What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
EDIT: Let's cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We're not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don't believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I'm sure almost everybody has something to add.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm infamous on Reddit as "that moon landing denier gal". Sorry but I just don't buy it. No goalpost was safe that decade and you don't need the analytical videos to tell you that.
My main come back for this: It was the height of the Cold War and the Soviets didnt question it. Also, recently, the Chinese moon missions has photographs of modules left by the Apollo missions on the moon.
To be fair, the Soviets also thought the space race to be all done with once they put their astronauts in orbit, and they weren't really paying attention when America went to the moon.
At the time anyways. Especially the population at large wasn't interested. It strikes me as weird to say you're not interested in proving superiority in a certain field when you are when the whole point of making a statement is to be declarative about it.
No they didn't. They had their own moon program and announced their intentions to land in 1961 before the Americans announced in 1962
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
If making a statement, why be quiet about it? That ruins the whole point of making a statement like how better someone is at something, doesn't it? The civilian population in particular didn't really care.
I don't understand what you are saying. They had a moon landing program.
Also, do you really think that if the Soviets had the opportunity to embarrass the Americans by proving the landing was fake, they wouldn't take it? Of course they would. Instead they were able to track the Apollo mission all the way and knew it was real.
But they also said they weren't interested in the space race. Note that you can be interested in an endeavor other people are interested with without wanting to engage in a "race" with them. In this case they are claimed as being interested in showing off while simultaneously being insecure about said thing. I would be puzzled if someone's method of showing off was precisely that, to not show off.
You say the rest like they did see it that way, that we absolutely went to the moon. How do you think censorship works? There is plenty of documentation about the case against the moon landing. Despite looking like plot armor though, the power of our culture has promoted the counters to it over it though.
Even if the Soviets had given up on the space race, they still had a vested interest in embarrassing America. They had every motivation to prove that America faked it, but they didn't do it, because they had all the evidence that it was real. They could track the space craft and listen in on the same signals everyone else did.
All documentation against the moon landing has been thoroughly debunked many times. But you don't care about that.
You don't have to trust the Americans, there is plenty of independent third party evidence from multiple sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Yikes
So much for honestly answering the question OP had. What did people expect, the status quo?
Posting a decades long debunked conspiracy theory just isn't a very interesting response.
OP didn't ask for interesting responses, OP asked for honest responses. Should I have been dishonest?
No, you're reply is perfectly fine. It's just boring, so it will get downvoted.
TIL why people here downvote, i.e. in vain. So much for adding the downvoting feature.
I think it's working pretty well.
But if you don't like it there are frontend that hide/disable votes for you.
I'm not saying that, just saying it takes me by surprise people would be so open about using it so personally.
Bullshit you actually believe somethig that can be disproven by buying a $60 kids toy and looking up at the moon through it
Or at least, you only believe it at this point because changing your view would rock your tiny world too much
What do you think about the event when about Buzz Aldrin punched a moonlanding denier in the face after they called him a coward, liar, and a thief?
Genuinely curious. I know I can't know for certain - I cant go back in time and ride on that rocket with them. But the guy that supposedly went there seems pretty convinced he did. Even if I did believe it was faked, I'd have a hard time believing he didn't think he went.
There wouldn't be any other way I could think of it aside from it being nothing short of escalation. Aldrin's defenders would later claim the accuser "cornered him", but this is certainly neither true nor would make sense in the context. Sometimes the narrative is going to do what a narrative does, though I (unlike some here) do not judge others for having different conclusions than me.
Disbelieving in evidence doesn't make you more moral
Judgment thereof does though.
Cool, thanks for the response!
You're welcome :) I'm glad there's at least one happy person here.
I don't agree with you but I thank you for participating in the prompt, and I want you to know that you have value.
You're welcome. Seeing the reaction, I'm wondering if people read the title of the OP and were expecting popular opinions. Lemmy is more Reddit than Lemmy probably wants to admit.
Well there is not much meaningful discussion to be had about a decades old conspiracy theory that has been memed on plenty in the past. I think that is where the downvotes are coming from.
If that's the standard, there aren't really a lot of meaningful discussions anywhere on this thread to be honest. Any documentaries on mothers co-sleeping with infants, humans fighting bears, or one for each of the three people denying the big bang theory?
All of those are more interesting topics than a dumb mega-debunked conspiracy theory. Seems like your standard for interesting is History channel at 2 am?
You say that like the opposing standard for interesting ever had a timeslot on any channel. I wouldn't hold this against anyone though, I for one am not one to be as judgy or to come to a question like this expecting narrative conformity.
This is all performative. You knew you'd draw ire and that was your goal. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have announced you're reddit famous for believing a slew of debunked lies
Some people are so boring that they have to have a schtick. This is hers. She doesn’t actually believe it.
Edgy teenagers love to do this shit and sadly a lot of people never mature past that mindset.