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

Live from the International Space Station, ... or USA, ... ?

Q-What was high school like for you?

“Well, it was the 1980s, so the music was different, the hairstyle was different, the clothes we wore were different than today, but probably in 5 to 10 years, it’ll be the same. And in school I was just like you, probably all of you there. I tried my best. I didn’t always succeed, didn’t always do well, but I put my best effort into school. Math and science were kinda my favorite subjects. I didn’t really like English and reading too much, but I’ve since grown out of that, I do everything now. And I played a lot of sports. And all of that happened in a little town called York, Maine across the United States from where we’re talking to you right now.“

Just let me edit that.... wrote:

Hilarious. Somebody quotes "Wikipedia" as their so-called evidence of moon landings.

I know...what a joke. ?

Why wouldn't the Earth be the same shape as a Basket-ball?

Which way makes more sense?

This is proof that Chris Cassidy is an idiot, nothing more than that.

tratlyre wrote:

Steph,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Game day bucket go boom

+1

TrackCoach wrote:

One of my sons who is a working architect and a graduate of a top tier school only recently admitted that the moon landing was real. There appears to be a thing with some millennials who by all apperances are not stupid, they love saying stupid things and get a kick out of the attention and push back they get from people. I don't believe they truely believe the stupid things they say; believing in conspiracies is cool.

Having worked on multiple European Space Agency missions, I can tell you that it would be extremely easy to supply simulated data to the Ground Segment (system) as if it were authentic Housekeeping, Command and Science telemetry. This is how missions have always been prepared - with fake (flight and payload) mission data prior to launch.

Still hasn't obtained his Davidson degree wrote:

Golden State Warriors point guard and two-time NBA MVP Stephen Curry says that American astronauts never went to the moon.

Curry appeared on the podcast “Winging It,” which was published Monday, with fellow NBA stars Vince Carter, Kent Bazemore and Andre Iguodala.

When Curry asked some members of the podcast if America had ever been to the moon, he agreed with them when they expressed skepticism.

“We ever been to the moon?” Curry asked. Multiple people said, “Nope.”

“I don’t think so either,” Curry responded.

Later in the podcast, Curry reaffirmed his belief in the decades-old conspiracy theory. Curry will almost surely be asked about this during his next media availability.

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2018/12/10/stephen-curry-i-dont-believe-we-went-to-the-moon/

Yes, and Jim Lovell didn't have a hole blown in his spacecraft, or circle the moon, and the earth is flat. What morons. Good thing Buzz Aldrin wasn't around during that pinheads interview.

Any one on here doubting or even trolling should be ashamed. The moon landings are probably the peak of human achievement so far, and already the effort and sacrifices made. Take a moment and watch the next 30 seconds of this video and have some pride in the human race. Sure, they faked this video 50 years ago. If you believe its real, what the hell are they doing with that much engineering and power if not going to the moon?

https://youtu.be/4cOhZy7dhTo?t=233

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.

The same way the astronauts used air filled lungs, dummy.

Oh Please wrote:

Any one on here doubting or even trolling should be ashamed.

Oh please. Evidence > shaming. Shaming does not equal an argument.

My phone has more computing power than NASA did in the 60s and 70s, yet we haven't been back in over 45 years?

Why?

lungfish Armstrong wrote:

The same way the astronauts used air filled lungs, dummy.

The tires were in a space suit as well?

Weird. Must have missed that in the footage.

Oh Please wrote:

Any one on here doubting or even trolling should be ashamed. The moon landings are probably the peak of human achievement so far, and already the effort and sacrifices made. Take a moment and watch the next 30 seconds of this video and have some pride in the human race. Sure, they faked this video 50 years ago. If you believe its real, what the hell are they doing with that much engineering and power if not going to the moon?

https://youtu.be/4cOhZy7dhTo?t=233

Indeed. They also faked this video. Morons.

Which moran could ever dispute this compelling video evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCcD0aqUgCo

lungfish Armstrong wrote:

Legit question wrote:

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.

The same way the astronauts used air filled lungs, dummy.

It still doesn't prove that we ever landed on the Moon. The lunar rover was a folding vehicle. The actornauts never showed how us exactly how they removed it from the LM and placed it on the ground. it just magically appeared on TV for the public to watch.

You are gullible to NASA's constant lies and deception.

Lovell claimed to see condensation on the windows. Uh, how is that possible in a zero-G environment? Not possible, therefore another lie. Try again.

From the prior thread by Pablo Novi:

Yes I do BELIEVE NASA faked the moon landings (but wouldn't be me life on it).

The reasons I believe they faked them are quite a number. Here's a few that stand out to me:

1) All the computer tech they had back then is less than we have now on a calculator - you can't control a 6-9 million part machine with that little.

2) The video of the "final take off" from the Moon seems way too precision (with the capsule within the frame despite the ever-changing acceleration). The would-be camera was supposedly remote-controlled from Earth - just the time delay for the relaying of signals would seem to make that impossible.

3) The quality and content of the photos - taken from cameras

attached to their space suits where they couldn't even see precisely what they were looking at. Every single picture they took, came out perfectly. Really, people? Do you actually believe this nonsense?

4) The tiny amount of space within their capsules as compared to the necessary huge amount of space to take all that would have really been needed: lots of batteries (both primary and back-up), a lunar rover ...

5) The totally flimsy looking "walls" (seemingly connected by duct tape).

6) Photos that show parts of the Lunar Module clearly, when they were in the shadows and thus un-illuminated.

7) That the US was well over a decade behind the Soviets, yet "caught up" in just a very few years - while the Soviets never got there. (I don't find it convincing the claim that the Soviets would have exposed the farce - because there are endless examples of the buying off of politicians; if the price is right.)

8) We still don't have anything close to fold-up cars almost 50 years after they supposedly had ones they took to and drove on the Moon.

9) #1: The Van Allen Belts (and beyond) would require manned capsules to be enclosed by thick amounts of lead - something NASA has never claimed they had.

10) Related to "7)" and "9)" above: that no country has sent humans above LOW Earth Orbit since then.

I don't buy one bit that there supposedly no reason to go back to the Moon.

Bonus points: NASA supposedly lot almost all the original tapes (cartons and cartons of them) of what was supposedly THE most historic achievement humans ever made. That they didn't have/make copies and lost the only ones seems totally unreasonable. and ...

NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTO WITH STARS IN IT! The sky from the Moon's surface should be blazing with stars at least some of the time when they were supposedly there. Yet they didn't manage to take ONE single foto of them? Not one? When just one would have been so convincing? (NASA even has art-work depicting a would-be Lunar view in which the sky is chock full of stars.

...

I wonder if any of the 10 major problems with the Apollo Mission that I posted will get any response?

Here's an 11th and related 12th:

11) There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.

12) Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (heck the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, with just that un-powerful machine, were driving thru a cloud of dust they were kicking up. Yet, in ALL pictures of the Lunar Landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it.

Legit question wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Yes, and Jim Lovell didn't have a hole blown in his spacecraft, or circle the moon, and the earth is flat. What morons. Good thing Buzz Aldrin wasn't around during that pinheads interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UryIstlIGks

Lovell claimed to see condensation on the windows. Uh, how is that possible in a zero-G environment? Not possible, therefore another lie. Try again.

I think you and your BFF Pablo have been dipping into the Mescaline way to much. Condensation certainly can't form in a vacuum, But the interior of a spacecraft isn't one now is it? While it may be a zero gravity environment, it has an atmosphere that supports life. Humans in said atmosphere respire. Given enough exhaled water vapor and cold, condensation can and will form. And may well have, if Lovell's recollection is accurate. I'd be interested in seeing any scientific papers you can provide links to that state otherwise. I won't feed the troll and attempt to respond to your subsequent rambling post, as I believe there's numerous pages of earlier postings on the same subject. I have nor the time nor the energy to get in a circuitous argument with someone that is so clearly delusional.

From Pablo Novi:

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. " [emphasis added by Pablo]

a) "SOMETIMES". Hmmm. Why in the world wasn't it ALL THE TIIME? This was SUPPOSED to be LIVE coverage:

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.)

Check out "Last humans on the moon" youtube video:

https://youtu.be/cOdzhQS_MMw

Here's the description provided:

"Lunar lift-off film for Apollo 17. The television camera was mounted on the rover which Gene parked about 145 meters east of (behind) the lunar module. The ascent stage ignites and climbs, spacecraft foil and dust flying in all directions. Ed Fendell in Houston anticipates exactly the timing of ignition, lift-off, and the rate of climb, and the camera tilts to follows the ascent. At pitchover, the throat of the ascent engine points down at the camera and its combustion is visible as a small bright light. The clip ends as Challenger reaches an altitude of 1,500 feet. "

Ed Fendell in Houston was a quarter million miles away; and any and all information about the actual take-off was, AUTOMATICALLY, delayed in getting to him (in other words, he was aiming the camera BLIND!). Do YOU really believe that he ANTICIPATED E-X-A-C-T-L-Y all of:

i) the timing of ignition,

ii) the timing of the lift-off,

iii) the EXACT rate of climb ???

Impossible? Worse, it's ridiculous!

Stop believing the BS that NASA feeds you.

I think Buzz Aldrin, you and Pablo need to meet.