> There isn't conclusive evidence of an absence of launch, ...
A launch is detectable seismically, visually, on radar, etc. There's a lot of investment in being able to detect launches (to detect the launch of nuclear weapons). It would be screamingly obvious if the launch was fake. It would absolutely be conclusive if there were no seismic activity, no radar return, they couldn't detect the spacecraft presently, etc. At least for a definition of "conclusive" that can be operationalized - conclusiveness is a judgement call about when evidence is sufficient and not reaching some theoretical 100% certainty. Which can't possibly be reached for any claim for the reason you outlined; you can always invent some negative counterclaim that can't be entirely dismissed, even for claims like "the sky is blue".
It's also pretty easy to find people who were physically there to witness the launch. This wasn't a secret bunker or a barge in the middle of the ocean. It was in Florida in the late afternoon.
> ...it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from American enemies to discredit them.
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have access to this data. Astronomers, geologists, petroleum engineers, backyard amateurs. The conspirators could muddy the waters but they couldn't ultimately prevail. It is many orders of magnitude easier to go to the moon than to convincingly fake it.
I don't have anything to say to your argument, not because I don't think it's worth addressing, but because it doesn't address my argument, and because I find this statement more interesting:
> People are easily convinced by lies, as you have demonstrated just now.
You can't have known this but there was a time in my life I was very open to these theories and eventually came to the conclusion they didn't comport with the evidence. You seem to be assuming my position is reflexive rather than considered.
Cynicism, contrarianism, the assumption opposing positions are unconsidered - that is not what "free thinking" looks like. That's just being dependent on the "mainstream narrative" in reverse. If you can't imagine someone examining the evidence and coming to a different conclusion than you, you are engaging in the dogmatism you criticize.
It also does not make you less gullible. Cynicism is the dual of naivete. Both are equally exploitable. Cynicism can feel rational and rigorous because it has a hard edge to it, and because it feels like legitimate skepticism. But that's merely aesthetic. People can and do pull the wool over cynical eyes by tailoring lies to that aesthetic; instead of saying, "experts say X is true, and you can trust them" they say "experts say X is false, and you can't trust them" and the outcome is the same.
Propaganda and lies are real, you aren't wrong to protect yourself from them, but I genuinely think this mechanism does not.
> I don't have anything to say to your argument, not because I don't think it's worth addressing,
...but simply because you have no argument. Just a lot of vague handwaving that amounts to nothing and seems designed to fill the air full of noise more than anything. No statement you have just uttered is of use to anyone.
> You can't have known this but there was a time in my life I was very open to these theories and eventually came to the conclusion they didn't comport with the evidence.
So you watched the multiple videos of the US flag waving in the breeze on the moon and learned nothing?
You saw the flat, unblemished surface of the moon right beneath the lander's giant rocket engine, which had just shut off moments before leaving no trace of any disturbance--not a speck of dust disturbed--and learned nothing?
You watched the Apollo 11 press conference where, far from acting like returning heroes fresh from walking on the moon, they seemed somber and ashamed?
You saw the 'rock' with the letter "C" written on it? The converging shadows? All the other discrepancies? The seams where photos were joined together to make a fake? You studied all the obvious lies being told about "space is cold", "you can't see stars up there", "a thin plate of aluminum is plenty of radiation shielding", etc, and learned nothing?
You saw the pictures of all the supposed Challenger astronauts who are still alive to this day, one of whom (Judith Resnik) is even still living under her real name, teaching law at the University of Minnesota? And you learned nothing.
It seems your "studies" didn't help you much.
Really, the evidence is so clear and obvious that to make a post as you have just written weighs the odds heavily in favor of you being a disinformation agent.
I'm not going to address your arguments if you're not going to address mine; that's me working overtime while you simply handwave with skepticism. I certainly do have points to make, but if you're not going to explain why Russia and China are carrying water for the USA, even through the collapse of the USSR, no, I am not going to respond to your points.
Yes, I studied the evidence and came to a conclusion. You've come to a different conclusion. That's not because you're smarter or less gullible. It seems to it's because you are cynical and, to be frank, over indexing on dubious evidence. If you're scrutinizing people's facial expressions to determine whether a gigantic physical event has taken place, you've taken a be wrong turn. Facial expressions are about the lowest quality evidence I can imagine to answer a question about spaceflight. It's way too far removed and there are way too many alternative explanations.
You're complaining that people dismiss you without taking you seriously while being completely unserious. You cannot preach against dogma while literally calling those who disagree with you cultists and paid agitators. You cannot complain that people refuse to engage with your arguments when you refuse to engage with theirs. (You didn't express these complaints to me but I see them in your other comments.)
Or rather, you can, but it seems like being closer to the truth is an important value to you. And if that's the case I think you are doing yourself a great disservice.
But I've enjoyed our conversation and I wish you well.
> How to talk to a science cultist: you can't, as your post will be immediately flagged and censored.
This was the comment I was referring to, as well as a vibe/through line in the rest of your comments. If I misinterpreted you I apologize.
Regarding your flagged comment, I am a human being for whatever that's worth. I don't really know what to tell you about your world view other than that it's deeply mistaken and seems to be informed more by paranoia than evidence.
Entertain for me the idea that you are mistaken. If you have built a worldview that interprets disconfirming evidence as a further layer of conspiracy and people who disagree as professional propogandists - how would you ever change your mind?
Any belief which functions as a ratchet and gets tighter and tighter without any mechanism to change your mind will eventually strangle your ability to understand the world.
A launch is detectable seismically, visually, on radar, etc. There's a lot of investment in being able to detect launches (to detect the launch of nuclear weapons). It would be screamingly obvious if the launch was fake. It would absolutely be conclusive if there were no seismic activity, no radar return, they couldn't detect the spacecraft presently, etc. At least for a definition of "conclusive" that can be operationalized - conclusiveness is a judgement call about when evidence is sufficient and not reaching some theoretical 100% certainty. Which can't possibly be reached for any claim for the reason you outlined; you can always invent some negative counterclaim that can't be entirely dismissed, even for claims like "the sky is blue".
It's also pretty easy to find people who were physically there to witness the launch. This wasn't a secret bunker or a barge in the middle of the ocean. It was in Florida in the late afternoon.
> ...it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from American enemies to discredit them.
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have access to this data. Astronomers, geologists, petroleum engineers, backyard amateurs. The conspirators could muddy the waters but they couldn't ultimately prevail. It is many orders of magnitude easier to go to the moon than to convincingly fake it.