconsistencies-nasa-lies/

I can't go through hours of data, but here's just one of the alternative viewpoints that I listened to.

The next thing you have to do is actually listen to it.

Remember, all I said is; it's inconclusive.

Alternative viewpoints is just a stupid way of saying "alternative history" which is just a conspiract's way of saying "my viewpoint is credible"

Not all viewpoints deserve to be taken as fact. Listening to them is meaningless when they are full of shit.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

But you need to listen to the entire podcast and many more like it.
Otherwise accepted what CNN tell you.

The signal to noise ratio in the podcast is too low to be worth my time. I never watch CNN for the same reason — too much empty jabbering, not enough info. I prefer Scientific American.

Can we talk about how Hollywood didn’t have the technology to fake the moon landing in 1969? 2001: A Space Odyssey was state of the art in special effects for its day and even its depiction of astronauts on the Moon misses lots of nuances that are present in the real Apollo footage.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Im almost there, and I believed it for most of my life. About ten years ago a family member started to cast doubts on some parts of the story.

I did quite a bit of research and I've reached an inconclusive decision.

I have a mechanism of getting to the truth.

A) I know and it has been proven.
B) It has not been proven, so I can't be sure.
C) I'm willing to change my beliefs as new information comes to light.

Right now I'm between B & C.

I could well change my mind with new information, but I won't believe just for tribal reasons.

You’re research obviously included in depth interviews with astronauts and high ranking NASA officials, right?

 

[drusus]

But you need to listen to the entire podcast and many more like it.
Otherwise accepted what CNN tell you.

The evidence for the moon landings is overwhelming. There is physical evidence, documentary evidence, film and photographic evidence and personal evidence.

400,000 people at 20,000 companies and universities worked on Apollo, and it took 4% of the country's entire Federal spending. Yet you expect people to ignore all of that, because someone put out a podcast or YouTube video on a topic they clearly don't understand.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

But you need to listen to the entire podcast and many more like it.
Otherwise accepted what CNN tell you.

There were millions of people who worked indirectly on the Apollo program. 400,000 direct people, none seem to be coming forward claiming it was fake. Russia never blew the lid off if it was a hoax ,and they had plenty of reasons to, if they had proof, or even circumstantial evidence they would have exposed it. Yet a few dozen crackpots claim it was fake, and you're following down their rabbit hole.

Lets not forget the photgraphic evidence of the landing sites, many of which came from foreign adversaries space probes. I doubt they played along....

I'd be surprised, except I've seen your blabbering bullshit on here, which leads to my opinion of you as a typical low intellect example of humanity.

 

[dmallord]

450 posts in a decade isn't "active" in anyone's book.

Sorry chum.

@HisArphy such a disparaging comment about a few literortican being an ALT and for what purpose - to show off your cockcrowing stance, perhaps? Who has the numbers on how an average Lit user is considered to be 'active?'

Who made you the deciding king of what number of posts makes someone an 'active member?' Before you start to answer, I will give you the correct answer: no one did. No one voted or delegated you the authority to declare such shit. You crowned yourself, dickhead.

@MajorRewrite stated he/she is a participant. I looked back to fact-check that. He has been active on Lit since 2014, creating several threads and responding to numerous others. As a contributor to stories, he has posted nine, ranging from 2014 to 2023—all but one rating the coveted 'H.' He has responded and/or asked questions on a broad range of subject matter.

The lunatic idea of yours that someone is an ALT because of your narrow-minded precepts is preposterous.

Here are just some numbers covering seven days a week:

MajorRewrite: Days on Lit - 3,561 No. Comments - 886 Avg per day 0.25. That is essentially responding once or twice a week. A sane number any sane person would think and be considered active for most people with a life outside of Literotica.com.

HisArphy: Days on Lit - 2,835 No. Comments - 33,180 Avg per day 12. Holy shit! By your own judgment, you are obsessed with this site: seven days a week and nearly 170 threads! BTW, I couldn’t find any Lit writings under HisArphy. So, this is just another ALT? What ALT do you write stories under?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

@HisArphy such a disparaging comment about a few literortican being an ALT and for what purpose - to show off your cockcrowing stance, perhaps? Who has the numbers on how an average Lit user is considered to be 'active?'

Who made you the deciding king of what number of posts makes someone an 'active member?' Before you start to answer, I will give you the correct answer: no one did. No one voted or delegated you the authority to declare such shit. You crowned yourself, dickhead.

@MajorRewrite stated he/she is a participant. I looked back to fact-check that. He has been active on Lit since 2014, creating several threads and responding to numerous others. As a contributor to stories, he has posted nine, ranging from 2014 to 2023—all but one rating the coveted 'H.' He has responded and/or asked questions on a broad range of subject matter.

The lunatic idea of yours that someone is an ALT because of your narrow-minded precepts is preposterous.

Here are just some numbers covering seven days a week:

MajorRewrite: Days on Lit - 3,561 No. Comments - 886 Avg per day 0.25. That is essentially responding once or twice a week. A sane number any sane person would think and be considered active for most people with a life outside of Literotica.com.

HisArphy: Days on Lit - 2,835 No. Comments - 33,180 Avg per day 12. Holy shit! By your own judgment, you are obsessed with this site: seven days a week and nearly 170 threads! BTW, I couldn’t find any Lit writings under HisArphy. So, this is just another ALT? What ALT do you write stories under?

HisArpy does have stories published here, but he hasn’t uploaded anything new for three years.

 

[dmallord]

HisArpy does have stories published here, but he hasn’t uploaded anything new for three years.

Thanks for that. I looked under the author search title on the lit main page and nothing came up for him. Off to see what he writes about. Again

 

[HisArpy]

HisArpy does have stories published here, but he hasn’t uploaded anything new for three years.

I haven't published new stuff because I have issues with the way Laurel allows trolls and certain others to crap on the works of the authors which bring revenue to her website.

I don't need "protection" but I expect good treatment from the publisher of my works.

 

[HisArpy]

Thanks for that. I looked under the author search title on the lit main page and nothing came up for him. Off to see what he writes about. Again

dudly there's a LINKY in my siggy to my stories. It's not that difficult to find and click on.

For most people that is.

 

[Treeview]

I expect good treatment

What a cry baby! Thats not the way the world works.

 

[HisArpy]

What a cry baby! Thats not the way the world works.

dudly, when it comes to the stories side of this website, this website is a publisher. NO other publisher out there allows assholes to abuse their clients and/or the published works. None, nada, zip.

 

[HisArpy]

@HisArphy such a disparaging comment about a few literortican being an ALT and for what purpose - to show off your cockcrowing stance, perhaps? Who has the numbers on how an average Lit user is considered to be 'active?'

Who made you the deciding king of what number of posts makes someone an 'active member?' Before you start to answer, I will give you the correct answer: no one did. No one voted or delegated you the authority to declare such shit. You crowned yourself, dickhead.

@MajorRewrite stated he/she is a participant. I looked back to fact-check that. He has been active on Lit since 2014, creating several threads and responding to numerous others. As a contributor to stories, he has posted nine, ranging from 2014 to 2023—all but one rating the coveted 'H.' He has responded and/or asked questions on a broad range of subject matter.

The lunatic idea of yours that someone is an ALT because of your narrow-minded precepts is preposterous.

Here are just some numbers covering seven days a week:

MajorRewrite: Days on Lit - 3,561 No. Comments - 886 Avg per day 0.25. That is essentially responding once or twice a week. A sane number any sane person would think and be considered active for most people with a life outside of Literotica.com.

HisArphy: Days on Lit - 2,835 No. Comments - 33,180 Avg per day 12. Holy shit! By your own judgment, you are obsessed with this site: seven days a week and nearly 170 threads! BTW, I couldn’t find any Lit writings under HisArphy. So, this is just another ALT? What ALT do you write stories under?

"Active" isn't 450 posts in a decade. If you think that it is you're probably wearing a cage and have been pussy free for as long as majorassbiter has been a member here.

 

[MajorRewrite]

@HisArphy such a disparaging comment about a few literortican being an ALT and for what purpose - to show off your cockcrowing stance, perhaps? Who has the numbers on how an average Lit user is considered to be 'active?'

Who made you the deciding king of what number of posts makes someone an 'active member?' Before you start to answer, I will give you the correct answer: no one did. No one voted or delegated you the authority to declare such shit. You crowned yourself, dickhead.

@MajorRewrite stated he/she is a participant. I looked back to fact-check that. He has been active on Lit since 2014, creating several threads and responding to numerous others. As a contributor to stories, he has posted nine, ranging from 2014 to 2023—all but one rating the coveted 'H.' He has responded and/or asked questions on a broad range of subject matter.

The lunatic idea of yours that someone is an ALT because of your narrow-minded precepts is preposterous.

Here are just some numbers covering seven days a week:

MajorRewrite: Days on Lit - 3,561 No. Comments - 886 Avg per day 0.25. That is essentially responding once or twice a week. A sane number any sane person would think and be considered active for most people with a life outside of Literotica.com.

HisArphy: Days on Lit - 2,835 No. Comments - 33,180 Avg per day 12. Holy shit! By your own judgment, you are obsessed with this site: seven days a week and nearly 170 threads! BTW, I couldn’t find any Lit writings under HisArphy. So, this is just another ALT? What ALT do you write stories under?

HisArpy got mad at me because I made fun of his dumb comments on some other thread. It’s amusing that he tried to attack me by claiming I’m an alt … even though I post stories on the site. His brain doesn’t function in normal ways.

Just ignore him like I do.

 

[dmallord]

I haven't published new stuff because I have issues with the way Laurel allows trolls and certain others to crap on the works of the authors which bring revenue to her website.

I don't need "protection" but I expect good treatment from the publisher of my works.

So insular. Surlyness doesn't become you as a former attorney. You treat others badly and unjustly so.

I read your Lizzie & CC story. It doesn't allow comments. It smacks of the MC's arrogant nature, but overall, it's not bad. The intro was entertaining but laden with too many details. The plot wandered and could have used some reduction of content to help smooth out the meanderings. Overall, I'd give it a 4* rating for effort and attention to details. The persona carries into your jabs here as well. Too bad about that. I see why you are protective.

People would likely traverse from here to there to skewer your work as payback for your character assassinations.

Others like to ignore you. I'm not that way. I enjoy your attempts to play God, feeble as those attempts are. I'll be by your side when you need to scold someone. Count on me to help you out.

To expect good treatment, you also have to give that in return. Your pejorative remarks make you a large target. No wonder you act so pissed.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As I already stated, Disagreement usually leads to name calling.

Please point out any name calling in my post below.

There were millions of people who worked indirectly on the Apollo program. 400,000 direct people, none seem to be coming forward claiming it was fake. Russia never blew the lid off if it was a hoax ,and they had plenty of reasons to, if they had proof, or even circumstantial evidence they would have exposed it. Yet a few dozen crackpots claim it was fake, and you're following down their rabbit hole.

Lets not forget the photgraphic evidence of the landing sites, many of which came from foreign adversaries space probes. I doubt they played along....

I'd be surprised, except I've seen your blabbering bullshit on here, which leads to my opinion of you as a typical low intellect example of humanity.

Stating an opinion on a person's intellect is not name calling.

Now if I had called you a fucking moron, or a blathering idiot, or a doofus, then maybe you'd have had a point, but I didn't.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuzzy1975 would you not consider the above statement name calling. .
Perhaps you always talk to people like this.

No I would not, it is a statement of opinion. This is not a school playground, the site is supposed to encompass only adults over the age of 18.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Indeed, that's why I never insult people over their viewpoints, even if I strongly disagree with them.

And my opinion is formed by what you post. You wish to debate alien life, religion even, fine, but proven beyond doubt facts, which you are denying or even having doubts about it, doesn't lead me to give your intellect much value. So I am sure can see why I posted my opinion.

 

[ll74]

Indeed, that's why I never insult people over their viewpoints, even if I strongly disagree with them.

I don't insult people over their viewpoints. I mock their conspiracy theories.

 

[ll74]

Ouch, that hurt . I'm truly chastised now.

Whatever works for ya.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Delusional paranoia resulting in bizarre conspiracy beliefs is now an epidemic.

I guess there was something similar in the 1950s with McCarthyism. It certainly seems to be symptomatic of the more unhinged right-wing movements.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Ouch, that hurt . I'm truly chastised now.

And yet...if you had actual receipts to any contrary to the topic, you would've shown them.

We would've seen them way before you because they would be bigger than you and whatever internet discovery you think your connection to is different from everyone else's.

That's the only metric that requires serious engagement. All others, are just entertaining fantasies and romances.

This is not calling you names. This is reminding you that rhetoric, notions and theories aren't empirical evidence.

I mean, dude, enjoy your ground-level smirking, but you haven't even left the ground floor yet.

 

[Bray123]

That's a lazy idea, each does their own research.

Asking stupid questions without research then saying it wasn't an 'opinion' is lazy.