For something you say definitively happened, you sure are having a difficult time proving it. 😂 You already had you pictures discredited. What’s next?
I don’t need to prove it. I have observed the evidence and determined the most likely explanation is that it happened. You have tried to poke small holes or inject doubts in little pieces here and there but it doesn’t affect the average of the evidence. There is too much independent (uncorrelated) data. I was kinda hoping this thread would have some new ideas from the deniers or direct evidence.
You doing the same thing. One piece of data doesn’t have the to entirely explanatory. Because we sent “stuff” to mars doesn’t prove we could send humans to the moon. It’s evidence for general technological capacity. One piece of the puzzle. You need to build a real model. Start trying to be a bit intellectual.
Post number 859 on this thread and this is what you call winning? Look at your first sentence. Might as well have an open mind and ask why cannot humans travel more than 400 miles from surface of the Earth.
For something you say definitively happened, you sure are having a difficult time proving it. 😂 You already had you pictures discredited. What’s next?
I don’t need to prove it. I have observed the evidence and determined the most likely explanation is that it happened. You have tried to poke small holes or inject doubts in little pieces here and there but it doesn’t affect the average of the evidence. There is too much independent (uncorrelated) data. I was kinda hoping this thread would have some new ideas from the deniers or direct evidence.
You doing the same thing. One piece of data doesn’t have the to entirely explanatory. Because we sent “stuff” to mars doesn’t prove we could send humans to the moon. It’s evidence for general technological capacity. One piece of the puzzle. You need to build a real model. Start trying to be a bit intellectual.
IOW: “2600bro cannot prove it.” 👍
Take your ball and go home. I do give you a 10 for your mental gymnastics. (The Romanian judge only gave you a 9.5 though.
Notice how the deniers will only focus on one argument at a time and just ignore anything that requires more - it’s the only way to maintain consistence
Good call. You guys do seem to do that quite often. Like ignoring the laws of physics.
Exactly! The NASA believers have no answer for the hammer sounds video which I posted a couple times nor have an answer as to why RF signals traveled faster than the speed of light. In both cases the laws of physics were broken.
It's pathetic to see how these NASA believers have to jump through soooo many hoops to defend an obvious hoax. The appeal to authority argument is not working.
I don’t need to prove it. I have observed the evidence and determined the most likely explanation is that it happened. You have tried to poke small holes or inject doubts in little pieces here and there but it doesn’t affect the average of the evidence. There is too much independent (uncorrelated) data. I was kinda hoping this thread would have some new ideas from the deniers or direct evidence.
You doing the same thing. One piece of data doesn’t have the to entirely explanatory. Because we sent “stuff” to mars doesn’t prove we could send humans to the moon. It’s evidence for general technological capacity. One piece of the puzzle. You need to build a real model. Start trying to be a bit intellectual.
Post number 859 on this thread and this is what you call winning? Look at your first sentence. Might as well have an open mind and ask why cannot humans travel more than 400 miles from surface of the Earth.
I have assessed the evidence for and against and find the “for” overwhelmingly compelling. If you don’t agree - that’s fine - I just think you’re stupid. No big deal. You expect there to be grand “proving” or “disproving” that’s never really how these things work - and you use it to your advantage. I’ve played these games before ;)
I don’t need to prove it. I have observed the evidence and determined the most likely explanation is that it happened. You have tried to poke small holes or inject doubts in little pieces here and there but it doesn’t affect the average of the evidence. There is too much independent (uncorrelated) data. I was kinda hoping this thread would have some new ideas from the deniers or direct evidence.
You doing the same thing. One piece of data doesn’t have the to entirely explanatory. Because we sent “stuff” to mars doesn’t prove we could send humans to the moon. It’s evidence for general technological capacity. One piece of the puzzle. You need to build a real model. Start trying to be a bit intellectual.
IOW: “2600bro cannot prove it.” 👍
Take your ball and go home. I do give you a 10 for your mental gymnastics. (The Romanian judge only gave you a 9.5 though.
Proof means different things to different people - as I’ve said. I have proved it sufficiently for my own confidence. I am not going home, just haven’t seen anything these that presents a unified “faker” theory, just disjointed attacks on individual data points, the sum of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor. If you disagree, I deeply question your epistemological framework but… it’s LetsRun. I deeply question everything here!
Good call. You guys do seem to do that quite often. Like ignoring the laws of physics.
Exactly! The NASA believers have no answer for the hammer sounds video which I posted a couple times nor have an answer as to why RF signals traveled faster than the speed of light. In both cases the laws of physics were broken.
It's pathetic to see how these NASA believers have to jump through soooo many hoops to defend an obvious hoax. The appeal to authority argument is not working.
Post number 859 on this thread and this is what you call winning? Look at your first sentence. Might as well have an open mind and ask why cannot humans travel more than 400 miles from surface of the Earth.
I have assessed the evidence for and against and find the “for” overwhelmingly compelling. If you don’t agree - that’s fine - I just think you’re stupid. No big deal. You expect there to be grand “proving” or “disproving” that’s never really how these things work - and you use it to your advantage. I’ve played these games before ;)
Have you lost such games as badly as this one?
”There’s so much proof that I can’t tell you all of it, so I’m not going to tell you any. (except that one thing about the moon photos that you guys quickly debunked). “
Take your ball and go home. I do give you a 10 for your mental gymnastics. (The Romanian judge only gave you a 9.5 though.
Proof means different things to different people - as I’ve said. I have proved it sufficiently for my own confidence. I am not going home, just haven’t seen anything these that presents a unified “faker” theory, just disjointed attacks on individual data points, the sum of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor. If you disagree, I deeply question your epistemological framework but… it’s LetsRun. I deeply question everything here!
It's not your fault the landings were faked. It's not your fault.
...It's not your fault.
You don't need to do this.
You should be just as pissed as we are that the government used hightech at the time to pull the wool over your eyes and effectively altered the reality of your life.
There's a cliff waiting for you.
As long as it's not a cliff on the moon, amirite? ;D
Post number 859 on this thread and this is what you call winning? Look at your first sentence. Might as well have an open mind and ask why cannot humans travel more than 400 miles from surface of the Earth.
I have assessed the evidence for and against and find the “for” overwhelmingly compelling. If you don’t agree - that’s fine - I just think you’re stupid. No big deal. You expect there to be grand “proving” or “disproving” that’s never really how these things work - and you use it to your advantage. I’ve played these games before ;)
Your proof is: "but, but, but I saw it on TV!" Bahahahahahaha
Pathetic.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
It's remarkable that people here think that 'proof' against the landings is equivalent to 'casting doubt on evidence.'
You'd think these deniers would have some sort of affirmative evidence that the landings were faked, rather than simply demanding more and more epistemologically perfect evidence of the landings.
Proof means different things to different people - as I’ve said. I have proved it sufficiently for my own confidence. I am not going home, just haven’t seen anything these that presents a unified “faker” theory, just disjointed attacks on individual data points, the sum of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor. If you disagree, I deeply question your epistemological framework but… it’s LetsRun. I deeply question everything here!
So you’ve seen it, but aren’t going to share? 😂
We've seen the same data, and reached different conclusions. I am deeply suspect of the methods you've used to reach your conclusions; but its clear you aren't here to change your mind (maybe I am not either!)... so...
In the 60s before we had circuitboards at scale and with nascent computing? Yes.
If sending a human is so easy, go ahead and send one now after 60 years of technological improvements.
Why is it necessary to have circuitboards made at scale? Were circuitboards the only thing keeping us from going to the moon? I thought that the problem was radiation shielding. What was the problem then?
Luckily for you, there are multiple manned lunar missions planned for the next few years
All of those future manned lunar missions will fail. GUARANTEED.
I have assessed the evidence for and against and find the “for” overwhelmingly compelling. If you don’t agree - that’s fine - I just think you’re stupid. No big deal. You expect there to be grand “proving” or “disproving” that’s never really how these things work - and you use it to your advantage. I’ve played these games before ;)
Your proof is: "but, but, but I saw it on TV!" Bahahahahahaha
Pathetic.
I think what happened is that he posted those photos that were quickly debunked. He went to find more “proof,” didn’t find any, but came across evidence that it never happened. I bet he’s reading a bunch of articles and watching a bunch of videos disproving the moon landing.
The little hamster is running fast on that wheel in his brain now. He may have fojj in d the “proof,” but not the one he was looking for. 👍
Why is it necessary to have circuitboards made at scale? Were circuitboards the only thing keeping us from going to the moon? I thought that the problem was radiation shielding. What was the problem then?
Luckily for you, there are multiple manned lunar missions planned for the next few years
All of those future manned lunar missions will fail. GUARANTEED.
It's remarkable that people here think that 'proof' against the landings is equivalent to 'casting doubt on evidence.'
You'd think these deniers would have some sort of affirmative evidence that the landings were faked, rather than simply demanding more and more epistemologically perfect evidence of the landings.
But they don't. Telling.
What’s remarkable is that not one of you can provide any proof.
We've seen the same data, and reached different conclusions. I am deeply suspect of the methods you've used to reach your conclusions; but its clear you aren't here to change your mind (maybe I am not either!)... so...
You were wrong. There’s no shame in that. You’re not the first one to fall for propaganda.