Cancelled. Budget cuts.
Y’see, that’s the difference between you and the “u cant make me spel rite” people–you have a sense of humor about your glaring inadequacy. 
No, they haven’t. That’s where your “argument” falls apart.
I figure for a “claim” to mature into “evidence”, it can’t be shown wrong in 30 seconds or less.
Of course, that’s only the beginning. Evidence has to stand up to whole minutes of scrutiny.
Maybe they faked their landings, too?
Big FEET!
But how do you know India exists? Have you questioned that claim?
No? Why not?
You can’t, but the evidence “for both sides” does not always require scrutiny. In many cases the evidence for Case A is simply so overwhelming that looking into Case B is not a productive expenditure of time. The sky is blue. Lake Ontario is wet. It will probably hurt if I jump out my bedroom window (I live on the 15th floor.) How much time should I dedicate to challenging those claims? None. I am not going to spend my time “questioning” whether Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian alien, because that is so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration. It is generally very easy to know the silly shit from genuine controversy. I have an IQ above that of a hamster, as do most adults. Most people can,* not perfectly but with a fairly high degree of accuracy, *filter out claims that are simple facts from claims that are controversial from claims that are dubious from claims that are probably bullshit.
If someone says to me “The capital of France is Paris,” that is a fact. It is possible in theory that a gigantic conspiracy has been perpetrated and that Paris is not the capital of France, but I am not going to “question” that unless shocking evidence comes up.
But some things are controversial (“Cutting Social Security benefits will hurt old people”) and some things are dubious/bullshit - for instance, a few years ago there were ads running in Canada asking for donations because, according to the ads, “one in three kids can’t play organized sports because they can’t afford it.” That immediately set off my bullshit detector. Why? Well, a lot of reasons:
- It’s a suspiciously convenient fraction
- It is difficult to believe it’s true, given the low cost of many sports and wealth of Canadians
- It directly contradicts my personal experience
- The ads were run by a company that sells sporting equipment and so stood to directly make money from an effort to buy more sporting equipment for children
So I questioned it. I looked into the facts. As it turns out it was bullshit, but who knows, maybe next time I’ll find out a dubiouos claim was true.
Moon hoax claims, frankly, belong in the same pile as Holocaust deniers and people who say Barack Obama was born in Kenya; it’s just such colossal bullshit that it’s not worth my time to investigate until something pretty big comes up that proves it isn’t colossal bullshit.
I suspect that the real motive here isn’t about the moon landing, but that a certain poster’s favorite pet subject of scientific racialism. If we only opened our eyes to the possibility that certain races are superior to others instead of taking common sense facts for granted…
Yes they have. You need to learn the difference between “evidence” and “proof.”
Yes, of course I have. Many times I have wondered if the entire universe – including India – is a simulation. Anyway, please just state your point about India and I will tell you if I agree with it or not. TIA.
Well there you go.
That may very well be. It depends on a lot of factors – the evidence, the amount of time, the individuals involved, etc.
Lol, nice attempt at well-poisoning. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I am a complete skinhead. It doesn’t affect the merit of my argument one bit.
Indeed, and there is something else that **brasil84 **misses. when he says that
"I think there is value in thinking critically – or at least attempting to think critically – about whether the moon landing was faked or not. "
There is the problem that that line of thinking is just an invitation to ignore history, not just the historical record of the moon landings and technical evidence, but to ignore the history and the mess of critical discussions that took place all over the world and even here in the dope, regarding the common mistakes and lack of corrections made by the moon hoax conspiracy theorists.
Both from Dictionary.com.
So do you.
As previously mentioned on this thread, it’s not like the US didn’t have enemies during this era.
I would ask him for official Soviet documents and pronouncements stating the moon landing was faked (other than statements made for mass consumption.)
For example, an article in Pravda wouldn’t work, but KGB communiques that state that the Soviet State is (er, was) certain that the landings were faked, their reasons for this belief, and how they think the Americans faked it.
I’m sure people in the USSR have made that argument, but if so, how did they fail to convince Brezhnev? What were the arguments used that convinced him the US succeeded?
(I didn’t realize this thread was 90+ posts in, so if somebody else made the same point, my apologies.)
Well, if you think about it, he sounds a lot like a postmodernist with a side of “not checking what was discussed before”. But what I’m saying here is that there is no need to point at him about not knowing much about history, not knowing much biology, not much about a science book..
But I do know that I would love… 
to see you stick to the moon landings. 
The only use of examining the claims of moon hoax deniers is for entertainment value, or for knowing some of the fallacies they use so that when you encounter a hoaxer “in the wild” you might have the tools to debunk them on hand. But I know exactly what you are doing and I just find it highly amusing how transparent you are about it.
He isn’t, I’m just pointing it out.
A little whoosh there, (Although I have to say it is uncanny how Sam Cooke got brasil’s number before he was born. 
)
But I mostly agree with you, I just wanted to investigate the latest crazy moon hoax ideas, I was getting bored of the same old from him.
Before Truthers, Birthers, and now the Sandy Hook truthers, I used to consider the Moon Hoax crew to be the slimiest conspiracy nutjobs around. Other conpsiracies I could see some emotional need for, but the Moon hoaxers were just vandals. The bored kids of the CT crowd who slash tires and spray paint on walls just because they are bored and want to break something more capable people made.
Their evidence is pathetic. It depends on the target not being familiar with some basics of science. Their method is classic not seeing the forest for the trees. These nuts would scan the footage for ‘anomalies’ while ignoring how impossible it would be to have a 14 hour non-stop 1 take scene with rigging set up for 1/6th g.
Oh, and they lie about their own credentials. There isn’t a prominent Moon hoaxer who hasn’t done some serious resume padding. It fun when they get caught, too. when Jay Windley (clavius.org) tells the tale of how one of the hoaxer begged and pleaded with him not to reveal how his engineering credentials were purely the product of his imagination I get a warm fuzzy almost as good as when I see Buzz deck Bert Sibrel.
No, they haven’t. And you need to learn the difference between reality and ramblings of utter lunatics. The latter is what that supposed proof/evidence offered up by the Moon landing deniers happens to be.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Let me ask you this: Suppose John asserts that the moon-landing was faked and the way he knows it is that his uncle who worked for NASA told him so.
Would you say John’s statement counts as evidence that the moon landing was faked?
I disagree . . . I think it’s useful to scrutinize their evidence and arguments.
Nonsense, but please feel free to assume for the sake of argument that I have an agenda whether carefully hidden or blatantly transparent.