Yeah, sure. Or one could take pictures simply of the stars away from the moon and Earth. But why would they? They're not very interesting compared to the moon, and they had limited film. If they had some dedicated camera and mission for that, they'd do it.
Lmao. Ironic.
Why would I accept your evidence exactly? I said post the swing arm. What did you post? Oh a picture that isn't the swing arm. Oh and it's not even the actual lander it's a model. So good job blowing your own argument out of the water.
Oh no I don't fall your for mediocre propaganda. Those words mean nothing from you.
So if I dog pile this thread with 10 people that said you fuck a dog, that means you fucked a dog.
The only thing you can do is show your own self up, retard.
You wont. That's my point. There is no evidence you will accept. You believe that the Earth is flat and even if we fired you into space, you would reject the evidence of your own eyes.
Now watch how easily and rationally I rebut your argument. Seriously, watch and learn. This is super easy for me!
For science? Why do anything? Why take a picture of a sunset, you'll see another one tomorrow?
And if you look at all the pictures they took you'd see they could spare a few shots of stars. You did look at the entire collection right?
Gotta plug up the holes in your story with, things that can be done from satellites. You know what can't be done from satellites take pictures of stars from the dark side of the moon.
you mean the ones you can find in Antarctica? Or the ones that turned out to be petrified wood? Those rocks?
Hey look repeating things again because you can only talk to yourself.
So when are you going to do it?
Yet here you are promoting evidence uncritically. Funny how easy it is to show you are a hypocrit and a liar.
I told you my standards, you keep dodging them. Not my problem. You aren't rational or even intelligent.
So when NASA says and does the same thing. Why do you not apply that standard to them? I said to show me a specific piece of evidence and you come up empty. The reasonable and rational thing would be to question it's existence, but I guess it doesn't apply to things you imagine exist. So why isn't the camera equipment for the most important moment in the history of humanity not readily available?
You've done nothing but duck and dodge like every other internet retard I talk to. So again do you believe in Bigfoot or not?
Did you catch his response to this? It's so typical. He wants evidence. Someone provides it. He refuses to accept it.
Nope.
So you want evidence that is independently verifiable? Hmm. Who is the retard now? Oh its still you.
There is not really any science there unless you got something dedicated going on.
Oh, sure. Would have probably been alright. But again, there's not much interesting in photographing stars.
They took pictures of Earth with that, too. There were no satellites out that far.
I'd not be surprised if after the the initial scares of the cold war most nukes fell into disrepair and only a minimum are still usable. Maybe even the official peak numbers were fake.
In his worldview, he gets a pretty nice paycheck and pretty nice benefits just for going onto forums and posting flat-earth cracknigger nonsense to poison the well.
If the Soviets lost the space race at the final hurdle - despite winning every race along the way with vastly superior technology, only for them to fall silent when the US beat them, or faked them, to the moon, then there would be Soviet outcry regardless. The Soviets, like any enemy nation engaged in arms races, would point to how their past victories were more signifcant, or, in the direct comparisons of Nuclear and technological races, would do everything to raise the bar further.
You're overstating it a bit. They got the first satellite into orbit. That's significant. They got the first man into orbit because they were willing to risk his life. The US mercury was ready to go at the same time.
Isn't the obvious answer, money? If we can't make money, or put our military there in order to protect our empire ...in order to make money, then we don't do it.
Animal came before man. They did a spacewalk and circumnavigation of Earth. They accomplished all their goals before the US, who were still struggling to get a rocket to not go bang.
A woman in space is a significant achievement and not identity politics. You're showing your ignorance to human anatomy here, as female Jet Pilots have greater G tolerances than males. Sending a woman to space is a legit scientific study.
I disagree, and it's fine if you disagree with that. This has very little to do with the main point.
Soviet technology was vastly superior because they accomplished more on a shorter timeline.
You don't have an empire. If you did, you would understand the importance of scientific discovery on what is referred to as the final frontier; a term borrowing from the new frontier of the discover of the Americas by Columbus and his Spanish pals. From fruit to veg to rare metals, the new discoveries in the new world allowed Spain - and then Britain when we copied the idea, to expand its' influence exponentially.
Retarded question as Concorde was invented the next decade. That was a redesign of an invention knocking on 60 years old at that point. It has been 60 years since the alleged moon landing and no-one has returned. A better comparison would be discovering the Galapagos' Islands and deciding it's not worth going back, ever.
This is just autistic flapping. You're throwing the word conspiracy around, in a conspiracy thread, as a dismissive pejorative while purposely ignoring the point of my post. Why go to the effort of replying if you're just going to huff your own farts and reply with "hyuck hycuk, ackshually" word salad?
Expense is relative. You do know America isn't the only nation on Earth, right? Which, again, is you ignoring my point and autistically rambling.
What you're saying is, the Moon landing was so succesful and cemented America as the besterest of space racers so much that they never bothered going back, not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to?
Like I said, the only answer to my question is always just a brush off about expense and politics of ONE country, ignoring the rest of the world.
Doing things for the first time and showing everyone is science in and of itself.
Yeah there's nothing interesting about it, then you go and immediately contradict yourself.
So there was scientific interest in taking pictures of the Earth. So why wouldn't you do it in film? Hiding something?
Do I get a paycheck for denying the holocaust as well or do I just get paid to think critically about what is pushed about space?
I guess we can just downplay everything the Soviets were doing to make the narrative work in the USAs favor, what a good little propagandist you are.
So saving our empire from instant catastrophic death, no matter how remote has no protective value? I guess you can't put a price on avoiding annihilation.
Well the French built the original, do America wouldn't build another since supersonic flight is banned in the states for nonmilitary aircraft. The internet has made a lot of the use of fast intercontinental flight redundant and the collapse of the world trade centers killed a lot of the customer base. There are talks about renewing the idea but I haven't heard much more in years. It's almost like there is a direct cause and effect that make rational logical sense. So when things don't, it's really fucking obvious.
Why don't you ask who owns the rights to it? You didn't did you? You just assumed something for the sake of your own argument because you lack any foundational knowledge.
Well you still haven't posted anything truthful, so you still don't know what you are talking about. Where's the swing arm Byron?
They aren't coincidences, they were projects that got shelved for obvious problems. The Concorde flew for almost 30 years and most airframes would need to be replaced around that time anyway just due to metal fatigue.
Nixon canceled the last apollo missions because they didn't need to fake them any more.
We still have leftover Saturn 5 rockets, we could go back to the moon with 100% success rate! Why aren't we using those instead of building new rockets that keep blowing up?
So what military use did the space shuttle have? Do you even know?
I would recommend you go to the cosmosphere so you can see all the artifacts from the space age. You can see what a big pile of shit it all is in person. The amazing construction of an SR71 in comparison to the junk someone welded together of the space industry.
Why is it everywhere you go involving space, you find Hollywood?
