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

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?

Nobody gives a crap about having a "debate" with a flat earther. It is foolish of you to presume that a "debate" is taking place here or should take place here.

There's also the point that some of the Wikipedia "third-party" evidence comes from NASA itself

E.g. Source #13: NASA technical report (not peer-reviewed AFAICT, no reason to believe NASA of/c)

Source #30: "Science@NASA" tells us what Neil & Buzz left behind

Source #40, #42, #43, #45, #46: News item from NASA

Any commonsense editor would have immediately caught this discrepancy, but Wikipedia is more toward keeping up the official narrative imposed by its controllers, than verifying for truth.

Haha, that you don’t see the hypocrisy is priceless.

Where is Golden State, California?

Thanks Dude wrote:

Thanks for the advice, moron!

It's not for you. It's for the people watching you make a fool of yourself.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Thanks Dude wrote:

Thanks for the advice, moron!

It's not for you. It's for the people watching you make a fool of yourself.

Awesome! Thanks for the heads up, moron!

It's a basic Fact, that the UNMANNED Soviets left reflectors behind too. So this is literally zero evidence of USA tale.

Also, how is it that bulky "moon men" placed reflectors to within 1 degree? Why not use robots, like Soviets did?

Despite the fact that the Russians landed two robots Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2, who both carried laser reflectors, NASA insists that the Apollo laser reflectors are "irrefutable proof" that Apollo landed a man on the moon.

It seems very unlikely that you would be able to place three reflectors in a near perfect ranging triangle, in a time span of ~6 minutes. It seems more than likely that the reflectors were placed by robots that could be remotely controlled from Earth. First brought to their position on the moon and then the reflectors were fine tuned to the almost perfect ranging angle. If the reflectors are placed by the astronauts we would like to see the procedures from NASA describing exactly how the astronauts accomplished this almost perfect ranging angle in 6 minutes using only a level device and a sun-compass.

Here is a 1969 training video that will put the whole NASA story to rest. It shows how the astronauts would place the lunar laser reflectors on the moon. No way they were able to place these lunar reflectors with the precision as advertised by the NASA.

I cited *my* source.... wrote:

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).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3698971/More-half-Brits-think-moon-landings-FAKED-two-thirds-don-t-believe-dinosaurs-existed.html

The gullibility of the general American public has been a long-running source of amusement in Britain, harking back to the time when Americans came to London to be sold its collapsing bridges.

Thanks Dude wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

It's not for you. It's for the people watching you make a fool of yourself.

Awesome! Thanks for the heads up, moron!

We can do this all week, you thinking you're funny and all, everyone else getting my point over and over.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Thanks Dude wrote:

Awesome! Thanks for the heads up, moron!

We can do this all week, you thinking you're funny and all, everyone else getting my point over and over.

He's hilarious and you are the top moran on here currently.

Bridge Seller wrote:

I cited *my* source.... wrote:

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).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3698971/More-half-Brits-think-moon-landings-FAKED-two-thirds-don-t-believe-dinosaurs-existed.html

The gullibility of the general American public has been a long-running source of amusement in Britain, harking back to the time when Americans came to London to be sold its collapsing bridges.

Brits do love their tabloid news, so not surprising. They also love binge drinking and fighting over soccer games. There are also large populations of migrants, that are not very fond of the USA. Don't think they average Brit is more knowledgeable than the average American.

I still believe in the moon landing even if they call me a lunatic.

Tired of this discussion wrote:

They don't need to be, dummy.

That's my point, dumb@$$.

This is seriously considered "evidence"? wrote:

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!!!

___________________________________________

Out of 55 sources, hardly ANY of them are actually scientific peer-reviewed papers!!

So, which one is it, Cheech? "Hardly any" or "none"?

No other country not even the commies have can reach the tecnical heights of 60s America to send more men to the moon (even nowadays they cant go to the moon). That makes me even more proud to be from the USA!

aoxomoxoa wrote:

Tired of this discussion wrote:

They don't need to be, dummy.

That's my point, dumb@$$.

The tire is the space suit for itself, moran.

Nice! Appreciate the out-of-this-world punniness.

But seriously, I am not a conspiracy theory champion by any measure (people like to talk waaaay too much to maintain big secrets) but the CBS-TV broadcast from the first landing is highly suspicious. Lots of relying on audio for "proof", + these weird simulations of what was supposedly going on, and finally some really sketchy-looking images of the astronauts leaving the LM. It just looks phoney as hell.

GlobalView1 wrote:

Nice! Appreciate the out-of-this-world punniness.

But seriously, I am not a conspiracy theory champion by any measure (people like to talk waaaay too much to maintain big secrets) but the CBS-TV broadcast from the first landing is highly suspicious. Lots of relying on audio for "proof", + these weird simulations of what was supposedly going on, and finally some really sketchy-looking images of the astronauts leaving the LM. It just looks phoney as hell.

As earlier posters pointed out, it is not even remotely possible that it could have been kept a secret. Many would have notified a reporter if it was even suggested.

Who do you think shot JFK?

Capricorn 1

Starring the Juice!!!