Put a flat earthier into space

[monkeytassle]

That depends on what you mean by thousands of scientists in terms of what?
I'll give you an example.
Let's take Earth shape as we're told. A globe that is spinning in a space vacuum...etc.

Ok, so what we have on this theory, are astrophysicists. What are astrophysicists?
We could all say they're experts on the solar system, so we are basically reliant on what they say and also reliant on being harked back to historical times as if it's a backup to their so called expertise.
The stark reality is, they're looking at the sky and telling stories about what's supposedly beyond it. I don't accept what they say....most do because most people have no reason to disbelieve because most people have never really had enough time to even bother to go down that rabbit hole. And who can blame them. I certainly can't.

Ok so what about all the other thousands upon thousands of various fields of science all over the world and the scioentists who study a particular thing or thing's?
Why do they have to be in on anything?

For all we know a lot of them could be massively questioning lots of stuff as being iffy. But what do they do? Do they come out with it and be called mad scientists who've went rogue?

People can argue they would get a nobel prize if they proved different to what's been out out as truth.
Really?
Maybe the truth is not to be told.

Lots on here believe Earth is a spinning globe. Lots will believe those rockets went to the moon and mars and whatever else.
Are they mad? Absolutely not. Do they know they are correct? Absolutely not but they have a very good convincing argument to back up their stance.

What is that?
It's mainstream ideals. It's a curriculum from school days and teachings after it.
Follow the masses and majority wins.
It's correct. Majority always wins by hook or by crook because minority can easily be overrun.

I have no wish to go out in public to proclaim stuff is not what we are told.
I don't want to be the one wearing a sandwich board with my theories on it.

I'm passing time on forums giving my thoughts and that's that, just as people are giving theirs.

I'm the nutter. I'm the imbecile. I'm anything and everything to those who believe they know better. And that's absolutely fine because, as I said, majority wins the day, by hook or by crook.
Majority is immensely persuasive to those who even dare to think outside of that mainstream box of ideals.

I'm waffling on as per usual but there you go.

Amazing the change between night and day isn't it.

 

[payne]

That depends on what you mean by thousands of scientists in terms of what?
I'll give you an example.
Let's take Earth shape as we're told. A globe that is spinning in a space vacuum...etc.

Ok, so what we have on this theory, are astrophysicists. What are astrophysicists?
We could all say they're experts on the solar system, so we are basically reliant on what they say and also reliant on being harked back to historical times as if it's a backup to their so called expertise.
The stark reality is, they're looking at the sky and telling stories about what's supposedly beyond it. I don't accept what they say....most do because most people have no reason to disbelieve because most people have never really had enough time to even bother to go down that rabbit hole. And who can blame them. I certainly can't.

Ok so what about all the other thousands upon thousands of various fields of science all over the world and the scioentists who study a particular thing or thing's?
Why do they have to be in on anything?

For all we know a lot of them could be massively questioning lots of stuff as being iffy. But what do they do? Do they come out with it and be called mad scientists who've went rogue?

People can argue they would get a nobel prize if they proved different to what's been out out as truth.
Really?
Maybe the truth is not to be told.

Lots on here believe Earth is a spinning globe. Lots will believe those rockets went to the moon and mars and whatever else.
Are they mad? Absolutely not. Do they know they are correct? Absolutely not but they have a very good convincing argument to back up their stance.

What is that?
It's mainstream ideals. It's a curriculum from school days and teachings after it.
Follow the masses and majority wins.
It's correct. Majority always wins by hook or by crook because minority can easily be overrun.

I have no wish to go out in public to proclaim stuff is not what we are told.
I don't want to be the one wearing a sandwich board with my theories on it.

I'm passing time on forums giving my thoughts and that's that, just as people are giving theirs.

I'm the nutter. I'm the imbecile. I'm anything and everything to those who believe they know better. And that's absolutely fine because, as I said, majority wins the day, by hook or by crook.
Majority is immensely persuasive to those who even dare to think outside of that mainstream box of ideals.

I'm waffling on as per usual but there you go.

correct
the beautiful southern lier lights

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[RollingStone]

That depends on what you mean by thousands of scientists in terms of what?
I'll give you an example.
Let's take Earth shape as we're told. A globe that is spinning in a space vacuum...etc.

Ok, so what we have on this theory, are astrophysicists. What are astrophysicists?
We could all say they're experts on the solar system, so we are basically reliant on what they say and also reliant on being harked back to historical times as if it's a backup to their so called expertise.
The stark reality is, they're looking at the sky and telling stories about what's supposedly beyond it. I don't accept what they say....most do because most people have no reason to disbelieve because most people have never really had enough time to even bother to go down that rabbit hole. And who can blame them. I certainly can't.

Ok so what about all the other thousands upon thousands of various fields of science all over the world and the scioentists who study a particular thing or thing's?
Why do they have to be in on anything?

For all we know a lot of them could be massively questioning lots of stuff as being iffy. But what do they do? Do they come out with it and be called mad scientists who've went rogue?

People can argue they would get a nobel prize if they proved different to what's been out out as truth.
Really?
Maybe the truth is not to be told.

Lots on here believe Earth is a spinning globe. Lots will believe those rockets went to the moon and mars and whatever else.
Are they mad? Absolutely not. Do they know they are correct? Absolutely not but they have a very good convincing argument to back up their stance.

What is that?
It's mainstream ideals. It's a curriculum from school days and teachings after it.
Follow the masses and majority wins.
It's correct. Majority always wins by hook or by crook because minority can easily be overrun.

I have no wish to go out in public to proclaim stuff is not what we are told.
I don't want to be the one wearing a sandwich board with my theories on it.

I'm passing time on forums giving my thoughts and that's that, just as people are giving theirs.

I'm the nutter. I'm the imbecile. I'm anything and everything to those who believe they know better. And that's absolutely fine because, as I said, majority wins the day, by hook or by crook.
Majority is immensely persuasive to those who even dare to think outside of that mainstream box of ideals.

I'm waffling on as per usual but there you go.

Well I'm not accusing you of being a nutter I'm just curious to know why you think what you do. History s full of scientists who have challenged accepted thought, for example that the Earth was flat! You haven't answered my question as to the motive behind all of this. What is the material benefit to faking global Earth.

 

[DaveH]

So here's the key.

If someone lies to you do you forget about it and simply trust everything said from that point on? Or do you accept what's told but hold back on the belief of it?

Have a good think about that when applying it to people in power.

That raises the question, who are the liars? You say the people in power, but what about the astronomers and those behind manned and unmanned space travel? Are they all liars? Do they really exist or are they just fake personas?

 

[payne]

Well I'm not accusing you of being a nutter I'm just curious to know why you think what you do. History s full of scientists who have challenged accepted thought, for example that the Earth was flat! You haven't answered my question as to the motive behind all of this. What is the material benefit to faking global Earth.

He's doesn't know. He's decided the earth is in a cell (snow globe) and that some people do lie in life. So putting 2 and 2 together everyone who doesn't promote cell theory is a liar or has been brainwashed.

That raises the question, who are the liars? You say the people in power, but what about the astronomers and those behind manned and unmanned space travel? Are they all liars? Do they really exist or are they just fake personas?

Exactly. You're average scientist isn't the PM or some political leader.

My question is a what point do the kids who become scientists, people who've worked hard to understand something, get told the lie and then all just fall into line and follow suit.

 

[DaveH]

He's doesn't know. He's decided the earth is in a cell (snow globe) and that some people do lie in life. So putting 2 and 2 together everyone who doesn't promote cell theory is a liar or has been brainwashed.

Exactly. You're average scientist isn't the PM or some political leader.

My question is a what point do the kids who become scientists, people who've worked hard to understand something, get told the lie and then all just fall into line and follow suit.

I think it is clear we are not going to agree with him on his special view of “science” and the world he thinks to live in, but all these pages that has never been really looked at.

Like you say, at what point? We send probes into all reaches of the solar system or satellites more locally. People work on these, and each one is unique. They design the instruments, write the software, know every inch of their area. Conning someone like that with fake data would be very difficult and need a large team of people a step ahead of the game, who are these people?

The other alternatives are these astronomers or space scientists were taken aside at some point told it was a lie and persuaded to devote their life to maintaining and making more elaborate the lie. Or perhaps they don’t exist at all. Could they just be a fake persona? A fake name on a scientific paper?

It all sounds a difficult and complicated cover up.

 

[taipeisafc]

That depends on what you mean by thousands of scientists in terms of what?
I'll give you an example.
Let's take Earth shape as we're told. A globe that is spinning in a space vacuum...etc.

Ok, so what we have on this theory, are astrophysicists. What are astrophysicists?
We could all say they're experts on the solar system, so we are basically reliant on what they say and also reliant on being harked back to historical times as if it's a backup to their so called expertise.
The stark reality is, they're looking at the sky and telling stories about what's supposedly beyond it. I don't accept what they say....most do because most people have no reason to disbelieve because most people have never really had enough time to even bother to go down that rabbit hole. And who can blame them. I certainly can't.

Ok so what about all the other thousands upon thousands of various fields of science all over the world and the scioentists who study a particular thing or thing's?
Why do they have to be in on anything?

For all we know a lot of them could be massively questioning lots of stuff as being iffy. But what do they do? Do they come out with it and be called mad scientists who've went rogue?

People can argue they would get a nobel prize if they proved different to what's been out out as truth.
Really?
Maybe the truth is not to be told.

Lots on here believe Earth is a spinning globe. Lots will believe those rockets went to the moon and mars and whatever else.
Are they mad? Absolutely not. Do they know they are correct? Absolutely not but they have a very good convincing argument to back up their stance.

What is that?
It's mainstream ideals. It's a curriculum from school days and teachings after it.
Follow the masses and majority wins.
It's correct. Majority always wins by hook or by crook because minority can easily be overrun.

I have no wish to go out in public to proclaim stuff is not what we are told.
I don't want to be the one wearing a sandwich board with my theories on it.

I'm passing time on forums giving my thoughts and that's that, just as people are giving theirs.

I'm the nutter. I'm the imbecile. I'm anything and everything to those who believe they know better. And that's absolutely fine because, as I said, majority wins the day, by hook or by crook.
Majority is immensely persuasive to those who even dare to think outside of that mainstream box of ideals.

I'm waffling on as per usual but there you go.

Typical conspiracy crap, quelle surprise

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well I'm not accusing you of being a nutter I'm just curious to know why you think what you do. History s full of scientists who have challenged accepted thought, for example that the Earth was flat! You haven't answered my question as to the motive behind all of this. What is the material benefit to faking global Earth.

The material benefits can easily be thought of in terms of money.
However, is this the major reason? I don't know the entirety of it and can only guess at much of it.

It depends on how a person sees the world and how it potentially operates, with who is doing the operating, kind of thing.
Maybe it's a control issue. Making people believe the Earth is just an inescapable ball but giving the illusion of escape by usage of so called space vehicles, yet not letting us know the true reality of what Earth has to offer.

One thing's for sure. Earth is not a spinning globe as we're told. In my honest opinion.

 

[monkeytassle]

The material benefits can easily be thought of in terms of money.
However, is this the major reason? I don't know the entirety of it and can only guess at much of it.

It depends on how a person sees the world and how it potentially operates, with who is doing the operating, kind of thing.
Maybe it's a control issue. Making people believe the Earth is just an inescapable ball but giving the illusion of escape by usage of so called space vehicles, yet not letting us know the true reality of what Earth has to offer.

One thing's for sure. Earth is not a spinning globe as we're told. In my honest opinion.

If the earth is a sphere, or disc, or trapezium it is surely "inescapable" no?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That raises the question, who are the liars? You say the people in power, but what about the astronomers and those behind manned and unmanned space travel? Are they all liars? Do they really exist or are they just fake personas?

You're a little bit of an astronomer, aren't you? Astronomy is basically looking up at the sky and what is supposedly in it, or should I say above it according to people.
So you follow what you've been told and view stuff based on what you've been told. Why do you need to be a liar?

I don't think you're lying any more than I think the one's arguing with me are lying.
They're doing exactly what I would expect them to do, which is regurgitate what they were taught and what they actually read, reference and put out as their regurgitated argument against what I'm saying.
That's not being a liar.

Do people lie. Yes.
Is it possible people tell lies on here. Yes.
It's also possible that people get mistaken in their beliefs of what they think they see, such as people trying to argue they see Earth curvature from a plane. Mistaken, not lies.
It's just following set narratives in many cases or merely parroting.


We all do it and it doesn't mean we're liars.
I'd be a liar if I offered what I say as factual.

As for those who pretend they're in space rockets and what not. I think they're actors. Bad actors but actors all the same.
Are actors liars?
It depends on how they view their reasoning for acting or whether they feel compelled to tell people they are acting out scenes.

 

[taipeisafc]

You're a little bit of an astronomer, aren't you? Astronomy is basically looking up at the sky and what is supposedly in it, or should I say above it according to people.
So you follow what you've been told and view stuff based on what you've been told. Why do you need to be a liar?

I don't think you're lying any more than I think the one's arguing with me are lying.
They're doing exactly what I would expect them to do, which is regurgitate what they were taught and what they actually read, reference and put out as their regurgitated argument against what I'm saying.
That's not being a liar.

Do people lie. Yes.
Is it possible people tell lies on here. Yes.
It's also possible that people get mistaken in their beliefs of what they think they see, such as people trying to argue they see Earth curvature from a plane. Mistaken, not lies.
It's just following set narratives in many cases or merely parroting.


We all do it and it doesn't mean we're liars.
I'd be a liar if I offered what I say as factual.

As for those who pretend they're in space rockets and what not. I think they're actors. Bad actors but actors all the same.
Are actors liars?
It depends on how they view their reasoning for acting or whether they feel compelled to tell people they are acting out scenes.

Deranged (I had started writing a longer reply but realised it was pointless).

I think it is clear we are not going to agree with him on his special view of “science” and the world he thinks to live in, but all these pages that has never been really looked at.

Like you say, at what point? We send probes into all reaches of the solar system or satellites more locally. People work on these, and each one is unique. They design the instruments, write the software, know every inch of their area. Conning someone like that with fake data would be very difficult and need a large team of people a step ahead of the game, who are these people?

The other alternatives are these astronomers or space scientists were taken aside at some point told it was a lie and persuaded to devote their life to maintaining and making more elaborate the lie. Or perhaps they don’t exist at all. Could they just be a fake persona? A fake name on a scientific paper?

It all sounds a difficult and complicated cover up.

From memory NASA had 400,000 people working around the time of the moon landings - all 400,000 were paid good salaries for a long time to perpetuate a myth? Why not just invent a reasons why you can't land on the moon instead of spending billions of dollars faking it. Then they managed to rope China, Russia etc. into the same conspiracy and keep everyone quiet. You would have to be utterly deranged to believe that.....ahh I see now.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I think it is clear we are not going to agree with him on his special view of “science” and the world he thinks to live in, but all these pages that has never been really looked at.

Like you say, at what point? We send probes into all reaches of the solar system or satellites more locally. People work on these, and each one is unique. They design the instruments, write the software, know every inch of their area. Conning someone like that with fake data would be very difficult and need a large team of people a step ahead of the game, who are these people?

The other alternatives are these astronomers or space scientists were taken aside at some point told it was a lie and persuaded to devote their life to maintaining and making more elaborate the lie. Or perhaps they don’t exist at all. Could they just be a fake persona? A fake name on a scientific paper?

It all sounds a difficult and complicated cover up.

That depends on how you see it as being complicated. I've already mentioned massive compartmentalisation.
Plenty of people write software based on a model of what they're told Earth is.
Films get made based on the Earth model they're schooled into.
It doesn't mean it's the true reality.

You're told probes go into the solar system. Your entire belief of it is based on stories with CGI of what those supposed probes do.
There's lots of stuff in life that we simply regurgitate without actually knowing if it's fact or fiction.

I bet there's experts out there on the entire workings of Harry potter and his escapades. They would be classed as experts on that matter. Are they experts of fact? Or fiction?
You see it depends on how you see fact or fiction.

The set up and actors playing parts are fact. The script is passed off as fiction but the expertise of following the fiction is based entirely on memory of those who absorb it all and regurgitate it at a later date when quizzed on it by whoever is interested in delving.

We get shown a bunch of people cheering a supposed landing. Mission specialists of a supposed probe smashing into a so called planet or so called asteroid. We see a bit of film of them cheering, all sit behind a computer supposedly monitoring small details of this probe, each.

It all looks good. It looks presentable as a reality.
But what is different to that as opposed to seeing a film with them doing the same thing, except for a bit better acting?

Typical conspiracy crap, quelle surprise

Maybe, maybe not.
I honestly would not expect anything different coming from you. Seriously.

If the earth is a sphere, or disc, or trapezium it is surely "inescapable" no?

Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe there's a whole lot more to Earth itself.

Deranged (I had started writing a longer reply but realised it was pointless).

I agree, it is pointless. You're adding nothing more than the same digs. At least up it a bit.

From memory NASA had 400,000 people working around the time of the moon landings - all 400,000 were paid good salaries for a long time to perpetuate a myth?

And you read this, where?

Why not just invent a reasons why you can't land on the moon instead of spending billions of dollars faking it.

You only have to spend a few billion setting up the story with props and you can have decades of billions with little outlay. Maybe, eh?

Then they managed to rope China, Russia etc. into the same conspiracy and keep everyone quiet.

By quiet do you mean nobody running to the tabloids? People running to the media outlets? People running to....to....where?
Let's put a scenario down and see if you can give a genuine answer.

Let's assume it was all a scam and you were part of it.
You decide you want to tell the truth.
You start by telling your family and then you go to the media.
Do you think the media would be all too willing to come out with " a NASA insider has decided to blow the whistle on the fake moon landing and here's his story.".....Seriously?

If you think the media wouldn't run you into a stark raving NASA hating disgruntled ex employee, then fair enough. It at least tells why you question nothing to do with this stuff.

You would have to be utterly deranged to believe that.....ahh I see now.

I wonder.

 

[Kevj]

You only have to spend a few billion setting up the story with props and you can have decades of billions with little outlay. Maybe, eh?

By quiet do you mean nobody running to the tabloids? People running to the media outlets? People running to....to....where?
Let's put a scenario down and see if you can give a genuine answer.

Let's assume it was all a scam and you were part of it.
You decide you want to tell the truth.
You start by telling your family and then you go to the media.
Do you think the media would be all too willing to come out with " a NASA insider has decided to blow the whistle on the fake moon landing and here's his story.".....Seriously?

If you think the media wouldn't run you into a stark raving NASA hating disgruntled ex employee, then fair enough. It at least tells why you question nothing to do with this stuff.

I wonder.

You don’t need the media. The internet provides a forum for anyone with an opinion to share that opinion. If this had any substance, there’d be lots of ex. NASA or other governmental personnel coming forward. But they don’t because the truth is the truth and what you advocate simply isn’t.

Reading the alternative thought flat earth/ dome earth/ snow-globe earth believers put forward did make me query how legitimate this may be. But after a very short space of time (measured in seconds), it’s so unbelievable and even more far fetched than the truth that it’s just not a viable scenario in any way.

You’ve repeatedly said that folk don’t think for themselves. Do you not think for a moment they have and are able to rationale that presented with two options, which one is more likely?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You don’t need the media. The internet provides a forum for anyone with an opinion to share that opinion. If this had any substance, there’d be lots of ex. NASA or other governmental personnel coming forward. But they don’t because the truth is the truth and what you advocate simply isn’t.

Anyone can be anyone on an internet. It's meaningless in that regard.

Reading the alternative thought flat earth/ dome earth/ snow-globe earth believers put forward did make me query how legitimate this may be. But after a very short space of time (measured in seconds), it’s so unbelievable and even more far fetched than the truth that it’s just not a viable scenario in any way.

That's entirely up to you. You're making no impact on me. You do what you feel is best for you.
Telling me you took seconds to realise it's not worth querying tells me all I need to know about your intent, forum wise.
Behind the scenes could be a massive difference for you. You could very well be pondering stuff but are afraid to admit it and I don't blame you.
Most people hate to be singled out for digs for daring to question.

You’ve repeatedly said that folk don’t think for themselves.

Most people don't. They simply follow narratives and close the gates to alternate routes.

Do you not think for a moment they have and are able to rationale that presented with two options, which one is more likely?

That depends on the person and what it is they're thinking on.

 

[payne]

That depends on how you see it as being complicated. I've already mentioned massive compartmentalisation.
Plenty of people write software based on a model of what they're told Earth is.
Films get made based on the Earth model they're schooled into.
It doesn't mean it's the true reality.

You're told probes go into the solar system. Your entire belief of it is based on stories with CGI of what those supposed probes do.
There's lots of stuff in life that we simply regurgitate without actually knowing if it's fact or fiction.

I bet there's experts out there on the entire workings of Harry potter and his escapades. They would be classed as experts on that matter. Are they experts of fact? Or fiction?
You see it depends on how you see fact or fiction.

The set up and actors playing parts are fact. The script is passed off as fiction but the expertise of following the fiction is based entirely on memory of those who absorb it all and regurgitate it at a later date when quizzed on it by whoever is interested in delving.

We get shown a bunch of people cheering a supposed landing. Mission specialists of a supposed probe smashing into a so called planet or so called asteroid. We see a bit of film of them cheering, all sit behind a computer supposedly monitoring small details of this probe, each.

It all looks good. It looks presentable as a reality.
But what is different to that as opposed to seeing a film with them doing the same thing, except for a bit better acting?

Maybe, maybe not.
I honestly would not expect anything different coming from you. Seriously.

Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe there's a whole lot more to Earth itself.

I agree, it is pointless. You're adding nothing more than the same digs. At least up it a bit.


And you read this, where?

You only have to spend a few billion setting up the story with props and you can have decades of billions with little outlay. Maybe, eh?

By quiet do you mean nobody running to the tabloids? People running to the media outlets? People running to....to....where?
Let's put a scenario down and see if you can give a genuine answer.

Let's assume it was all a scam and you were part of it.
You decide you want to tell the truth.
You start by telling your family and then you go to the media.
Do you think the media would be all too willing to come out with " a NASA insider has decided to blow the whistle on the fake moon landing and here's his story.".....Seriously?

If you think the media wouldn't run you into a stark raving NASA hating disgruntled ex employee, then fair enough. It at least tells why you question nothing to do with this stuff.

I wonder.

Paranoia next level

 

[Nobby]

Paranoia next level

This, thread has finally reached its end point. The amusing "musings" have given way to the default and very predictable conspiracy nihilism

 

[DPTT]

This, thread has finally reached its end point. The amusing "musings" have given way to the default and very predictable conspiracy nihilism

Plus he has most of us on ignore now and he’s not even bothering to actually answer anything anymore apart from saying “nah it’s a lie”

 

[ned_werby]

I take medication. I accept I need it. It doesn't matter whether I believe it could be bettered or maybe I don't need that particular medicine. I accept it just like I accept a lot of stuff.

Going to be careful here because I don't wish to seem uncaring or inconsiderate but it would seem this bit has been missed and it explains a lot. I'll watch this thread from now on but won't be responding to the oblate sphere denier any longer and suggest others do the same. Thank you to a number of posters (@DaveH @taipeisafc etc.) for providing some very interesting and informative facts and knowledge that even I could understand.

 

[taipeisafc]

taipeisafc said:
From memory NASA had 400,000 people working around the time of the moon landings - all 400,000 were paid good salaries for a long time to perpetuate a myth?

And you read this, where?

It was stated by an Apollo astronaut in an interview with Brian Cox, he was answering a question from Biran Cox about why the US hadn't been back to the moon and he replied with "remember back then we had 400,000 people working on the Apollo program along with unlimited budget" he stated you could do a lot with that amount of resource.

 

[chrismisterx]

Deranged (I had started writing a longer reply but realised it was pointless).


From memory NASA had 400,000 people working around the time of the moon landings - all 400,000 were paid good salaries for a long time to perpetuate a myth? Why not just invent a reasons why you can't land on the moon instead of spending billions of dollars faking it. Then they managed to rope China, Russia etc. into the same conspiracy and keep everyone quiet. You would have to be utterly deranged to believe that.....ahh I see now.

Well space travel is a little different to the flat earth debate.

Do you believe Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space, There is a second theory that he wasn't and it was Major General Vladimir Sergeyevich Ilyushin 2 days earlier and that the USA was quite happy to help cover up the fact the USSR was lying. The reason for this was a bad landing that nearly killed him, I think IIRC he ended up in china as the modular failed and went off course.

With regards the moon landings I have some mixed views based on "lost tech theory" the so called Nasa lost the ability to go back and the fact we have the Van Allen radiation belt, I feel some astronauts did land on the moon but maybe not the ones paraded about back on earth, its not much to conceive that the original astronauts died from radiation poisoning and were replaced for the cameras, could explain a lot of the conspiracy theories with regards the first landings and some of the film footage that's brought up with regards Armstrong and co in the questions afterwards. Either way there is some compelling stuff to make you think twice at times.

At the time studies were still ongoing in the Marshall Islands with regards human effects of Radiation ( another cover up ), so maybe a miscalculation of the Van Allen belt caused sickness /death in the first crew and the USA did a mini cover up, after all beating the USSR was the most important thing?

Its interesting thoughts and could explain why we didn't go back after the Apollo program, if it was deemed to dangerous and why we stay in low obit, I think this is much more likely than not going at all or aliens stopping us from going back.

Fun subject though and interesting stuff.