Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Moon landing conspiracy theorists say this photo is new ‘hoax’ proof | New York Post" video.

So simply because of a crude metaphor employed in a sophomore lyric by Anthony Kiedis - you take it literally and think it's true? Clever lad.
8
@rachelg9868 "Van Allen belts make space travel impossible." Fascinating. And in over half a century entire branches of science in addition to their related cognate fields of expertise such as astrophysics and aerospace engineering have been oblivious to this. And now, five decades after the Apollo missions, this revelation, this 'gothcha' appears on the comments section of You Tube. Could it actually be that you haven't the remotest clue about space travel, not to mention radiation, and you gullibly parroted this off a junk conspiracy video? Or alternatively, is it that you, a random commentator on a video entertainment platform are poised to completely overturn known science and are on the cusp of a Nobel Prize nomination by publishing the revelation that "Van Allen Belts make space travel impossible". Tough one that.
2
Firstly, they don't show it was fake at all. You have been conned and duped by online grifters and their monetised junk conspiracy theory. All of their predictable and nonsensical claims can be routinely debunked by anyone with a knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight/the Apollo Programme and a modicum of critical appraisal and objective verification. Secondly, they haven't all been taken down at all. Moreover, you can find all of this horseshit through the reinforcement and confirmation bias of nothing more than a 30 second Google search...and guess who owns You Tube genius?
1
And your point being?
1
@justin2997 "Nobody believes the government and no one cares what they have to say., Simple" Some do, look no further than imbecilic Trump aficionados during the last presidency or devotees of Valdimir Putin in the Russian Federation. But what does this have to do with the Apollo missions that were cancelled 51 years ago or the scientific, independent and third party evidence in support of them? Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that uninformed claims about the moon landings being faked by some internet grifter or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy, which you will appreciate and understand given your claimed command of the written English.
1
@Judaism_Terror On the contrary, there were nine crewed missions to the moon in all, and six manned landings meaning that 12 men walked on its surface. Nothing to do with me and I have no idea what 'optimism' has to do with avoiding a syllogistic logical fallacy. Perhaps read my response again. Meanwhile, the scientific, independent and third party evidence is manifest, demonstrable, incontrovertible and has a voice of its own.
1
@Judaism_Terror You're not particularly bright are you? Bless.
1
@Judaism_Terror Of course you have..dumb times
1
Explain precisely what technology was lacking.
1
@@mermaidsmonsters1017 Which "machines"? Provide your evidence. Substantiate your claim. The retroreflectors placed by Apollo allowed far greater precision than anything that could have been deployed by an unmanned lander. Have you any idea? Of course you haven't. You also need to explain the ALSEP experimental packages that by their very design could only be assembled, cabled and configured manually. Go ahead then.
1
What an odd and confused analogy. I'm assuming that you are suggesting the the technology wasn't there to place man o the moon? Could you explain and detail precisely what was lacking? Thanks.
1