Like most conspiracies of this scale, a non-factual counter-argument can be made that it is difficult to imagine so many people preserving the fiction:thousands worked on the Apollo missions; hundreds were responsible for the launch and the landing and were eyewitnesses to its success; most especially, three men were actually in space, two of them on the surface of the moon. So incredible would the feat of faking the moon landing and keeping the reality of the hoax a secret for half a century, that it barely seems worth the effort. It would have been easier to just land on the moon. The tenacious, idiotic appeal of moon landing conspiracy theories https://nationalpost.com/entertainm...ic-appeal-of-moon-landing-conspiracy-theories
I don't think anyone who, along with millions of other witnesses in the medium of television, would watch a rocket launch from Cape Canaveral or wherever, then deny that it happened?
Cite some evidence, please. You're making a very serious accusation. If you're right, people should be going to jail.
You'd probably do refining and even manufacturing on the Moon as well, and only send back goods with a higher value-to-weight ratio. But that said, railguns combined with the Moon's low gravity suggests that boosting material off the Moon wouldn't be a gigantic hurdle. https://www.space.com/36442-could-moon-miners-use-railguns-to-launch-ore-into-space.html (escape velocity on the Moon is just north of Mach 6 -- which is highly doable). Though what they might really use the moon for is assembling and launching spacecraft -- avoid launching fully built craft out of Earth's much-larger gravity well.
I agree that Moon's much smaller gravity well is attractive. However, we could probably assemble stuff in space if what we were assembling was for space. That would allow for multiple launches of smaller weight pieces from Earth, Moon or asteroids. Mostly I mentioned the launch issue as one more of the expensive steps in mining on the Moon - not a killer in itself, but the costs add up pretty steeply. I think the most significant single increment would probably be having moonmen.
Does the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears prove that happened? Don't tell me you believe everything you read?
How the **** can I cite any evidence of something which may never have happened ffs? I mean, you have no evidence that it did, right? I said we're done here, Will, so let's not keep going around in circles?
Are you talking about the article or the moon landings in general. You're making wild unsubstantiated claims of people outright lying but offer no evidence, thank task the other person to prove something If you're not prepared to debate then why do you bother to post, your offer no evidence of any of your claims and dismiss any evidence offered to you. Did you even attempt to read the article, well we all know the answer to that don't we. if you did you would be in danger of having to accept evidence of something.
I'm talking about the article mentioned - this Ultima Thule drivel - but other articles like it, of course. And as I said - I can't prove something where there is zero evidence that it happened, any more than you can prove it did happen. How many times do I need to keep saying that? You're simply asserting hearsay, which proves nothing. To use an analogy I just posted to WillReadmore - What would be the point of my reading the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears if I'm not going to believe it?
In that case then you seem to be purely trolling as you're saying published peer review articles can't be used as evidence just because you can't comprehend the difference between fiction and published peer reviewed evidence. If that's not the case, pick a topic you would truthfully like to debate, define the limits and then let's hear your definition of evidence, or are you going to fall back on only people with no ties or unrelated to the topic (which pretty much doesn't exist) can provide evidence. Then people can decide if they want to engage, spamming the forum with unsubstantiated claims and this dismissing any evidence that you personally haven't experienced or can't understand is not debating.
Listen, if you keep challenging me for no other reason than I'm saying things you can't get your head around, or are in denial about, whichever the case may be, you're the one who could be accused of trolling? And I gave a definition of 'evidence' only the day before yesterday - how many definitions of it do you want? You keep demanding evidence from me but will offer none of your own.
Nope! From quarter of a million miles away the missile will be easily detected and the satellite moved to safety long before it arrived.
The Smithsonian has a piece of moon rock on display that you can go and touch if that is what you need in terms of physical evidence.
No you're not at best you're trying to get people to accept your feeble attempt at a conspiracy theory with no evidence (what a shocker) but realistically probably pure trolling. So debate and provide evidence.
Wrong! You are making absurd Conspiracy allegations WITHOUT any shred of substantiation for the express purpose of disparaging and denigrating NASA in the Science forum. What you are doing is a DELIBERATE and NEFARIOUS attempt to DERAIL the Science forum and therefore meets the PF Rule definition of trolling.
Thanks for the confirmation, you can show me the insult if you want or report it but here's a hint, it's not an insult if it's true.
