4 ms·

Let's pretend NASA is a carmaker company. It successfully builds Golf 2, one of the most versatile cars ever made. That car can do everything and go anywhere.

Let's pretend NASA is a carmaker company. It successfully builds Golf 2, one of the most versatile cars ever made. That car can do everything and go anywhere. Now, say that NASA wanted to upgrade that car after 50+ years. And now, that car can't even go 50 miles before requiring a refill. Are we supposed to believe how the new car is better? Are we even supposed to believe that Golf 2 worked as well as NASA said it did? Hell no.

twirlip 3y ago
Your analogy with carmaker companies doesn't communicate the illogic you believe it does as there are several instances where car companies produced inferior followups to successful models. Furthermore, the self-same manufacturers largely did improve their vehicles to high levels of reliability and performance.
dotnet00 3y ago
I see you're back to peddling your moon landing denial as you come up with increasingly unfitting analogies while ignoring basic evidence for why such a conspiracy makes no sense.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked. Nearly every comment I leave about it gets a (rather poorly constructed) reply. EDIT: After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA! Parroting how "conspiracy makes no sense" is dellusional at best: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/ https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/ Just explain to me how the USA managed to fund two large foreign wars and a bunch of expensive Moon landing missions at the same time, but now it's too expensive? You can't.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    Again, the "conspiracy makes no sense" argument is that the Soviet Union had the complete technological means to verify the landing (after all, they did not need to send people there to verify it). They had full incentive to show any convincing evidence that it was a lie. Yet, they never did. They never even wrote anything down, else we all know current Russia would be doing its best to publicize it. There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program. Yet, once again, not one person has actual physical evidence of any conspiracy to fake the landing. The fact that the country which literally had thousands of nukes pointed at the US (and vice versa), and has never shied away from propaganda, did not and has not credibly denied the Moon landing, is the standard you need to beat. Not piss poor analogies and comparisons like the ones you keep giving.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    > I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked. > After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA! News at 11, person takes society's consistent interpretation of their crackpot conspiracy theories as ridiculius as further evidence of a conspiracy. > Just explain to me how the USA managed to fund two large foreign wars and a bunch of expensive Moon landing missions at the same time, but now it's too expensive? You can't. Sure I can. It's not too expensive as in "can't", it's too expensive as in "won't" because most the public doesn't care about it and it's not deemed a national security issues (which the space race was) which would cause the govt to push it anyways and also try to convince people with a concerted effort that it matters. To me it feels like you don't understand how the social dynamics of representative governance works, but it's really fairly sinoke. Things people want are easy to fund or do, and things they don't are hard, but the government has various levers it can press to change that to larger or smaller degrees over time.

twirlip 3y ago

Your analogy with carmaker companies doesn't communicate the illogic you believe it does as there are several instances where car companies produced inferior followups to successful models. Furthermore, the self-same manufacturers largely did improve their vehicles to high levels of reliability and performance.

dotnet00 3y ago

I see you're back to peddling your moon landing denial as you come up with increasingly unfitting analogies while ignoring basic evidence for why such a conspiracy makes no sense.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked. Nearly every comment I leave about it gets a (rather poorly constructed) reply. EDIT: After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA! Parroting how "conspiracy makes no sense" is dellusional at best: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/ https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/ Just explain to me how the USA managed to fund two large foreign wars and a bunch of expensive Moon landing missions at the same time, but now it's too expensive? You can't.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  Again, the "conspiracy makes no sense" argument is that the Soviet Union had the complete technological means to verify the landing (after all, they did not need to send people there to verify it). They had full incentive to show any convincing evidence that it was a lie. Yet, they never did. They never even wrote anything down, else we all know current Russia would be doing its best to publicize it. There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program. Yet, once again, not one person has actual physical evidence of any conspiracy to fake the landing. The fact that the country which literally had thousands of nukes pointed at the US (and vice versa), and has never shied away from propaganda, did not and has not credibly denied the Moon landing, is the standard you need to beat. Not piss poor analogies and comparisons like the ones you keep giving.
- kbenson 3y ago
  > I sometimes wonder if NASA has a dedicated team paid just to "debunk" people who claim that Moon landing is faked. > After leaving a recent reply and getting negative karma on several other unrelated comments in like 5 minutes, I can confirm with high probability that my assertion above is correct. Thank you NASA! News at 11, person takes society's consistent interpretation of their crackpot conspiracy theories as ridiculius as further evidence of a conspiracy. > Just explain to me how the USA managed to fund two large foreign wars and a bunch of expensive Moon landing missions at the same time, but now it's too expensive? You can't. Sure I can. It's not too expensive as in "can't", it's too expensive as in "won't" because most the public doesn't care about it and it's not deemed a national security issues (which the space race was) which would cause the govt to push it anyways and also try to convince people with a concerted effort that it matters. To me it feels like you don't understand how the social dynamics of representative governance works, but it's really fairly sinoke. Things people want are easy to fund or do, and things they don't are hard, but the government has various levers it can press to change that to larger or smaller degrees over time.