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

Legit question wrote:

Suck the TRUTH through a garden hose wrote:

not gonna read this entire thead, but a question for the Hoax Folks. If faking the moon landing was so easy , why on Earth wouldn't the Russians and Chinese fake a MARS landing to one-up us?

Surely it would have been far easier to pull off in China or Russia and they probably would have done a better job.

Unless the Russians & the Chinese discover a way of get people safely through the Van Allen belts without frying them, it's never gonna happen.

Bita light reading

Legit question wrote:

Suck the TRUTH through a garden hose wrote:

not gonna read this entire thead, but a question for the Hoax Folks. If faking the moon landing was so easy , why on Earth wouldn't the Russians and Chinese fake a MARS landing to one-up us?

Surely it would have been far easier to pull off in China or Russia and they probably would have done a better job.

Unless the Russians & the Chinese discover a way of get people safely through the Van Allen belts without frying them, it's never gonna happen.

Confirmed. You are fvckin retarded.

How did the ACTORnauts produce those amazing camera shots? Especially with cameras mounted on their chests with a manual focus and no way to line up their view finders with any accuracy. Excerpt from Wagging the Moondoggie Part IV:

"The problem for the astronauts is that the cameras were mounted to their chests, which made it impossible to see through the viewfinder to meter, frame and focus the shots. Everything, therefore, was pretty much of a guess. Focusing would have been entirely guesswork, as would the framing of each shot.

An experienced photographer can accurately estimate the exposure settings, but the astronauts lacked such experience and they were also handicapped by the fact that they were viewing the scenes through heavily tinted visors, which meant that what they were seeing was not what the camera was seeing.

To add to their troubles, they were wearing space helmets that seriously restricted their field of vision, along with enormously bulky, pressurized gloves that severely limited their manual dexterity. The odds then of getting even one of the three elements (exposure, focus and framing) correct under those conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low. And yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right!"

"As any photographer knows, getting a decent shot with a 500mm lens without the use of a tripod is a pretty tall order, even for a seasoned professional. Getting a decent hand-held shot with a 500mm lens while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves would be just about impossible. And the notion that you could come anywhere close to properly framing or focusing an image captured with a 500mm lens without looking through the viewfinder is laughably absurd."

"Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s."

OneGiantLie

Allen Van. wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Unless the Russians & the Chinese discover a way of get people safely through the Van Allen belts without frying them, it's never gonna happen.

Idiot, he's talking about faking it, not actually doing it. And we're supposed to rely on you for comprehension and facts.

No more faking of manned missions will be done. More specifically, no other space agency is going to fake any manned mission to the Moon or Mars for that matter.

OneGiantLie

Wonder what that was all about? wrote:

Good point, access via Google to my alien sighting blog and photos was taken away after the government intervened, wonder what that was all about?

Google (Alphabet) removes the "Don't be Evil" clause from their Code of Conduct,

and people STILL adhere to them?

No wonder so many USA people are lemmings for govt control.

Ummm, who was the cameraman on the surface of the Moon, when Neil Armstrong came down that ladder for the first time? ?

OneGiantLie

https://youtu.be/BEOofdguS_0

Legit question wrote:

Ummm, who was the cameraman on the surface of the Moon, when Neil Armstrong came down that ladder for the first time? ?

According to NASA info, it was remote controlled from Planet Earth (Houston). Accounting for the 3 second delay.

The real reason for USA to go back to the moon is to overturn the racist sexist anti-trans history of having ONLY white cis males as astronauts to the moon. Would we even be arguing this now, if it were otherwise?

You do the Math wrote:

the anti-Hoax believers would rather yarn on about the impossibility of a giant Hollywood vacuum (or Arizona/Nevada desert) at g/6, when NO ONE ever suggested such a thing (easier to use thin hidden wires).

easier still to use a fake feather made of metal. No need to overcomplicate things.

Hey, did any flat earther ever do this simple experiment? Here are some cheap DIY solutions for definitively settling the flat-earth question once and for all, with a spirit level, and some cardboard, or for the richer flat earthers, an app on a smartphone:

https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

If the dip angle is always 0 degrees -- flat-earthers "win" the debate.

If the dip angle corresponds to the table (see table in the link) -- flat-earthers go home DEVESTATED.

Allen Van. wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Unless the Russians & the Chinese discover a way of get people safely through the Van Allen belts without frying them, it's never gonna happen.

Idiot, he's talking about faking it, not actually doing it. And we're supposed to rely on you for comprehension and facts.

Exactly. Sources matter. To add to your response... These conspiracy guys are saying that the "science" of the Van Allen belts being a deadly impassible barrier is obvious simple science and that Russia and China and scientists all around the world and the US know this, but none of them call out the supposedly scientificly obvious lie that we faked the moon landing.

James Van Allen never said we faked it. No ligitimate scientist anywhere say it was faked.

The "arguments" have already been laid out many times -- plenty of contemporaneous video and photo evidence, third party corroboration, real radiation measurements of the astronauts, etc. All of the "arguments" of the "hoax hypothesis" have been addressed over time. The counter argument seems to be: - I don't believe the evidence, therefore it doesn't count - I don't trust NASA or the government -- even foreign NASAs and foreign governments, because I was lied to before, and "fool me once..." or based on a wrong understanding of what is possible: - condensation inside a capsule in space - sound waves travelling through matter or saying things don't exist (e.g. high res photos or photos of stars) which in fact do exist and can be found with a quick internet search "Your side" fell for "indoctrination" once, demonstrating a lack of ability to understand what was being taught, and map it to the real world. Whose to say they are not falling for "indoctrination" again, as a result of that same inability -- based on lengthy "worse than wikipedia" blogs? While "one side" is held up to a high standard, with photo evidence scrutinized (and sometimes doctored by "your side") for hypothetical inconsistencies, and being ridiculed for pointing to Wikipedia, which is more "messenger", relying on more authoritative sources, the "hoax hypothesis" side holds itself to only merely demonstrating "it's possible I'm not wrong" rather than making an affirmative case that could stand on its own. Your side "no longer backing down" is not an argument that can influence the "debate". Truth is not decided by popularity or stubbornness.

Legit question wrote:

Interesting that when you have no argument that you go back to name calling. And for the record, I only use my handle when posting on these threads. In addition, I did not coin term "anti-hoax believers". However, I like using that phrase as others do.

The anti-hoaxers are just shrill and desperate and my side is no longer backing down.

Q 4 U wrote:

m!ndweak wrote:

EPO doesn’t work

So, nobody has any ideas?

The Judaeo-Christian religions?

Science bro wrote:

Allen Van. wrote:

Idiot, he's talking about faking it, not actually doing it. And we're supposed to rely on you for comprehension and facts.

Exactly. Sources matter. To add to your response... These conspiracy guys are saying that the "science" of the Van Allen belts being a deadly impassible barrier is obvious simple science and that Russia and China and scientists all around the world and the US know this, but none of them call out the supposedly scientificly obvious lie that we faked the moon landing.

James Van Allen never said we faked it. No ligitimate scientist anywhere say it was faked.

If you know a space scientist personally, perhaps you could ask them. But they will not go on the record because it's their livelihoods and their reputations are jeapardized by self-appointed hogwash vigilantes or funded affiliates . Experimental science tells the truth for us, but the majority are quite ignorant.

Legit question wrote:

And for the record, I only use my handle when posting on these threads.

Hoax, unless you can provide incontrovertible proof.

By your own sword wrote:

Legit question wrote:

And for the record, I only use my handle when posting on these threads.

Hoax, unless you can provide incontrovertible proof.

I will update his Wiki page with a (citation needed)

Science bro wrote:

Allen Van. wrote:

Idiot, he's talking about faking it, not actually doing it. And we're supposed to rely on you for comprehension and facts.

Exactly. Sources matter. To add to your response... These conspiracy guys are saying that the "science" of the Van Allen belts being a deadly impassible barrier is obvious simple science and that Russia and China and scientists all around the world and the US know this, but none of them call out the supposedly scientificly obvious lie that we faked the moon landing.

James Van Allen never said we faked it. No legitimate scientist anywhere say it was faked.

Yeah, but "Legit question" is no legitimate scientist. He is a very stable genius!

With Hoax Deniers having given up trying to make their affirmative case (and I don't blame them, when all you have is copies of Soviet information on rocks/soil/reflectors and some pretty pictures released decades later.. ooops almost forgot the mysterious "shoeprint" canals that NASA won't zoom in on, fortunately Russia has a $1m+ GoFundMe to send independent seeker there), all they can do now is point to supposed holes in musings of hoax theorists. But these are beside the main point, because it doesn't matter the details of how the masses were conned, since there are so many plausible ways to do it.

E.g., for the hammer and the feather, it doesn't matter whether they used thin hidden wires, or a fake non-aerated feather (either can additionally explain the strange video movements), or even the bizarro g/6 vaccum in AZ/NV/Hollywood, *all* that matters is that the gravity calculation is wrong from high school physics. So, either NASA is palming off a mistimed video (as one LRC anti-hoax believer immediately presumes, in good step with NASA scientists themselves who are always necessitated to come up with novel strains to explain every new discrepancy uncovered), OR the video didn't come from Earth's Moon. The latter doesn't meannecessarily that USA astronauts never landed there if you want to argue that pedantry, but clearly the argument is more and more strained by the minute, when there are so many cover-ups abound.

Just dropping in to remind LQ of the third party evidence he is hiding from.