Weak Guest needs to learn respect.
Fuck this dude! Asshole’s who think they know everything are the worst of the worst. I’m finished cutting slack to fuckers who are promoting their agendas at me. To buy his dumbass book, in this case.
He actually thinks that the “landing” would be this big moral and psychological back breaker to the fragile psyche of humans. What!?
Sorry G, I can finish this episode. He’s a disrespectful cunt who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
He doesn’t even know what the Tower of Babel is as it relates to your comment. It’s not personal, I know the work you put in and the the time spent.
FYI: I don’t give a rats ass about the fake landing or the real landing. I’ve never accepted space travel of and kind that involves traversing the galaxy. How the hell could you protect the craft or vessel from random debris? A dime size piece of space junk takes your ship and crew out. Not even to mention the radiation.
If we are on the moon it’s due to a gateway, or portal, if you prefer.
Well, he said he read the bible five times in a row, so he must know it all!
I couldn’t believe it when he said that how the “landing” going public would be what it took to wake humanity up! So naive and silly.
The guy was pretty obnoxious.
I like moon-landing skepticism as a thought experiment to help people think about the weird problems of epistemology and open their minds, same as flat earth. Have to say I don't really believe in either beyond a "suspension of disbelief" I like to adopt R A Wilson style. .
Why I think the moon landing happened:
1. Qui bono? Who would benefit from faking it. The "it's about the money!" theory of the guest doesn't make sense to me. It's the government, they print the shit for no reason at all. There are easier ways to make money.
2. Why keep doing it multiple times? How would you keep it a secret considering just how many people were involved in the project? If it were fake, why wouldn't the Soviets have blown the lid on it? You end up having to adopt a much broader and wilder conspiracy theory to account for all that, which kind of goes against the purpose of theories (beyond their entertainment value), they should account for things in as simple a way as possible.
3. As for the technical criticisms--those would have to be addressed point by point. But e.g. "No stars in the pictures"--it was during the day (on the moon) and using cameras. You don't see stars outside during the day on Earth. Part of that is the atmosphere (which the moon doesn't have) but the brightness of the sun could very well just drown them out, especially on the camera film. And as to the "50 years you don't lose technology" argument, as an engineer, there's lots of stuff we don't do as well nowadays because the technology gets bloated (much like we ourselves have). A lot of engineering today, instead of taking advantage of new technology, uses it as a crutch and actually doesn't do things as well as before when all is said and done (though it's easier). Look at the difference between a high performance video game and a web browser, the latter ends up being the one that crashes the memory on your pc because lazy web programmers don't put nearly the effort into optimizing their performance, because they don't have to. Then you open up 20 tabs and it all crashes down.