this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

46940 readers
1047 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For reference, I have already told them why the sky has no stars (it's because of camera exposure, the moon surface is very reflective so lower exposure is used to not overexpose the image) and why the flag wasn't drooping down (there was an extending arm in the stand to hold it upright, as a flag drooping down is a sad flag). I have also explained that the videos of the moon landing were upscaled/remastered when they asked why the video quality of the clips were so good.

Currently, their main argument is the fact that the U.S. were able to do the moon landing in the mid 20th century while are experiencing delays for the current moon mission. They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon. They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.

I have argued that NASA's budget is a fraction of what is used to be, and that the addition of new modern technologies introduces additional parts that could break and thus need to be tested. I have also mentioned that the Soviet Union would immediately call out the US if they faked the moon landing, and that samples of moon rocks were sent to Soviet scientists to study and verify. They insist that the Soviets were scared of what the US would do if they spoke out against a fake moon landing, which I didn't agree with (given they were both nuclear superpowers)

They then argued that it's impossible to tell whether the moon rocks are actually from the moon landing, they could be samples collected by rovers. I responded that no rovers had successfully collected moon rocks at the time, and then they switched to arguing that it's impossible to verify the rocks are from the moon. I followed up by saying there are methods of doing that (through the composition of the rocks and such). They then asked how anybody knows what moon rocks look like if nobody else has been to the moon, and I got kind of stumped. I tried to explain that there are models to how the moon formed, how we know the rocks aren't from Earth, satellites that map out the surface, etc., but they reiterated that no one can "prove" that they were from the moon without going there in the first place.

One interesting thing they also mentioned is that, if the US really did do a moon landing, why the Soviets (during cold war era) or Chinese (in modern era) didn't do what they do best and copied their designs to land on the moon. Given that the US and China are having a new space race with the goal of being the first to establish a lunar base, they argue that China could just copy the Apollo program designs if the US really did do a moon landing.

To summarise, their main points/questions right now are: a) Explain why the US hasn't gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn't given them a good impression...) b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like? c) Why aren't the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)

And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn't faked?

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 5 points 26 minutes ago

The real conspiracy is that the moon landing was just a way to get the public to be enthusiastic about devolping weapon systems.

[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 hour ago

Don't bother arguing with stupid. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 5 minutes ago

That’s no moon.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 25 points 1 hour ago

If it were faked, the Soviets would have had a field day. They didn't. If all the other facts didn't work, I find that most convincing. The nemesis had to accept it begrudgingly.

Between the 70s and today, the motivations for moon landings have changed. Back then: fuck the commies, we go first, and science. Turns out the moon isn't that interesting to continue sending people there. Rocks and dust, yawn. Not worth the ROI. The reason why there is renewed interest now is because people think realistically they can build a base on the moon. That was science fiction in 1969.

For your own mental health, give yourself a time frame and if they still think it's fake allow yourself to let it go. Chances are they don't want to be convinced and you have to let nature take its course and hope the seed of doubt you have planted comes to life and blossoms.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 8 minutes ago

Stop trying to argue to convince them. Ask them “Why?”

Why would the moon landing be faked? What’s to gain from it? (Correct answer, nothing, and everything to be lost when someone leaks).

There’s answers to all of their questions, but I guarantee they can’t give an answer to Why?

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 36 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

You cannot argue with stupid, dont bother.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 2 points 30 minutes ago

Even better, one up them. “You think the Moon is real?!?”

[–] jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 hour ago

This'd be my answer. A friend (former at this point) of mine fell down a conspiracist rabbit hole, and at one point started insisting the moon landings were faked. Now, I happen to know a lot (or more than most, anyhow) about the Apollo program, and absolutely nothing I could say helped. Either they pivoted to some new bullshit argument they'd heard on some YouTube video, or just dismissed things as lies when convenient.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 1 points 17 minutes ago
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago

Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?

The Apollo program took 4.5% of the US budget. NASA’s entire budget now—including space telescopes, earth satellites, and interplanetary probes—is less than half of one percent.

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

theres retroreflectors on the moon that were intentionally. imstalled so that precise aiming of a laser would signify someone installed it on the moon if you saw the reflection back

theyre used to measure the moon earth distance but the fact that installation is there in that time period shows man was on the moon

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Okay that is actually kind of cool. I never knew this was done! I am anticipating that they would ask whether they were placed by humans or rovers/landers/non-human methods, so was it possible (at the time) to put these retroreflectors on the moon without human intervention? I'm assuming, like the collection of moon rocks, it was not (otherwise why would they bother with having humans doing it with all that human error?)

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 1 hour ago

To be fair (basically the only time I'll say that in reference to Moon landing deniers) there are also retroreflectors like those mounted on some of the unmanned landers and rovers that have been sent to the Moon as well. So this alone isn't going to "convince" him. It does indicate that the Americans were able to launch something to the Moon and land it at the same time that the Apollo missions were underway, so if you were dealing with a rational person who could be convinced by reason this would still count for something.

Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going on here.

[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 hour ago

Why do you give a shit about an idiots beliefs?

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

Here are images of the moon's surface where you can make out details like rover tracks.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10818

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 12 points 1 hour ago

You cannot successfully argue with a pigeon.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 2 points 55 minutes ago

As others have said, you can't change irrational beliefs with facts. This fact will become obvious if you change tacks and start asking this person pointed questions that highlight the contradictions in their belief.

If you do it well, they get enraged by their inability to come up with good answers, and abruptly stop talking to you about it (or stop talking to you at all).

(Also, you can often tell if their belief is rational by whether they ask you sincere questions seeking to understand why you think it's real, in case they're wrong.)

[–] strocker89@feddit.online 2 points 56 minutes ago

You cannot prove a negative. For example, if I say "prove that you are not a murderer" there is nothing you could possibly do to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have never murdered anyone. This is why you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on someone who claims it was a fraud, not the other way around.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

Wait, y'all believe in the moon?

[–] jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I don't even believe in y'all

[–] ChaosMonkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

I don't even believe in myself.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

Not only do some conspiracy theorists not believe in the Moon, there are so many of them that there's a variety of these beliefs.

  • Lunar Hologram Theory: The most popular term. It suggests the Moon is a projection onto the "firmament" or a cloaking device used by advanced civilizations or governments.
  • The Hollow Moon / Spaceship Moon: While these versions allow for a physical object, they argue the Moon is an artificial structure (essentially a giant satellite or base) rather than a natural celestial body.
  • Plasma Moon: A subset of the Flat Earth community often argues the Moon is a localized "cold light" or a plasma phenomenon, rather than a solid mass reflecting the Sun.

So yeah. Poe's Law, there's nothing so dumb that you won't find someone actually believing it.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

a) Explain why the US hasn't gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?

Going to the moon is expensive and has essentially no direct revenue. There are no resources to be had on the moon that provide worthwhile efficiency over what we already have on earth, and most of the basic science was done by the Apollo missions.

How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like?

Getting moon rocks, which have a unique microscopic texture due to no water erosion, was one of those "basic science" bits I mentioned before. They don't really prove the moon landing except that "they're from the moon" is the simplest answer for why these rocks have that unique texture.

Why aren't the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)

Because thre 1960s were fifty years ago.

The industrial base to build an Apollo rocket isn't there anymore than the industrial base to build a 1965 Buick skylark or an Atati 2600. You could throw money and rebuild all those factories, but it'd dramatically balloon the cost even before you start to recon with correcting the inevitable mismatch between the original spec and what your rebuilt factory can make.

(And even if we did just rebuild Apollo, we'd wind up with a rocket that didn't have the advantage of 50 years of advancement.)

[–] YetAnotherNerd@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 hour ago

The Russians admitted it.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 4 points 2 hours ago

Arguing with a fool is like wrestling a pig - all that happens is you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

It sounds like you'd literally have to take your friend to the moon in order for them to believe anything, but there are reflective sensors (I don't know exactly what they are called or what they do) that scientists shoot lasers at for science.

Maybe you can find a video that explains them and shows a scientist interacting with them? Although, I suspect they'd just claim that was all faked too.

[–] phr@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago

they do not provide proof. why should you? he could as well argue my bookshelf didn't exist, since none of you have seen it yourself. but is this a discussion worth having?

also: the underlying idea, that modern tech could do better whatever a human has done without it, is just naïve. we do not build much rounded shapes in windows and stuff anymore bc our machines work best and most efficient for straight cuts if we want to make use of their power we have to build a certain way.