Breaking::: Free Eye Exam for those Willing to OPEN Theirs👀👀
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
As my point was, you need to prove we landed on the moon, not that we didn't land on the moon. It's important not to reverse the burden of proof. If you're satisfied with all the proof you just described, great.
It's 6 landing sites, not 3.
You asked if I "believe in" telescopes. I don't "believe in" anything. I believe things when it can be demonstrated. Meaning I "believe that, because...". If telescopes can be demonstrated, then it can be believable. If telescopes cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to find it believable. "Believing in" things is asking one to turn their brain off and not think about why you believe it or if it's warranted to be believable.
As for your chain of logic here, you're making some unwarranted leaps. If your only proof that NASA went to the moon is from supposed photos provided by NASA and not a neutral third party, then that's a proof that wouldn't hold up in a court of law by itself. Being combative about minor side issues like satellites, telescopes, and lasers is not a clear way to think about this.
Finally, I never even shared what my position on the moon is. I'm only providing guidance on how to properly analyze fantastic claims, in a way that's grounded in reality. FYI, my grandfather worked for a NASA contractor and was one of the engineers who designed the Apollo Spacecraft, a fact we're very proud of in my family.
All I would need to do is prove we went one time. You are correct since telescopes exist and it is objectively true, it wouldn't matter if you believe or not. If I can't get any of the data from NASA I could then use any of the multitude of private photography correct?
The fantastic claim isn't how many times we went to the moon, but that humans went to the moon at all. So showing that we went there, it makes it a lot more plausible that it happened whether it was 1 time or 100 times.
If you had private photography from multiple independent sources showing signs of humans being on the moon, then it would be excellent proof for humans being on the moon.
Most people can easily go purchase a telescope and test it for themselves, so whether telescopes are a thing or not can be easily verified. This is not something typically that you're going to find people arguing about.
I'm not sure what some you are arguing for. Telescopes exist, satellites exist. Satellite photos exist of the moon
You originally made the point that we did land on the moon, and there are no lizard people, as if it's obvious, and how dare people think otherwise. This is not the sane approach of critical thinking.
The sane approach is to always begin with the simpler default which does not require blind faith on the matter or trusting whoever you consider to be your authority. In this instance, the simpler default is that we did not go to the moon, and there are no lizard people till proven otherwise. Both of these require considerable proof to stray from the default.
If you are satisfied that we went to the moon or that there are lizard people given the proof you have seen, that is fine. However, the default should not be that the monumental task of going to the moon occurred or that super rare creatures exist if you cannot independently verify the information for yourself.
Given this, if your research on the topic has convinced you, you should not be faulting others for choosing the sane default who are unaware of the rare proof you have gathered. To put it differently, it should not be taken as obvious that we went to moon, or that lizard people exist.
Your original point that it makes more sense to assume there are no lizard people or that Joe Biden hasn't been replaced by a look alike are reasonable assumptions. However, it is not reasonable to just assume we went to the Moon because NASA says we did, and you should not be faulting people who want proof on the matter.