Just trying to insult people isn't going to get you anywhere. For example, you refer to "evidence". I would then ask....WHAT evidence? What "evidence" do you have that we have actually put men on the moon? Don't you really just have a belief....just like the people who believe that we didn't go to the moon.....you have a BELIEF that what the government and media told you is true. What other "evidence" do you actually have?
You have the same "evidence" that 19 Arabs actually caused 9/11, or that Oswald killed Kennedy. You believe what the government and media tell you. The rest of us believe something else that makes more sense to us.
Certainly doesn't make you any better or smarter (or more correct) than the rest of us.
Quoting: mehitable If you reduce all knowledge to "belief" you can most certainly create a construct under which all knowledge is equally valid. It is a sophomore argument, though.
Is my "belief" that the sun is shining outside on a par with my "belief" that it will not rain tonight? On the latter, I have not looked at any forecasts or even looked at the sky recently, and I have no real basis for that belief. On the former, unless the physical laws of the universe have drastically changed or someone is playing an extremely expensive (and pointless) practical joke, all I need is the bright light shining on my shades and the time of day to know that, indeed, the Sun is shining just as it has on other days.
The "belief" many Apollo deniers have regarding a faked project is based on their understanding of political realities, and a naive and generally uninvestigated idea of how such a thing could be technically accomplished.
The "belief" of Apollo supporters is mostly based around understanding of the science and technology, both of which make a successful hoax extremely difficult. This is -- and, yes, one should thank the Apollo deniers in part for seeing that this happens -- an INVESTIGATED idea, as potential methods and flaws are constantly being brought up and subjected to rigorous testing to see if they are scientifically sound.
My belief in the basic veracity of the Apollo record rests largely on this; that over a period of ten years I have frequently gone to primary references, standard textbooks, and calculator, and the counter-proof offered by the Denier de jour has always failed to meet even a minimal standard.
I have worked hard for this belief. At least as hard as any Apollo denier, and -- I would like to think -- more rigorously than they. And as opposed to the narrow investigation of the anomaly hunter, I am interested enough in the subject to have done significant reading outside any specific question. This has given me a deep appreciation of just how large, detailed, and consistent the record is.
The Apollo Project is roughly as well-documented as the American participation in World War II. The essential science behind it is as established -- with as many sources and tests and cross-referencing to other fields of science -- as the metallurgy of steel. It is not inconceivable that some hoax exists, but it would have to be so massive, so far-reaching, and so difficult to sustain the idea that someone is shining a 2K HMI (and a whole bunch of other instruments as well) at my house in order to convince me the Sun is shining becomes entirely plausible in comparison.
