sykkelmannen wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:42 am
@Zzzzz: I can't believe you insist on this premise of yours that landing on the Moon is easier than faking it. I have nothing to say in response.
Why have you started this thread and poll, if I may ask?
Well if you can't believe that I insist on the premise that landing on the Moon is easier than faking it, when it is very obvious that I do insist it, then it is no wonder you can't believe (despite how obvious it is) that we landed on the Moon!
I had created this thread and poll for the same reasons as anybody creates a poll and a thread on this forum: To start a sensible discussion based on the facts and the hard evidence.
So far, despite your claims to looking at the "hard evidence", the evidence you have presented would be immodest to even call itself "soft evidence". Let me remind you that this is what you have presented:
- A video of the Apollo 17 takeoff from the Moon to which you add your subjective opinion that it is hilarious
- A press conference of the Apollo 11 to which you add your subjective opinion that they are lying
- Some pictures taken on the Moon to which you add your subjective opinion that they look fake
- An analogy to the Emperor's New Clothes which I have already poked holes in
I have presented objective facts: They did not have the technology at the time to fake the moon landing. They would have needed to get so many lasers of so many different colours and put them all together like pixels on a TV screen to create the lighting that we see. We could easily fake the moon landing today as we now have computer graphics technology, so don't have to use the lasers. They only had red lasers at the time and even getting one of those would be unimaginably improbable. Not to mention that the Soviet Union would have every reason to claim that the moon landing was faked if there was any evidence that suggested so.
Why didn't they?
Were they in on it too?
Was Yuri Gagarin and Laika being sent to space faked too?
Was the Cold War faked as well?
Was the DPRK in on this?
How did the U.S. government get all those lasers in order to create the lighting?
Were they secretly developing computer graphics technology?
If so, why would they spend the time they could have used developing technology to send a man to the moon developing computer graphics technology?
Why would they waste so much money developing computer graphics technology, building a massive rocket, hiring Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as actors, hiring a director (Stanley Kubrick?), catering for a film crew, making a film set, etc. instead of just using that money to sent a man to the moon?
What was the point of that speech Richard Nixon was supposed to read out in the eventuality that Neil and Buzz were to die on the moon?
Were they worried that they could be killed by one of the film props falling on them?
The answer to all of these questions is very obvious. Very obvious indeed. The answer to all of these questions is that the moon landing was ever so clearly not faked and it couldn't have been faked and it would have been easier to just go to the flipping moon than to majestically create the lighting and to get the Soviets to not sing like a bird. That is unless you want to make another analogy to the Emperor's New Clothes. Or perhaps another fairy tale - Rumpelstiltskin maybe?