USA Basketball Player Stephen Curry (Golden State, California) doesn't think that USA Astronauts ever landed on Earth's Moon

The Great Lament wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Maybe nobody thought your ignorance of "Iraq's WMD's" was their problem.

I'm the last one to sow discord among friends here, but that's a horrible, even laughable example.

appeal to ridicule fallacy

While a solid example of government propaganda, a lot of people knew it real time that the WMD thing was bullshit and that it was simply a pretext for going to war.

Nobody listened to them. It was generally accepted that the WMD's existed. Perhaps 5% of the people realized the truth.

And you're comparing something that was obviously bullshit and revealed as such in short order with a historical event that has survived the scrutiny of a million bellowing idiots spanning many generations across 50 years.

Straw man. I was making no comparisons, only providing an example of a disproven government hoax. They spent years "looking" for the Iraq WMD's, with some claiming they were sent to Syria, where the hoax survives today in the form of "Assad gassing his people," which again a small minority of millions of people know is false.

For another contemporary example, how about this: Russia hacked the DNC's servers, stole John Podesta's emails and got Trump elected. This is treated as established fact by the government and most westerners, despite having been debunked right from the start.

The premise that the government can't make people believe lies when the truth is readily available is demonstrably false.

the wealth of irrefutable evidence-based arguments supporting the factuality of the landings.

Funny, this thread hasn't managed one such argument. I guess the ambient wealth is in Enron options.

All it keeps pointing to is: moon rocks/soil (also obtained by unmanned Soviet missions), retroreflectors (also placed by unmanned Soviet missions), photos (also taken by unmanned Soviet missions), and other irrelevant sideshows (eg some guy in Kentucky tapped in to NASA transmissions perhaps from the moon, but obviously can't prove they weren't relayed and/or taped).

Maybe learning the meaning of the word "evidence" is still in order for the anti-hoax believers.

Not to derail this awesome fact-filled thread, but ... - "mindweak" has repeatedly proven to be an unreliable source regarding what I think about EPO

Sand Dunes wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

and kyrie thinks the world is flat.....and rek doesnt think EPO works....funny world we live in

First person is correct and rek is wrong on EPO.

m!ndweak wrote:

and kyrie thinks the world is flat.....and rek doesnt think EPO works....funny world we live in

Talk about a level 12 stalker.

Back on track -- I'm on the side of:

1) not enough evidence to support a "moon hoax" hypothesis, and

2) a globe earth, as hypothesized and estimated more than 2000 years ago in ancient Greece, with observations of sticks and shadows, and observations of constellations, and refined estimates 1000 years ago by mountain top experiments from Islamic astronomers, 600 years before Galileo, and 900 years before NASA.

The physics of going to the moon is well-understood and within our means. I'm not sure the logistics of such a grand conspiracy of faking a moon landing is. Yes, it would be a grand conspiracy given the number of people supposedly directly involved.

Also, almost every piece of evidence that is suppose to be evidence in support of the fake moon landing hypothesis turns out to be just as much bunk as the hypothesis itself.

I'm curious to know what counts as "research". I guess you don't mean that you conducted experiments and peer-reviewed papers. Do you have links to the source of original research? Keep in mind the high standard demanded by the "it's a hoax" group -- Wikipedia doesn't count, because it can be edited by anyone (something intended to promote posts that can withstand peer-review, and consensus). I assume YouTube counts even less, as it can only be edited by the contributor (no peer-review, no consensus). Lengthy, but non-peer reviewed blogs, with single editors, like Moon-Doggie, and posts by Pablo Novi don't meet this high bar either. These debates go on forever, because the "two sides" don't play the same game by the same rules. It looks like a unorthodox pseudo-scientific game as each argument somehow plays out like this: Allegation: There are no photos Response: Really? After 5 minutes of "research", here are a bunch from NASA (with links) A: There are no hi-res photos R: What about these photos (with links) A: There are no color photos R: What about these photos (with links) A: There are no photos of stars from the moon R: What about these photos (with links) A: But I don't trust NASA because the government always lies R: OK -- what about these third party verifications? A: Ha Ha, Wikipedia. Not proof of man. Not peer reviewed. R: Here's a boot-print. A: We sent a boot up there and a robot did it, while another robot filmed it. All part of the hoax. R: Ok, whatever. Is the "hoax" hypothesis peer-reviewed? A: Yes -- we are the peers of Moon-doggie, and YouTube scientists. Do our research. Regarding examples of lost technology and regression, the ancient pyramids come to mind. Not only Egypt, but ancient pyramids were routinely constructed around the world, in South America, in Africa, in Greece, in China, etc. Could any government or company construct a pyramid today, with "bricks" weighing as much as 25 to 80 tonnes, using the same technology that was used in 2500 BC? Science itself regressed for hundreds of years, as the leaders in math and science and astronomy, around the turn of the first millenium, were Islamic, before religion became a strong cultural influence, and science became subservient to religion. 1000 years later and Islam still hasn't fully recovered its former place in the echelons of science. Science itself only recovered some 600 years later, during the Age of Enlightenment, when European scientists started independently rediscovering what had been known and lost. To some degree, the replacement of science with religion continues to be a constant struggle -- for example recent modern "debates" in school education regarding evolution versus creationism.

Could any government or company construct a pyramid today, with "bricks" weighing as much as 25 to 80 tonnes, using the same technology that was used in 2500 BC?

Bad Wigins will tell you the exact fallacy name, but NO ONE is claiming that NASA should go "back" to Earth's Moon with 1969 technology. So your comparison is futile.

Bumped for anyone still believing that Man could leave the Earth's magnetosphere, and into Space.

Livermore scientists conducting actual experiments using instruments in Space to record magnitudes of radiation.

Concluded that at least 6 inches of lead required to protect astronauts from 99% of particle radiation.

Remaining 1% of radiation corresponds to 73,000% of the safe maximum an adult human being can absorb.

Effects of Cosmic wave radiation and Solar Wind charged particles are extremely hazardous to life, and weren't even added.

Conclusion: No astronauts could have traveled beyond near-Earth orbit. Note that the recent ESA-Cluster mission which contains onboard experimental apparatus for measuring radiation around the magnetosphere, endorses the Livermore findings.

The claim under ridicule is that we lost the technology to send men to the moon. In a similar way, we "lost" the technology that the ancient societies used to build the pyramids. Someone posted an article a couple pages back, explaining how much of the expertise during the development of Saturn V rockets, may still be in the brains of the scientists long retired or passed away, so some of these challenges they solved, will need to be re-solved again. This kind of loss of knowledge is common challenge in larger companies, as they slowly lose the knowledge and expertise of employees that leave, not to mention the difficulty of recovering data in old archives, which might be on punch cards, microfiche, reel to reel tapes, etc., or simply destroyed to regain space. I have some old stuff on 1980s technology 5.25" soft-floppy disks for an Apple II computer written in Pascal, and on a cassette, written in Basic, with some unique one-off solutions -- could I ever recover these programs, from the magnetic media, or would I have to re-invent the wheel? Could another developer? In some cases I have a hard copy printout, but for the rest, I'm afraid these solutions will go with me to the grave, barring some great expenses to resurrect the Apple II, with a floppy drive reader and cassette recorder. But if you don't like the question, then, think about what would it take to send men back to the moon with today's technology. There are many "one-shot" solutions that worked for the old analog rocket, that would have to be redone, based on new materials, and a completely different context. The Ariane 5 rocket is a good example of what happens when you apply an Ariane 4 solution in a different context -- the first launches had to self-destruct due to an integer overflow.

Noah Inc (ark building tech) wrote:

Could any government or company construct a pyramid today, with "bricks" weighing as much as 25 to 80 tonnes, using the same technology that was used in 2500 BC?

Bad Wigins will tell you the exact fallacy name, but NO ONE is claiming that NASA should go "back" to Earth's Moon with 1969 technology. So your comparison is futile.

Is that NASA government research? I thought NASA and the government always lied. Should we change that idea -- they do tell the truth sometimes? Have we learned anything more about the Van Allen belts since 1959? Didn't we just see a few pages back that the radiation was over-estimated, and that NASA picked a flight path to minimize radiation anyway, and that NASA actually measured the radiation during moon visits, recording much lower levels of exposure to the astronauts? Conclusion: Leave the conclusions to rocket scientists.

Take me to the moron wrote:

Bumped for anyone still believing that Man could leave the Earth's magnetosphere, and into Space.

Livermore scientists conducting actual experiments using instruments in Space to record magnitudes of radiation.

Concluded that at least 6 inches of lead required to protect astronauts from 99% of particle radiation.

Remaining 1% of radiation corresponds to 73,000% of the safe maximum an adult human being can absorb.

Effects of Cosmic wave radiation and Solar Wind charged particles are extremely hazardous to life, and weren't even added.

Conclusion: No astronauts could have traveled beyond near-Earth orbit. Note that the recent ESA-Cluster mission which contains onboard experimental apparatus for measuring radiation around the magnetosphere, endorses the Livermore findings.

The sad thing is that half of the dipshits screaming that it's impossible to land people or even probes on the moon are using phones reliant on satellite technology to spread this idea around.

You're like dudes saying you don't believe in homosexuality or incest ("no one would ever do that!") while giving your dad a handjob.

Moon landing deniers are either really stupid, crazy, or just bored. And it is absolutely not a surprise to find loads of them on letsrun.

I Code to Yacht Rock wrote:

The sad thing is that half of the dipshits screaming that it's impossible to land people or even probes on the moon are using phones reliant on satellite technology to spread this idea around.

You're like dudes saying you don't believe in homosexuality or incest ("no one would ever do that!") while giving your dad a handjob.

Moon landing deniers are either really stupid, crazy, or just bored. And it is absolutely not a surprise to find loads of them on letsrun.

Are satellites landing on the moon these days?

Rocket scientists are actually engineers, and not experts in Space Plasma Physics. But they would know more than you, for sure.

Can we hear again why the former USSR, which was in a deep space race with the US, would choose to stay silent surrounding all this. We know USSR and US were up to date with each others' space activities and technologies and continued to spy into each other for years to come. Both sides here agree that USSR could not be easily fooled, if the landings didn't happen. I don't know if some here know today's Russia is very different from USSR of late 60s and 70s. I am trying to wrap my mind around what kind of incentive(s) would override USSR national pride after all the years and resources they had spent during this cold war era to go along with the US to what some call deception to the entire world. This also brings in politicians and diplomats to the NASA equation because I am assuming the negotiations would have been done and state level not at space agency level.

Because the Soviets are bullsh!itters, too. Besides, Russian scientific investigators often colloborate with Western institutions, all parties enjoying a seat on the gravy train.

Regarding that 1959 science TV show... Don't you think they learned a bit more in following years since the discovery of the Van Allen belts?

Also we know the following:

- Apollo flights were on a trajectory that avoided the inner belt, which is the much stronger field, and passed thru the outer belt relatively quickly.

- James Van Allen lived until 2006 and never said Apollo flights had to be faked. No one on his team of researchers ever said "hey wait that's impossible! That could not possibly have happened." No actual scientists involved in the research ever said that. Only anti-government conspiracy theorists loonies are saying that.

Science bro wrote:

Regarding that 1959 science TV show... Don't you think they learned a bit more in following years since the discovery of the Van Allen belts?

Also we know the following:

- Apollo flights were on a trajectory that avoided the inner belt, which is the much stronger field, and passed thru the outer belt relatively quickly.

- James Van Allen lived until 2006 and never said Apollo flights had to be faked. No one on his team of researchers ever said "hey wait that's impossible! That could not possibly have happened." No actual scientists involved in the research ever said that. Only anti-government conspiracy theorists loonies are saying that.

That was the scope of the European Space Agency's Cluster mission. It not only consolidated the earlier experiments on the radiation belts, but also quantified explicitly, Solar Wind radiation and the deadly and turbulent nature of the "Space Climate" in general.

classic....how lame to think they have to keep trying to fool us

m!ndweak wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4CF9-dQqs0

classic....how lame to think they have to keep trying to fool us

Ha! Ha!

Devon Island is a NASA testing center. No secret there. Wow! yeah, that guy has really cracked a big secret. What a moron!

Science bro wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4CF9-dQqs0

classic....how lame to think they have to keep trying to fool us

Ha! Ha!

Devon Island is a NASA testing center. No secret there. Wow! yeah, that guy has really cracked a big secret. What a moron!

Every facet of Mars exploration is 100% authentic. Even 25 years ago, it was considered viable e.g. the "Mars 94" mission.