Moon landings happened to convince you they were faked...

[Dr.Acula]

I have a feeling of deja vu with this joke. I do believe that CTs have no sense of humour though, and they really can't deal with the self depreciation and general jokes we make out of their accusations. When I spent time chopping down bamboo in the wilds of YT a long time ago, ka9q made a similar observation. No matter how vile they became we usually poked fun back - but then it all got a bit out of hand.

I remember a conversation on a YT channel with one of IDW's socks. He accused me to use keyloggers. There was an Australian guy (krisdevalle). We made several jokes of being paid by NASA/CIA/NSA/KGB/whatever and were writing about the new cars for our observations, our new suits and sunglasses and all the other stereotype things for agents.

And guess what, IDW wasn't able to realize the obvious jokes we made. He responded to another HB and told him, that we had outed ourselves as government agents (he used other words, I don't remember them).

[raven]

Shills? Disinformation agents?
Honestly, the OP's quote is fundamentally a slightly new variation on "That's what They want you to think, man!"

[onebigmonkey]

I once offered the keys to my house (I even posted a picture of it) to anyone who could prove I was on NASA's payroll. I had no takers.

The shill argument is just lazy, and more to the point inaccurate. To be a 'shill' (in my mind) implies I am pretending that I am something I'm not - I've never pretended to be anything but opposed to what the HB community believe in. It's the same knee-jerk contrarianism that bleats 'false flag' at the drop of a hat.

Th shill chant has the same invalidity as the constant posting of Werner von Braun's Nazi connections as some sort of argument against Apollo: even if I was on NASA's payroll, collecting cash on a pay-per-post basis to drown out the idiots, it does not invalidate the science and engineering behind Apollo. It's another game of arguing about the metadata, not the data.

I have also pointed out many times that WVB was actually pretty good at rocket science, ask anyone who was alive in the Blitz.

[sts60]

I actually work with NASA personnel who are paid to say things over the Internet.  The dirty secret... is that it's all mundane stuff about launch this, and mission assurance that, and those kids sponsored in a robotics competition, and workforce diversity and spinoff technology and planetary science and the anniversary of Mercury x or Apollo y or Pioneer z, and so on...  oddly enough, not one of them spends any time talking about Adrian or IDW or what's-his-name from Australia. But in the conspiracists' heads there's this giant 24x7x365 program to suppress them.

[smartcooky]

I have also pointed out many times that WVB was actually pretty good at rocket science, ask anyone who was alive in the Blitz.

While I completely understand what you are implying here and agree with it, I would just offer this correction.

"The Blitz" is universally recognized as a period of 267 days, beginning on 7 September 1940 and ending 21 May 1941. They were air raids in which more than 30,000 tons of high explosive bombs were dropped from a variety of German aircraft (He111, Ju88, Ju87, Do17 and Do217)  in 127 bombing raids across 16 cities.

The V1 and V2 bombs were not used on London until 1944; the V1 was first on June 13, and the last in mid-October when the last launcher within range of London was overrun by invasion troops. The first V2 to strike London was on September 8, 1944 and the last was 27th March 1945. They stopped because the advancing allied troops caused the  launchers to be pulled back too deep into Germany to keep London in range.

[onebigmonkey]

I have also pointed out many times that WVB was actually pretty good at rocket science, ask anyone who was alive in the Blitz.

While I completely understand what you are implying here and agree with it, I would just offer this correction.

"The Blitz" is universally recognized as a period of 267 days, beginning on 7 September 1940 and ending 21 May 1941. They were air raids in which more than 30,000 tons of high explosive bombs were dropped from a variety of German aircraft (He111, Ju88, Ju87, Do17 and Do217)  in 127 bombing raids across 16 cities.

The V1 and V2 bombs were not used on London until 1944; the V1 was first on June 13, and the last in mid-October when the last launcher within range of London was overrun by invasion troops. The first V2 to strike London was on September 8, 1944 and the last was 27th March 1945. They stopped because the advancing allied troops caused the  launchers to be pulled back too deep into Germany to keep London in range.

Point taken

[ka9q]

The shill argument is just lazy, and more to the point inaccurate.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. A "shill" is supposed to be a confederate of someone selling a product who masquerades as an (enthusiastic) member of the audience to excite the rest of them into buying.

But we're discussing facts, and a fact is still a fact even if it's spoken by only one person, and a falsehood is still a falsehood even if it's spoken by a thousand.

[gwiz]

The V1 and V2 bombs were not used on London until 1944; the V1 was first on June 13, and the last in mid-October when the last launcher within range of London was overrun by invasion troops. The first V2 to strike London was on September 8, 1944 and the last was 27th March 1945. They stopped because the advancing allied troops caused the  launchers to be pulled back too deep into Germany to keep London in range.

I missed the Blitz, but I was a baby during the V1/V2 bombardment.  The house diagonally opposite on our  crossroads and another at the bottom of our garden were both destroyed by V1s.

[Luke Pemberton]

I actually work with NASA personnel who are paid to say things over the Internet.  The dirty secret... is that it's all mundane stuff about launch this, and mission assurance that, and those kids sponsored in a robotics competition, and workforce diversity and spinoff technology and planetary science and the anniversary of Mercury x or Apollo y or Pioneer z, and so on...  oddly enough, not one of them spends any time talking about Adrian or IDW or what's-his-name from Australia. But in the conspiracists' heads there's this giant 24x7x365 program to suppress them.

I guess you are in part referring to NASA's educational oureach program. NASA has produced wonderful resources and a knowledge base for the world, and talking as a UK citizen I am thankful for all their good work, whether it be high level science or outreach and the popularisation of science for younger people. Having been involved in outreach myself, children are massively engaged by space, and their imaginations run into amazing places. Sadly the UK science curriculum is dull. I wish there was a greater amount of space science and astroscience in the science we teach.

People like what's-his-name from Australia can posture all they like about their study in astrophysics and geology, but as far as I am concerned if they haven't got the grace to accept their arguments are tired and have been debunked a long time ago,  then they really are missing out on the wonders that NASA has given the world. All because they can't see past their over inflated egos. More fool them.

I recall that WHNFA once described the HTS as NASA's expensive toy. For someone that is emotive about his interest in space science from an early age, it shows a remarkably partisan attitude towards NASA because he believes NASA faked the moon landing. That is what saddens me most about the whole Apollo hoax position; it's not really about Apollo, it is about NASA. I feel the anti-NASA sentiment is either borne from jealousy that these people will never be good enough to work for NASA or are are anti-US. It's probably a little bit of both if the truth be known.

[gillianren]

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. A "shill" is supposed to be a confederate of someone selling a product who masquerades as an (enthusiastic) member of the audience to excite the rest of them into buying.

Several people I know refer to ourselves as shilling for my ren faire boss, in that we'll tell people about his quality merchandise at the drop of a hat--and sometimes, we'll drop the hat ourselves.  But it's worth noting that I wouldn't even do that if I didn't believe it actually is quality merchandise.

[Glom]

The shill argument is just lazy, and more to the point inaccurate.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. A "shill" is supposed to be a confederate of someone selling a product who masquerades as an (enthusiastic) member of the audience to excite the rest of them into buying.

But we're discussing facts, and a fact is still a fact even if it's spoken by only one person, and a falsehood is still a falsehood even if it's spoken by a thousand.

Careful now. You've just given them a rhetorical straw to keep grabbing at.

[ka9q]

Careful now. You've just given them a rhetorical straw to keep grabbing at.

They already do. We do have self-comparisons to Galileo as one of our bingo card squares, right?

[tarkus]

o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?

Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?

We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.

[frenat]

o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?

No.  They were asked if they remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare, not if they saw stars in general.  The asker of the question was referring to a specific experiment done.  As for being guided by stars, they even mentioned in their answer about looking through the optics (I don't remember the exact phrasing).

[Peter B]

o know that the moon landings were false enough to contrast the statements of astronauts with NASA space agency itself, so when Armstrong denies having seen stars during its journey through space, when Collins supports this statement with your own dose of amnesia, one wonders why NASA said the astronauts were guided by the stars ...
No? Yes?

The astronauts said they saw stars clearly when they were in the shadow of the Moon.

Anyone who gets on a car and drive along the road to a place far enough away from a big city on a clear, clear, moonless night, will be ecstatic at the spectacle ... I can understand that an inhabitant of New York refuses to see the stars, but an astronaut, with the invaluable advantages enjoyed by the lack of atmosphere it says not see the stars? really?

Yes, on a moonless night you can see a lot of stars. But when the astronauts travelled to the Moon it was not night time. Also, they were inside a spacecraft with the lights on so they could see what they were doing. If you are inside a lit room at night time and look out the window you will not see many stars.

We believe that the astro-nots a laser reflectors were left without a camera pointing at Earth? since the days of Apollo Moon still without an installed camera and transmitted to Earth, is there anything in this a question of cost? Please organize a collection for the poor so NASA can buy a camera because they miss TV transmissions of the fantastic (fantasy) Apollo times.

What is the benefit of a camera on the Moon looking at the Earth? The Apollo astronauts took some photos of the Earth from the Moon, and there is some video footage of the Earth taken by the TV camera on the rovers of Apollos 15, 16 and 17. But the main purpose of TV and photo cameras on the Moon was to take images of things on the Moon.