Can the conspiracy theory about the moon landing be used to refute the moon mission claims

So what about the consequence it gave with respect to the moon landing now when Prabhupada made the statement man did not go to the moon now even some devotees found it difficult to digest and then there were other devotees who tried to find out some empirical supports to accept it themselves and to convey it to us now another thing that happened at that time was the devotees who came to Prabhupada's home at that time they were, most of them were widows and their idea was you know, like one devotee well known brahmin who wants to join a religion we did not join a religion we joined a revolution Prabhupada was going to revolutionize the world we joined a revolution now what is the nature of revolution is you know just prove revolutionaries you know this this industrial complex that is the symbol of the exploitation of society so now put a bomb, boom explode it so the whole mood of revolutionaries is destroy, destroy, destroy destroy but then when you want to construct then revolutionaries say how do I construct you can't do that so there are politicians who protest protest, protest and they say this is wrong, this is wrong this is wrong and then they are in a perpetual protesting mood and if they get elected also after electing also they keep protesting now we are in power now we have to do something you cannot keep protesting now so what happened is at that time the devotees when Prabhupada would make some confrontational statements you know they would just in one sense delight in propagating those statements you know Prabhupada said man did not go to the moon but if you see Prabhupada made very different kind of statements that was not the only statement Prabhupada said man did not go to the moon there are many different for example if you see in the introduction of the Bhagavad Gita Prabhupada says that man has endeavoured enormously to rise to the moon but man has not endeavoured to raise one's consciousness to higher level and that raising one's consciousness can be done in the Bhagavad Gita and that is much more comfortable so here Prabhupada is not saying that man has not gone to the moon so at that time Prabhupada says ok even if they have gone to the moon what are they going to do? what are they going to do? after going to the moon they are going to eat, sleep, wait and be fed are they going to do anything special over there? no so it was not that Prabhupada made an absolute statement about man he made a variety of statements yes they may have gone, may not have gone and devotees often picked up the confrontational statement and portrayed it as much bigger than what it is now there was a constancy theory at that time for the Apollo landings but afterwards there were many landings and there were not many constancy theories about that so if we keep doubting the old constancy theories for one set of moon landings and we try to use that to disprove all the moon landings we are not on any sound logical or empirical grounds and in general when we try to portray science and scripture as at war we end up devaluing scripture because scripture is primarily a source of transcendental knowledge scripture can give us scientific knowledge but that is not the primary purpose of scripture so the constancy theory at that time still gave some evidences of how there were some photographs or they did not have technology to go beyond the earth's atmosphere and things like that there were documentaries which were made and at the level of empirical and logical things, those documentaries also have their counter arguments and this goes on but the thing is that afterwards there were many other attempts and now for us to try to prove that all attempts have been wrong or all attempts are false based on constancy theories about very old moon landing attempts they would sound persuasive therefore that's why I give the three possibilities that I have Prabhupada's course also on all these three statements and Siddhartha Prabhupada is a scientific disciple PhD from Cornell University of Mathematics and he wrote a book called Vedic Cosmography very good book for those of you who find Vedic Cosmography quite complex and very difficult to digest the point is you don't have to digest it because our purpose is not primarily to study Cosmography we don't come to Bhagavatam to study Cosmography we come to Bhagavatam to learn about Lord Krishna but if that is a problem to you in developing faith then you get to understand how Vedic Cosmography can be reconciled with modern Cosmography that for that Vedic Cosmography is a very good book so there in he gives actually Prabhupada's course even if they go to the moon they have no access to the moon or they may not want to go to the moon or they just went somewhere else or they may not go out of the earth so in general conspiracy theorists are considered sensationalists and among thoughtful people they are not taken very seriously so what happens is if we it's like this table is there and the table has a frame on which I keep things and it has legs below it now if I break the legs the table will fall see our primary point is to give scriptural knowledge to people now to give scriptural knowledge if we start using empirical knowledge or to help people developing scriptural knowledge if we start using empirical knowledge that is not very sound that is highly questionable even in empirical circles then what happens is we are putting our table on one very big glass and today I tell about this conspiracy theory and somebody goes so you say moon conspiracy we get this, we get this moon conspiracy debunk and then moon conspiracy debunk we just go on like that so we don't have to base our presentation of scripture on empirically questionable especially empirically weak arguments when he wrote his book archaeology it's a book which is an empirical evidence to problematize theory of evolution but he told me that he does not use any research of the fossils and other things which is not published in scientific journals so that means all the fossil evidences which contribute to theory of evolution they have been published in scientific journals but they haven't sanctified so it's not that somebody xyz somewhere in some part of the world finds a fossil and claims that this is a very old fossil no, there is a serious approach we did the research and at that time it was taken seriously and published in an established journal so we take that kind of evidence so when we take empirical evidence to support some of our scriptural theories now we don't use empirical evidence to prove scripture scripture is the truth of scripture cannot be proved empirically the truth of scripture is of higher nature but we can help people get to the scripture through some empirical evidence but we have to be careful in choosing what sources we use some devotees may use that and if they feel confident about that, that is fine but constructive theories which were made last year have become outdated so constructive theories which were made 50 years ago about a new mission that was 50 years ago what credibility will they have for encouraging people to believe so it's debatable I prefer not to use the constructive theory hypothesis and there is a significant body of devotees also, at least intellectually oriented devotees who would hesitate to use constructive theories the focus is on understanding that the scriptures are talking things from a different scale of perception and understanding how the possibility of a higher scale of perception is not just some fantasy not just some imagination there is a very serious intellectually respectable explanation of a higher scale of perception and that higher scale of perception can seem to moderate our current scale of perception and still both scales of perception can exist that's the kind of explanation which will work in today's intellectual circles.