The only "proof" that is relevant is proof that the image has been doctored. Accusation stemming from a prejudiced viewpoint is not evidence at all. You might as well suspect that the Twin Towers were never hit, and that they are still standing. Anything to the contrary is a carefully contrived cover.
It is clear that you embrace fakery so long as it feeds your bias confirmation. The planes were there in all 4 cases, witnessed, caused damage, and killed hundreds of people. You want to imagine that it basically did not happen and that there were gratuitious explosions from conspirators and the vanishing of hundreds of people. The fact that you can doubt the Apollo program shows that you are willing to twist everything into fakery. When you do that, you are building your world on lies...and you don't seem to realize that doing so is counter to what we are supposed to be doing.
I'm not saying we should not question, but we have to accept the real answers, or the questions are superfluous. All that seems to happen is that some of us pose a question---and answer it with a conspiracy theory, and that's the end of the question.
No basis for doubt. All the "questions" I've seen have been simple scientific ignorance. Moreover, doubts don't prove anything except ignorance. The proper challenge is a proof of the contrary.
Nonsense. There's 50 years worth of basis for doubt. Science is supposed to be repeatable, yet we cannot return. In the meantime "Climate Science" has proven the science community is easily corrupted by money, politics, and lies. Everything must be scrutinized and re-evaluated.
What a ridiculous argument. The Apollo program was an immense political and economic commitment. "Going back" was not about science; it was about political will and popular support---which was lacking. And (to play devil's advocate) why go back? We have more surface sample material than has been examined. The current plan to return is cluttered with woke objectives (sending the first woman to the Moon, and maybe also the first black person) and visionary objectives (the search for water and helium-3). I have misgivings about the mission architecture, but that's NASA for you.
"Climate science" deserves always to be in quotation marks---but it is not travel to the Moon. It is refuted by facts, not by suspicion.
The only "proof" that is relevant is proof that the image has been doctored. Accusation stemming from a prejudiced viewpoint is not evidence at all. You might as well suspect that the Twin Towers were never hit, and that they are still standing. Anything to the contrary is a carefully contrived cover.
It is clear that you embrace fakery so long as it feeds your bias confirmation. The planes were there in all 4 cases, witnessed, caused damage, and killed hundreds of people. You want to imagine that it basically did not happen and that there were gratuitious explosions from conspirators and the vanishing of hundreds of people. The fact that you can doubt the Apollo program shows that you are willing to twist everything into fakery. When you do that, you are building your world on lies...and you don't seem to realize that doing so is counter to what we are supposed to be doing.
I'm not saying we should not question, but we have to accept the real answers, or the questions are superfluous. All that seems to happen is that some of us pose a question---and answer it with a conspiracy theory, and that's the end of the question.
So the Apollo program is your sacred cow? No doubts allowed? Why?
No basis for doubt. All the "questions" I've seen have been simple scientific ignorance. Moreover, doubts don't prove anything except ignorance. The proper challenge is a proof of the contrary.
Nonsense. There's 50 years worth of basis for doubt. Science is supposed to be repeatable, yet we cannot return. In the meantime "Climate Science" has proven the science community is easily corrupted by money, politics, and lies. Everything must be scrutinized and re-evaluated.
What a ridiculous argument. The Apollo program was an immense political and economic commitment. "Going back" was not about science; it was about political will and popular support---which was lacking. And (to play devil's advocate) why go back? We have more surface sample material than has been examined. The current plan to return is cluttered with woke objectives (sending the first woman to the Moon, and maybe also the first black person) and visionary objectives (the search for water and helium-3). I have misgivings about the mission architecture, but that's NASA for you.
"Climate science" deserves always to be in quotation marks---but it is not travel to the Moon. It is refuted by facts, not by suspicion.