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

Science bro wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

This sort of response is why skepticism remains. If there's actual proof, just show the facts, don't go running off to occam's razor like it's a question of science rather than history.

It's full of fallacies anyhow. A fake wouldn't need to be secret forever, only for a few years until the propaganda boost paid off. A fake also bore no risk of catastrophic failure causing dead astronauts and a long and crippling investigation of NASA. Apollo 13 (assuming it was real) proved that this risk was very high, making a real mission a genuine "moon or bust" thing.

That's what happened to the space shuttles. 40% of the fleet was ultimately destroyed in flight with entire crews lost, causing the fleet to spend years parked and ultimately retired. The program was so expensive that NASA was left without any heavy-lift rocket capable of manned launches.

And almost 50 years later none of the thousands and thousands of people that worked on Apollo, either at NASA or at the aerospace companies that built the systems, have given any indication that it was not actually real.

Catastrophic failure of a fake is getting caught, which would have been far far worse in the space race than 3 dead astronauts.

You're right. It is about evidence, which there is tons of. The decent stages of the 6 successful landings and other equipment are still on the moon and have been verified to be there. We have moon rocks and dust samples brought back by the missions. They left laser reflectors there on the moon.

Oh, and STS did not have a 40% failure rate. There were 135 shuttle missions and 2 catastrophic failures. NASA didn't stop at 7 dead astronauts, or even 14. They kept flying the shuttles for years after both Challenger and Columbia disasters.

Legit question wrote:

From the other Moon Landing thread:

This is what NASA says today: they "lost" that 1960's technology. Haha! That's the line they are feeding the public today and the vast majority accept that with no questions asked.

THE 1960'S MANNED-LUNAR-LANDING IS UNIQUE IN IT NOT HAVING BEEN REPEATED FOR 50 YEARS.

This IS one of THE top points of this debate.

In the last several hundred years of human history; how many times has some major technological break-thru (few of which could compete with a would-be 1960's Landing-Men-On-The-Moon achievement) ... how many have been followed by FIFTY YEARS of lesser-achievements (and of an inability to even REPEAT what was already "accomplished")?

Seemingly the ONLY example of such RETROGRADE "progress" is the world's supposed inability to repeat a Manned-Lunar Landing; what was so "miraculously" done with such comparatively, truly "primitive" technology a half-century earlier.

This in itself is ENOUGH to raise serious doubts about the Apollo program.

THE REFUSAL OF THE U.S. GOV. TO SEND MEN "BACK" TO THE MOON; IS ALSO UNIQUE - THE WORST BLOWN PUBLIC RELATIONS OPPORTUNITY IN HISTORY:

On top of that, there is the fact that the US Gov has consciously decided NOT TO GO "BACK"" for the 50th Anniversary.

That's just utterly shocking, actually incomprehensibly ridiculous - there has NEVER been a better Public Relations opportunity - yet, while spending TRILLIONS bombing a dozen countries back to the stone age; they refuse to come up with the relative pittance for an "America Triumphantly RETURNS Men To The Moon" project???

OneGiantLie

Math & Sh!t wrote:

Legit question wrote:

From the other Moon Landing thread:

This is what NASA says today: they "lost" that 1960's technology. Haha! That's the line they are feeding the public today and the vast majority accept that with no questions asked.

THE 1960'S MANNED-LUNAR-LANDING IS UNIQUE IN IT NOT HAVING BEEN REPEATED FOR 50 YEARS.

This IS one of THE top points of this debate.

In the last several hundred years of human history; how many times has some major technological break-thru (few of which could compete with a would-be 1960's Landing-Men-On-The-Moon achievement) ... how many have been followed by FIFTY YEARS of lesser-achievements (and of an inability to even REPEAT what was already "accomplished")?

Seemingly the ONLY example of such RETROGRADE "progress" is the world's supposed inability to repeat a Manned-Lunar Landing; what was so "miraculously" done with such comparatively, truly "primitive" technology a half-century earlier.

This in itself is ENOUGH to raise serious doubts about the Apollo program.

THE REFUSAL OF THE U.S. GOV. TO SEND MEN "BACK" TO THE MOON; IS ALSO UNIQUE - THE WORST BLOWN PUBLIC RELATIONS OPPORTUNITY IN HISTORY:

On top of that, there is the fact that the US Gov has consciously decided NOT TO GO "BACK"" for the 50th Anniversary.

That's just utterly shocking, actually incomprehensibly ridiculous - there has NEVER been a better Public Relations opportunity - yet, while spending TRILLIONS bombing a dozen countries back to the stone age; they refuse to come up with the relative pittance for an "America Triumphantly RETURNS Men To The Moon" project???

OneGiantLie

No offense or anything. But you are an absolute moron.

The choice to not continue with expensive and basically pointless manned missions to the moon was a simple economic and political choice and had absolutely nothing to do with "an inability to even REPEAT what was already accomplished."

History will look back at two things from 2018 with utter disbelief:

1) Anyone believed a single word that Donald Trump ever uttered

2) Anyone honestly believed that the moon landings were fake

Welcome to the Greater Flat Earth Society, moron.

Science bro wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

This sort of response is why skepticism remains. If there's actual proof, just show the facts, don't go running off to occam's razor like it's a question of science rather than history.

It's full of fallacies anyhow. A fake wouldn't need to be secret forever, only for a few years until the propaganda boost paid off. A fake also bore no risk of catastrophic failure causing dead astronauts and a long and crippling investigation of NASA. Apollo 13 (assuming it was real) proved that this risk was very high, making a real mission a genuine "moon or bust" thing.

That's what happened to the space shuttles. 40% of the fleet was ultimately destroyed in flight with entire crews lost, causing the fleet to spend years parked and ultimately retired. The program was so expensive that NASA was left without any heavy-lift rocket capable of manned launches.

And almost 50 years later none of the thousands and thousands of people that worked on Apollo, either at NASA or at the aerospace companies that built the systems, have given any indication that it was not actually real.

Catastrophic failure of a fake is getting caught, which would have been far far worse in the space race than 3 dead astronauts.

You're right. It is about evidence, which there is tons of. The decent stages of the 6 successful landings and other equipment are still on the moon and have been verified to be there. We have moon rocks and dust samples brought back by the missions. They left laser reflectors there on the moon.

Oh, and STS did not have a 40% failure rate. There were 135 shuttle missions and 2 catastrophic failures. NASA didn't stop at 7 dead astronauts, or even 14. They kept flying the shuttles for years after both Challenger and Columbia disasters.

Math & Sh!t wrote:

Legit question wrote:

From the other Moon Landing thread:

This is what NASA says today: they "lost" that 1960's technology. Haha! That's the line they are feeding the public today and the vast majority accept that with no questions asked.

THE 1960'S MANNED-LUNAR-LANDING IS UNIQUE IN IT NOT HAVING BEEN REPEATED FOR 50 YEARS.

This IS one of THE top points of this debate.

In the last several hundred years of human history; how many times has some major technological break-thru (few of which could compete with a would-be 1960's Landing-Men-On-The-Moon achievement) ... how many have been followed by FIFTY YEARS of lesser-achievements (and of an inability to even REPEAT what was already "accomplished")?

Seemingly the ONLY example of such RETROGRADE "progress" is the world's supposed inability to repeat a Manned-Lunar Landing; what was so "miraculously" done with such comparatively, truly "primitive" technology a half-century earlier.

This in itself is ENOUGH to raise serious doubts about the Apollo program.

THE REFUSAL OF THE U.S. GOV. TO SEND MEN "BACK" TO THE MOON; IS ALSO UNIQUE - THE WORST BLOWN PUBLIC RELATIONS OPPORTUNITY IN HISTORY:

On top of that, there is the fact that the US Gov has consciously decided NOT TO GO "BACK"" for the 50th Anniversary.

That's just utterly shocking, actually incomprehensibly ridiculous - there has NEVER been a better Public Relations opportunity - yet, while spending TRILLIONS bombing a dozen countries back to the stone age; they refuse to come up with the relative pittance for an "America Triumphantly RETURNS Men To The Moon" project???

OneGiantLie

No offense or anything. But you are an absolute moron.

The choice to not continue with expensive and basically pointless manned missions to the moon was a simple economic and political choice and had absolutely nothing to do with "an inability to even REPEAT what was already accomplished."

History will look back at two things from 2018 with utter disbelief:

1) Anyone believed a single word that Donald Trump ever uttered

2) Anyone honestly believed that the moon landings were fake

Welcome to the Greater Flat Earth Society, moron.

Legit question wrote:

Name calling is not an argument.

Here are some facts that Pablo Novi brought out from a prior thread:

IS SECRECY IMPOSSIBLE IF LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED? NO!

There were 10s of thousands of people involved in the Manhattan Project and not one leaked the information for decades. (Look it up, please). It's called DEPARTMENTALIZATION. The overwhelming majority have jobs that have nothing to do with major decision making; and often keeping their jobs depends on not speaking out.

THERE HAVE BEEN WHISTLE-BLOWERS ABOUT THE APOLLO MISSIONS - A NUMBER OF THEM:

Certainly whitsle blowers HAVE come forward (in addition, some of the astronauts who started not liking howthey were being used "accidentally" died in NASA (and non-NASA) "accidents").

WITNESSING A LAUNCH DOES NOT MEAN YOU KNOW WHERE THAT LAUNCH IS HEADED:

About the people who witnessed the launches. No one is saying that launches didn't happen. The question is, WHERE were those launches headed? In our opinion, they were headed to near-Earth orbit; while signals were transmitted TO the Moon from Earth (or low-Earth orbit) and relayed back - appearing to come from the Apollo guys supposedly on the Moon.

FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE MEDIA WAS HAMSTRUNG, HAVING TO DEPEND 100% ON NASA-CONTROLLED INFO:

For the FIRST TIME, the media was force-fed the info NASA fed them; there was no independent investigation or access to the original stuff except THRU NASA.

THE SOVIETS HAD AT LEAST TWO REASONS NOT TO EXPOSE THE APOLLO MISSIONS:

As to the Soviets: What if they TOO lied about some of their space accomplishments (most Americans wouldn't have any problem at all doubting them!) IF they had lied, then exposing the US lies would prompt the US to expose THEIR lies too. Also, as an and/or: the US at that time was transferring humongous amounts of wheat to them - were they to fall out of favor due to exposing NASA (assuming they knew); the wheat would have been cut off; tons would have died and the Soviet leaders woul have had humongous problems with their own people.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT THESE POINTS, they are reasonable explanations - and you may now want to re-think what you THHOUGHT you knew about the Apollo Missions. (btw, I am no Flat Earther nor do I doubt that NASA has done lots of OTHER things it has claimed to have done - just not the Apollo Missions as claimed by them.)

Legit question wrote:

Math & Sh!t wrote:

No offense or anything. But you are an absolute moron.

The choice to not continue with expensive and basically pointless manned missions to the moon was a simple economic and political choice and had absolutely nothing to do with "an inability to even REPEAT what was already accomplished."

History will look back at two things from 2018 with utter disbelief:

1) Anyone believed a single word that Donald Trump ever uttered

2) Anyone honestly believed that the moon landings were fake

Welcome to the Greater Flat Earth Society, moron.

Again, you resort to name calling and cannot present an argument. You have not provided any counter to the points listed. This is why you lose and get angry.

If going back to the Moon is too expensive, then a partnership with multiple space agencies/countries where the cost is shared is the way to go. Right? However, it is not possible for a man to fly through the Van Allen radiation belts and survive, per NASA.

Explain how NASA did so with ACTORnauts sitting inside tin cans with 1960's technology? Btw, Trump talked about a "Space Force"- another fantasy that will never happen.

Math & Sh!t wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Again, you resort to name calling and cannot present an argument. You have not provided any counter to the points listed. This is why you lose and get angry.

If going back to the Moon is too expensive, then a partnership with multiple space agencies/countries where the cost is shared is the way to go. Right? However, it is not possible for a man to fly through the Van Allen radiation belts and survive, per NASA.

Explain how NASA did so with ACTORnauts sitting inside tin cans with 1960's technology? Btw, Trump talked about a "Space Force"- another fantasy that will never happen.

Well yeah, except that I am not angry in the least. Just noting that you are an utter moron.

Present an argument? Here is my argument - go read the relevant literature. If you come away thinking that the moon landings were faked then you are a moron. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. And nobody can help such a moron.

I also have no intention of providing an argument to convince you that the Earth is round. So, go for it, call me "angry" and tell me that obviously the Earth is flat and that I have no counter-argument.

Or you could try getting a brain. But that would probably prove to be beyond your grasp.