While I don't give much credence to this conspiracy theory, I also think that the skepticism displayed should not properly be called skepticism, it is better referred to as apologetics.
If I had to put of with conspiracy theorists as long as he has I probably would've slugged him too. And how does Buzz Aldrin popping one of these guys in the face prove its a hoax. "Dont it piss you off that you have been FOOLED!!" I think the same can be said about you nutjob.
Why were the Apollo 11 crew given a at best lukewarm reception in Sweden ( read Buzz Aldrins Return To Earth-1974) because European newspapers were already hinting that it was a 'hoax'?
What do these statements have to do with whether man went to the moon or not? Nothing - they are typical of the logical fallacies used by moon landing deniers.
The arguement that NASA was capable of pulling off a hoax but was incapable of sending a man to the moon is not a great comparison. NASA is a military wing of the US government. anything military can be covered up. just look at Pat Tillman's death or the Jessica Lynch rescue or even WMDs in Iraq. All lies that originated from the Pentagon.
But see how quickly these lies are exposed. Clinton was alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office when he "did not have sexual relations with that woman" yet it come out. Only a handful of high ranking politicians new about Watergate & it came out. Why risk conducting a hoax multiple times only increasing chance of exposure.
Half his answers to the questions are - " Simply not true there is ne evidence for that" then he moves on?? He is not debating just stating the opposite.
This series of videos is fascinating, but unfortunately the sound lets it down, I can't hear what the speaker is saying half the time. But what I did hear made alot of sense, and I feel that I now have more answers for the conspiracists.
The fact that conspiracists arguments are ad hoc and do not stand up to scrutiny when examined more closely. Just listen to what he says. Remember that it is up to the conspiracists to prove that we did not land on the moon, rather than NASA having to prove that they did land on the moon (he who asserts must prove).
While I don't give much credence to this conspiracy theory, I also think that the skepticism displayed should not properly be called skepticism, it is better referred to as apologetics.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Doe the speaker have to be such a dullard in his delivery?
DEREKinNYC 3 years ago
Learn how to use power point & a projector if you are going to give a lecture!
webovisionca 4 years ago
5/5
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
The astro-nots themselves prove it's a HOAX. Don't it piss you off that you have been FOOLED!!.
fonephat 4 years ago
How?
mddawson1 4 years ago
look up astronauts gone wild,it's on you tube.
fonephat 4 years ago
If I had to put of with conspiracy theorists as long as he has I probably would've slugged him too. And how does Buzz Aldrin popping one of these guys in the face prove its a hoax. "Dont it piss you off that you have been FOOLED!!" I think the same can be said about you nutjob.
newdad1107 3 years ago 3
"But see how quickly these lies are exposed".
What year was 'Diamonds Are Forever' released?
Why were the Apollo 11 crew given a at best lukewarm reception in Sweden ( read Buzz Aldrins Return To Earth-1974) because European newspapers were already hinting that it was a 'hoax'?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
What do these statements have to do with whether man went to the moon or not? Nothing - they are typical of the logical fallacies used by moon landing deniers.
mddawson1 4 years ago
I thought it was blantantly obvious what those statements had to do with the Moon hoax and how quickly it was 'exposed'.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
The arguement that NASA was capable of pulling off a hoax but was incapable of sending a man to the moon is not a great comparison. NASA is a military wing of the US government. anything military can be covered up. just look at Pat Tillman's death or the Jessica Lynch rescue or even WMDs in Iraq. All lies that originated from the Pentagon.
23ofSeptember 4 years ago
But see how quickly these lies are exposed. Clinton was alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office when he "did not have sexual relations with that woman" yet it come out. Only a handful of high ranking politicians new about Watergate & it came out. Why risk conducting a hoax multiple times only increasing chance of exposure.
mddawson1 4 years ago
Half his answers to the questions are - " Simply not true there is ne evidence for that" then he moves on?? He is not debating just stating the opposite.
monkeycage2 4 years ago
This series of videos is fascinating, but unfortunately the sound lets it down, I can't hear what the speaker is saying half the time. But what I did hear made alot of sense, and I feel that I now have more answers for the conspiracists.
tranquility65 4 years ago 3
like what?
limbrip 4 years ago
The fact that conspiracists arguments are ad hoc and do not stand up to scrutiny when examined more closely. Just listen to what he says. Remember that it is up to the conspiracists to prove that we did not land on the moon, rather than NASA having to prove that they did land on the moon (he who asserts must prove).
tranquility65 4 years ago