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

Degree in This wrote:

The question is not Rocket Science. It's Manned Rocket Science to Moon (and return).

Anyone can hit the Moon with a rocket, and dump whatever debris they want there (like US flag plus convenient reflector mirrors). The same is true for Mars by now. Soviets already proved it (1970s Lunokhod 1 & 2), for Moon beyond what we can already in too infer from USA hoax.

Um, isn't that still Rocket Science?

Legit question wrote:

Again, you resort to name calling like the others. Here is what I posted last year about Lovell. . . .

1) Most everything you've posted on the thread is an "argument from incredulity" logical fallacy.

2) Particle punctured service module oxygen tank. Without oxygen fuel cell doesn't work hence primary power source is lost. Water is generated as by product of fuel cell hence limited water. Food is freeze dried so of limited usefulness without water to reconstitute. Air temperature is warmer than capsule walls due to body heat and such, hence condensation on walls, not so much in air. The Apollo command module is built from considerably more than a double layer of aluminum foil.

3) First and last post; wrestling with pigs and all that. Congratulations on baiting this response though.

Legit question wrote:

Aluminum foil manufacturer thank you wrote:

Just want to thank the trolls in this thread for the many yards of aluminum foil purchased over the years to prevent government mind control.

Other than trying to introduce comedy into the discussion, which fell flat. Explain to me how the lunar rover which used air filled rubber tires, didn't explode while in a vacuum on the moon? Please enlighten us.

Proof of your trolling lies... The Rover did not use air filled tires. The tire were a metal coil.

What are your PRs? Curious if stupid translates to fast.

Legit question wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

All that means is that they were a lot smarter in the 1960's/70's then you and Pablo are, and will ever be.

So you reject science & physics now? Why don't you admit that you lost this argument and move on.

Show me your scientific data on condensation, quit trying to squirm out of it. And as a scientist, I reject pseudo science..........or whatever you call that BS you're spewing.

Caught Off Tape wrote:

JFK was murdered for his possible propensity to expose the Space Hoax after he found out that his so-called Moon plan was bogus to begin, and the NASA was only planning special effects (Hollywood) and palming off on USA people. The CIA knew their long-term psy-op would fool enough Westerners and create heroic title (Space as form of Triumph), and could combat any Soviet counter-programming. LBJ was a much indifferent stooge, not being tied into the initial proposal desire. By Nixon, the program ran itself, but had to run down before discovery got wise.

OHHHHHH man the fruits and nuts have come out of the woodwork. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

If you've watched any of the videos of the moon landings, you might have noticed that the radio responses from the moon walking astronauts SOMETIMES included a delayed echo of the questions. That also was a result of the 3 seconds it takes for a radio signal to travel to and from the moon, since radio waves are another form of light waves. "

b) Never forget that there is an AUTOMATIC 3 second delay for every single NASA response to what supposedly happened on the Moon. (including 3 seconds for NASA to continuously-readjust the video-camera on the Moon's surface in order to keep the ascending capsule in the view. And a 3 second delay between every single NASA-to-"Moon Men" and "Moon Men-to-NASA communication. Yet the LIVE transmission clearly lacks this, both NASA and the "Moon Men" are heard LIVE, commenting on each change AS IT OCCURS with NO DELAY.)

The most logical explanation is that 1960s/70s NASA was able to transmit faster than speed of light (c), but this physical capability has been lost to posterity (or hushed up by CIA).

Legit question wrote:

No, "old" guy. It is up to you to defend your position in a debate. You cannot, that is why you lost- and making throw away statements isn't bolstering your case.

Its not a debate. Its grade school. You stated that condensation didn't occur in a zero gravity environment. I stated that it certainly can given appropriate humidity and cold, as despite the zero gravity the inside of the spacecraft is a life sustaining environment. I requested that you submit scientific data showing that this is not the case. You did not.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Its not a debate. Its grade school. You stated that condensation didn't occur in a zero gravity environment. I stated that it certainly can given appropriate humidity and cold, as despite the zero gravity the inside of the spacecraft is a life sustaining environment.....

Err, he said it *didn't* occur, you said it *can* occur....

Why don't you address HIS argument as to actuality, rather than make your own theoretical observation?

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I requested that you submit scientific data showing that this is not the case. You did not.

Given that you didn't submit scientific data to back your assertion in the first place, the onus is still on you.

Whiff #2 wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I requested that you submit scientific data showing that this is not the case. You did not.

Given that you didn't submit scientific data to back your assertion in the first place, the onus is still on you.

You made the assertion, I'm asking you to back it up. Oh jeeeze this is hopeless. For all you pinheads in the group. Have fun perseverating over this.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Whiff #2 wrote:

Given that you didn't submit scientific data to back your assertion in the first place, the onus is still on you.

You made the assertion, I'm asking you to back it up. Oh jeeeze this is hopeless. For all you pinheads in the group. Have fun perseverating over this.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/apollo-11-hoax-photos--8-moon-landing-myths-busted/

Here's another fun one. has some more lunatic theories in it.

Why debate this with a guy who says the Earth is flat?

These threads go to hundreds of pages, because he ignores each fact anyone else posts then keeps regurgitating his same old falsehoods and misinformation. All of his "questions" have been answered and dwbumked in the other threads. It's a troll job. That's not name calling, it is stating what this thread is all about.

If any one thing could discredit someone's "scientific" arguments, it would be when that person says that the Earth is flat.

As much as I love reading the bickering, I want to point out there seems to be a consensus here. It's the, everyone is stupid but me attitude. My default attitude.

The debate over whether it did or did not happen reveals an issue that one would expect people to view with lot more concern. That being, that a debate about facts can exist? We're not dealing with metaphysics here.

With conversations/debates like these people are more concerned about being right or appearing unique than achieving a better understanding.

At the end of the day no discernible advantage to humanity resulted from this spectacle, so we are arguing about something which had no consequence with perhaps the single exception being to weapons tech.

Is the core argument against a moon landing “because we haven’t been back”? As noted before, it’s too darn expensive and too risky to astronauts to justify for the tiny gain in prestige and near-zero gain in science.

The trolls here are sure persistent.

Quick question- have flat earthers ever travelled to Europe and Asia — how do you explain that both is possible without a spherical earth?

Only USA People are obsessed with the idea that they landed on Earth's Moon. Constantly seeking "proofs" one way or another, of a historical possibility over 45 years ago. You'd think if it were science, it would be reproducible, but then they blame their (Capitalist) lack of funding schemes.

Now that Trump (USA) has exerted SpaceForce, the cards will have to come into play again. This plan to militarize Space will uncover the Moon story one way or another. So why do think they (Deep State) are trying to remove him?

As noted before, it’s too darn expensive and too risky to astronauts to justify for the tiny gain in prestige and near-zero gain in science.

So why did USA waste all that money (and have so many astronauts die) in the first place?

The question then asks itself. wrote:

As noted before, it’s too darn expensive and too risky to astronauts to justify for the tiny gain in prestige and near-zero gain in science.

So why did USA waste all that money (and have so many astronauts die) in the first place?

To say that they went there first. Just like the Polar Expedition, Everest and the 4 minute mile.

Ummm . . . know the difference between an illustrative example and a system spec?

My DOG you are stupid!