[Dr Van Nostrand]

It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."

While I'm not convinced that the moon missions were faked, I have to object to your description here. Most moon landing conspiracies I've engaged with suggest that the budget was relatively small, because the less you spend, the more you get to steal.

This is normally cognate with arguments that the lunar module looks as if it was made out of cheap tin foil, that huge amounts of decisive evidence mysteriously disappeared or were accidentally deleted, and that the evidence that remains is of uncharacteristically low quality for the time period.

Regardless of whether we choose to agree with the argument, the argument is not that a lot of money was spent to deceive people, but rather that people were gullible enough to accept something sub-par.

Fair point....

Still if someone is going to cheap out on some aspect of fake space travel, you'd think that stars would be the one thing they wouldn't skimp on. Even the cheesiest sci-fi movies from the 1950s had stars.

[AATW]

While I'm not convinced that the moon missions were faked

My head is spinning at the idea you could believe that the earth is flat and even contemplate that the moon landings could have happened.

How do you square that circle?

[RonJ]

According to the wiki on this site the moon is 3000 miles away.  I have been on a flight from Chicago to Hong Kong that was much farther than that.   The conspiracy theory seems to say that NASA faked the 239,900 mile trip (commonly quoted distance).  There are recordings of the astronauts talking back and forth to mission control and the theory states that there should be a 2 second delay between comments between ground control and the astronauts due to the large distance.  If the moon is only 3000 miles, then you wouldn't expect a noticeable delay.  Maybe NASA didn't fake the trip to the moon, but the stated distance.  Since the differences in distance are 100 to 1 you would expect that the project would be a whole lot more expensive to go 100 times the number of miles.  A short trip would be a whole lot cheaper and 'they' could pocket the difference in cost. 

[stack]

According to the wiki on this site the moon is 3000 miles away.  I have been on a flight from Chicago to Hong Kong that was much farther than that.   The conspiracy theory seems to say that NASA faked the 239,900 mile trip (commonly quoted distance).  There are recordings of the astronauts talking back and forth to mission control and the theory states that there should be a 2 second delay between comments between ground control and the astronauts due to the large distance.  If the moon is only 3000 miles, then you wouldn't expect a noticeable delay.  Maybe NASA didn't fake the trip to the moon, but the stated distance.  Since the differences in distance are 100 to 1 you would expect that the project would be a whole lot more expensive to go 100 times the number of miles.  A short trip would be a whole lot cheaper and 'they' could pocket the difference in cost.

I had the same thought a ways back. 3000 miles is less distance than a flight from, say, NYC to London. If the moon is even closer, maybe we did land on it. Granted slightly different direction, "up" instead of “over”, but so damn close.
Using FET, landing on the moon is far more plausible than the RE model of it being 239k miles away. Conspiracy being that NASA did go to the moon, placed reflectors, hit some golf balls and drove around in a buggy, but are hiding the fact that it’s so close to earth because of money, pride, luminati/masonic and/or whatever conspiratorial proclivity suits your whimsy.

[RonJ]

The conspiracy thesis could also explain why NASA hasn't just sent a rocket up and off in any direction towards the edge with a camera and all kinds of measuring equipment.  Since a dome isn't part of the theory then a rocket could easily take images of the edge and what is beyond.  If there were some kind of black energy barrier, then that could be measured as well.  The biggest problem with that is that NASA would really be shooting themselves in the foot.  All of their own theories would be out the window with a mission they designed.  I wouldn't look for that to happen any time soon.     

[Curiosity File]

-A common piece of "evidence" for the landings being a hoax is "why can't you see the stars"-

It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."

I've been saying the same thing for a very long time. That and "you'd think by now, especially after all the sharp tools keep pointing out the missing stars, that they'd figure it out". 

[Pete Svarrior]

My head is spinning at the idea you could believe that the earth is flat and even contemplate that the moon landings could have happened.

How do you square that circle?

Unlike the RE'ers here, I'm not an absolutist. I embrace the possibility that I'm wrong, and I continuously look at new possible outcomes - especially ones that challenge me.

[stack]

My head is spinning at the idea you could believe that the earth is flat and even contemplate that the moon landings could have happened.

How do you square that circle?

Unlike the RE'ers here, I'm not an absolutist. I embrace the possibility that I'm wrong, and I continuously look at new possible outcomes - especially ones that challenge me.

I'd say there are an equal number of RE and FE absolutists here. You, perhaps, may not be one of them. But thanks for speaking for all of RE.

So do you fall into the camp you've mentioned before of those FErs who believe that Apollo happened, but astronauts were mistaken in what they saw?

[AATW]

According to the wiki on this site the moon is 3000 miles away.  I have been on a flight from Chicago to Hong Kong that was much farther than that.   The conspiracy theory seems to say that NASA faked the 239,900 mile trip (commonly quoted distance).  There are recordings of the astronauts talking back and forth to mission control and the theory states that there should be a 2 second delay between comments between ground control and the astronauts due to the large distance.  If the moon is only 3000 miles, then you wouldn't expect a noticeable delay.  Maybe NASA didn't fake the trip to the moon, but the stated distance.  Since the differences in distance are 100 to 1 you would expect that the project would be a whole lot more expensive to go 100 times the number of miles.  A short trip would be a whole lot cheaper and 'they' could pocket the difference in cost.

I had the same thought a ways back. 3000 miles is less distance than a flight from, say, NYC to London. If the moon is even closer, maybe we did land on it. Granted slightly different direction, "up" instead of “over”, but so damn close.
Using FET, landing on the moon is far more plausible than the RE model of it being 239k miles away. Conspiracy being that NASA did go to the moon, placed reflectors, hit some golf balls and drove around in a buggy, but are hiding the fact that it’s so close to earth because of money, pride, luminati/masonic and/or whatever conspiratorial proclivity suits your whimsy.

I don't see how you can believe in a FE and think that the moon landings happened.
From what I understand the idea is that UA is accelerating the earth upwards with respect to the flat earth but we are protected from that acceleration by the earth itself, otherwise we would be accelerated upwards too and be effectively weightless. The ether drift, or whatever it is which is accelerating the earth, goes round the sides of the earth and meets above it somewhere, the sun, moon and stars are above this point so they are accelerated upwards too which is why they don't crash into the earth. As you've stated, the moon is small and close, compared with what traditional science claims.

I hope that isn't all straw man, that is what I think the FE claim is. Let's try and see how that would apply to the moon landings. So the rocket would launch and I guess it would just go straight to the moon as orbit of a FE would be impossible - you could orbit in the sense of going round in circles above it but why would you? At some altitude the rocket would get caught by the ether drift (I'll keep calling it that for consistency) and I guess at that point the rocket and astronauts would be weightless as they would be accelerated at the same speed as everything else. Although...no, hang on, if they are being accelerated by the ether drift then they wouldn't be weightless, they'd feel the force of that acceleration. But they wouldn't need to use any rockets to stay above the earth, the ether drift would keep them accelerating along with the earth so the rocket would stay at the same altitude. Rockets could be used to get to the moon but then how would you land on it? How could you walk around on it if the rocket, you and the moon are accelerating a the same rate. You'd feel the force of the acceleration but the moon is accelerating too so you wouldn't be able to walk on the moon. Nothing is pressing you against the moon's surface. Unless the "top" of the moon also protects you from the ether drift in which case you could land on that but you'd be landing on the dark side of the moon and your weight would be the same as on earth because the moon is accelerating at the same rate the earth is - maybe this is where celestial gravitation comes to the rescue.

This is all making my head spin but if I'm understanding Pete right he's saying that he's unsure about the moon landings in the same way he is unsure about the flat earth - in the sense that he's prepared to change his mind about these things. But I really think you have to pick one. If the moon landings happened then the earth can't be flat, and if the earth is flat then the moon landings can't have happened. I don't see how both are possible.

[RonJ]

A 20th century video of a moon landing would require a different script that what everyone thought they saw on the last mission.  I think that a moon landing would be possible for both the FE and RE theories.  In the FE theory, gravity is out.  Humans and everything else is held onto the earth due to universal acceleration.  Everything has mass and since mass is the property that resists acceleration, a force is required to keep something accelerating.  That is why a person feels the force of the earth when standing upon it.  The force comes from the earth accelerating upwards and the mass of your body resisting that acceleration.  A spacecraft above the earth's atmosphere would have to have enough thrust to keep a constant acceleration, at the same rate as the earth's, plus a little more to close the distance to the moon.  Once near the moon things could get a little tricky.  Since the moon is spherical the spacecraft would have to land on the surface of the moon opposite the earth.  The moon also must be accelerating at the same rate as the earth otherwise the distance between the earth and moon would be changing.  A person standing on the moon then would feel the same upward acceleration at they do on the earth and would feel the same force on their feet as well as long as they were standing on the side opposite the earth.  If they were standing on the side that faces the earth, I fear that they would fly off.  I would also expect that a person would weigh the same on the moon as they do on earth.  The videos I saw on the moon missions seem to indicate that the astronauts were bouncing around and very light on their feet.  Was that all a fake?  What also is unknown is what keeps the moon accelerating at the same rate as the earth.  It is believed that the earth is being kept in constant acceleration by a dark energy force of some kind.  Is that same force acting on the moon as well?  Would that same force act on a human in the space between the earth and the moon?  I would like to know the answers to these questions myself.