'NASA'
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (129)
sorted by:
Moon landing deniers: "NASA isn't a credible source of info."
Also moon landing deniers: "HeRe'S a LiNk FrOm FoRbEs!!"
The "mentally challenged person" I was replying to earlier said that we lost the tech to fly to the moon, despite the fact that we allegedly "figured it out with slide rulers" the first time we went. Ironically, the very article you cite perfectly explains his objections. We didn't "lose the tech" we just shut down the means of manufacturing the old tech to focus on other endeavors. In addition, rockets built today are significantly more advanced then the rockets from the Space Race, so we're not just rebuilding old equipment, we're pioneering new tech.
Watching moon landing deniers and flat earthers accidentally refute themselves is so entertaining. Please, continue.
Reverting to flat earth accusations is in poor form. I've been called a flat earther for being anti-vax. Now you're doing it because I question the moon landing. It's easy to do but shows the debater you are. Accuse someone of something totally irrelevant because it makes them look bad.
The Forbes article comes from the folks you are defending. I'm not into Forbes but if you like NASA and that sort of stuff, then by their own admission, they threw out all the plans one day during spring cleaning.
I'm sorry that you've been called a flat earther for being anti-vax (I've experienced the same thing), but I did not call you a flat earther. I remarked that both have a tendency to refute themselves with their own sources.
I'm simply sick and tired of both flat earthers and moon landing deniers using utterly irrational arguments and cherry-picking data to support their narratives. Both groups think that they're sticking it to the cabal when they're simply injecting anti-science* sentiment into the Q/Truther movement and making us look bad. And people who buy the latter narrative tend to run in the same crowds as the former.
*I'm talking about real science, not the "TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE!" Big Pharma crap.
Fair enough. No hard feelings. Truth is I'm not 100% sure we didn't go. But it does seem highly unlikely. And the only argument in favor seems to be they couldn't pull off a hoax at such a large scale without addressing all the anomalies. As if they all get erased with the broad brush of, "too big to fake."