was that a real question? wrote:
The question then asks itself. wrote:
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.
Only on LRC would someone suggest that USA had people die in a quest for the 4-minute mile.
Still can't believe the only "proof" that's been offered is a publicly modifiable Wikipedia page, and trust in government.
Is thus what they teach in USA school textbooks these days?
If we had been to the moon, they why didn't the astronauts use the opportunity to turn the tides on Earth off?
Or do you believe in Galileo's rejected theory of tides? Next you'll be joining him in asserting the orbits have to be perfect circles on theological grounds... Some people adopt 17th century "physics" to keep themselves up at night...
Why would anybody care what he thinks about this?
Tooth Fairied wrote:
Still can't believe the only "proof" that's been offered is a publicly modifiable Wikipedia page, and trust in government.
Is thus what they teach in USA school textbooks these days?
Feel free to refute.
Tooth Fairied wrote:
Still can't believe the only "proof" that's been offered is a publicly modifiable Wikipedia page, and trust in government.
Is thus what they teach in USA school textbooks these days?
Don't forget the so-called Moon Rocks/soil that could be obtained from Soviet unmanned probes, or even meteor effects. Not to mention it's often the government you have to believe they are from the Moon in the first place. Same with the laser reflectors that've been dropped off.
Then there's the so-called theory of principals involved and /or eyewitnesses not able to conspire for so long, but there's no incentive to expose the plot, and history has recorded larger-scale myth propagations.
Combined with the repetitive argument that there's "no incentive" to go back to Moon in last 45 years, when this hits home that there was "never incentive" in the first place, the scientific reproducibility of it all (Man on Moon theory) looks pretty nil.
tratlyre wrote:
Tooth Fairied wrote:
Still can't believe the only "proof" that's been offered is a publicly modifiable Wikipedia page, and trust in government.
Is thus what they teach in USA school textbooks these days?
Feel free to refute.
OK, I made my own WIkipedia page, stating different "facts". Thus it's disproven. Your turn.
Jimmy Wales syndrome wrote:
tratlyre wrote:
Feel free to refute.
OK, I made my own WIkipedia page, stating different "facts". Thus it's disproven. Your turn.
Clearly they don't teach how to make logical arguments at USA indoctrination/babysitting centers, just to point to Wikipedia gatekeepers, and claim the Science is settled.
PED potential wrote:
was that a real question? wrote:
To say that they went there first. Just like the Polar Expedition, Everest and the 4 minute mile.
Only on LRC would someone suggest that USA had people die in a quest for the 4-minute mile.
I know reading comprehension is hard for you but you really went off on a tangent there and missed the point.
Tooth Fairied wrote:
Still can't believe the only "proof" that's been offered is a publicly modifiable Wikipedia page, and trust in government.
Is thus what they teach in USA school textbooks these days?
Where is your proof coming from?
Baffled by the concern..... wrote:
Why would anybody care what he thinks about this?
Yep, I think Curry found out pretty fast how vast the net is, and when you consider how many NBA players are soon bankrupt after retirement, keeping his endorsements was the logical money move. He also has his family to consider.
It takes a strong integrity person (eg Jerome Corsi) to stand up to the 24/7 harrassment from the mindthug society. If they can silence a podcast, it's hard to say free thought can exist much anymore.
Curry: Comments on moon a joke, will visit NASA
Clever, by back-pedaling and playing dumb (there's one for the racist stereotypes employed by NASA...), he gets an personal invite to inside NASA, and can now hope to penetrate the inside to see how the lavish moon hoax endures to this day. With good double-agent training b4 his visit, he'll be able to procure additional trips/information, at the very elast He's a 3-time MVP, so there's a reasonable chance the whole domino-jenga pyramid will come tumbling down in a year or so ------ if they don't 'get to him first.
History Eraser Button wrote:
Jimmy Wales syndrome wrote:
OK, I made my own WIkipedia page, stating different "facts". Thus it's disproven. Your turn.
Clearly they don't teach how to make logical arguments at USA indoctrination/babysitting centers, just to point to Wikipedia gatekeepers, and claim the Science is settled.
It’s a shame you can’t appreciate the hilarious irony in your comment. Thanks for the chuckle!
Sure, you *could* read the so-called "Wikipedia" proofs in detail, but it's unclear whom you're arguing with. What if you prove (of course) one of their concepts to be false. Does that ruin the whole thing, or do they just modify the page? And then switch it up to something slightly different. Or point to a different "proof' on their wiki page (controlled by them)? That isn't Science, it's Whac-A-Mole.
Next they'll want you to subscribe to their YouTube channel wrote:
Sure, you *could* read the so-called "Wikipedia" proofs in detail, but it's unclear whom you're arguing with. What if you prove (of course) one of their concepts to be false. Does that ruin the whole thing, or do they just modify the page? And then switch it up to something slightly different. Or point to a different "proof' on their wiki page (controlled by them)? That isn't Science, it's Whac-A-Mole.
It's exactly their method. Rather than debating with an actual person, you are shunted off to an impersonal "Wikipedia" page for so-called facts that are claimed indisputable. That's exactly how the government works too, an impersonal force than denies any critical thinking against it.
OK, I actually went (against my better judgement) to your so-called "Wikipedia" proofs page. I didn't bother reading the stuff, just to look at the sources cited.NONE OF THEM WERE ARE ACTUALLY PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE!!!
Source #1: Press release, Japan astro society
Source #2: Some random blogger
Source #3: plausibly in Science press (India), but just as a brief news item ( "Correspondence")
Source #4: Chinese astro society press release
Source #5: Another random Internet dude
Source #6: Scott & Teonov, a non-scientific history-esque book
Source #7: An in-house British Interplanetary Society mag 2-page short blurb (unclear if peer-reviewed)
Source #8, #34, #36 : Neil Armstrong biographer
Source #9: "Physics Education" magazine, not a scholarly journal, but an education one
Source #10: South African "Feature Article", just a transcript of a talk, ("Tonight I hope to inspire...")
Source #11: Another random Internet site
Source #12: "Independent Star News" contemporary news article
Source #13: NASA technical report (not peer-reviewed AFAICT, no reason to believe NASA of/c)
Source #14: Random internet junk
Source #15: Transcript of historian
Source #16: News item about Russian recordings being released
Source #17: News item about Russian recordings being released
Source #18: Louisville, KY newspaper claims local folk (ham-radio) could tap into the feed
Source #19: More of the same (Otter Creek observatory)
Source #20: "Comment" in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (again not a science paper)
Source #21-23: Article in hobbyist Radio Relay magazine
Source #24: Claims of a German instrument manufacturer to detect the mission (advert, not a science pub)
Source #25: Some random Internet page
Source #26: Lunar Samples (Geochemistry journal)
Source #27; Political award to astronauts
Source #28: More chemical rock/soil sources.
Source #29, #32, #33, #41, #53: Hobbyist journal blurb (Astronomy)
Source #30: "Science@NASA" tells us what Neil & Buzz left behind
Source #31: Laser reflector catalog item
Source #35: Some sort of conference proceedings (likely not peer-reviewed), 4 pages describing how French helped
Source #37: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, Science, 1973
Source #38: webpage regarding #37
Source #39: more on laser ranging, conference proceedings, but looks more respectable than some
Source #40, #42, #43, #45, #46: News item from NASA
Source #44: Link to front page of German institute
Source #47: Another blog "proof"
Source #48: BBC News item
Source #49: Skeptical Inquirer article
Source #50: Historical publication about how the Aussies were involved with Apollo 11 (due to sunrise times in USA)
Source #51-52: See #14
Source #54: Berkeley biography of someone
Source #55: Telegraph article claiming new tech will "really prove" the moon landings....
Of course, these numbers might change, because it's a "wiki" after all....
Out of 55 sources, hardly ANY of them are actually scientific peer-reviewed papers!!
The ones that do involve moon rocks/soil (and one of them was 25 years after the fact, published 1998), but doesn't even discuss if the "Lunar Samples" could be obtained by *unmanned* moon missions (for example). So they are proof that *moon rocks* exist, not that USA astronauts ever personally landed on Earth's Moon!
Similarly, the science of laser reflection is nice perhaps, but doesn't say how the reflectors were implanted there in the first place. I'm pretty sure you could do it w/o extraneously (at high cost and risk) sending a man to moon.
And this is the best the anti-hoaxers have? How telling....
When USA citizens can not even express personal opinions on podcasts without being thrown under the bus, the extent of the DS involvement becomes admirably clear.
Shut up and dribble, kid wrote:
When USA citizens can not even express personal opinions on podcasts without being thrown under the bus, the extent of the DS involvement becomes admirably clear.
Is it any wonder that they are looking to be remove Trump (USA) from office (just like Nixon!) just when his Space Force military project could once-and-for-all expose the hoax?
Given that Wikipedia often claims that things are not "reliable sources" and removes them (mostly for underlying political or tete-a-tete reasons with gatekeepers), it's hard to imagine they accepted over 90% of link spam and press releases for this page on something so prevalent to common thought (over 50% half of UK people don't believe the hoax).
I cited *my* source.... wrote:
On 20th July 1969, Neil Armstrong took mankind's first steps on the moon, but a staggering amount of people still don't believe it really happened.
Wow, talk about a biassed write-up. What if they said, "On 20th July 1969, Neil Armstrong was taped at Universal Studios imitating a moon walk, but a (literally) staggering amount of people still don't believe the whole thing was a hoax!
When you start from the proposition, it follows immediately. The press media is the easiest to infect.