does your answer change if we narrow the claim to US astronauts walking on the moon in 1969?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50062695)

every piece of evidence, without exception, is dubious on many levels.

this makes any rational person begin to wonder.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50062700)

it would have been very simple to avoid/mitigate the controversy. instead, they went out of their way not to avoid it (by providing only the weakest possible forms of evidence), which any rational person would find suspect.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50062711)

Moon landing deniers are closer to flat earthers. There is unanimous third party cooberation from every international space program (including hostile nations that have every incentive to deny it if it was possible) that we landed on the moon. To believe it is fake means you must think that you've uncovered a massive, unanimous, international conspiracy. This is absurd on it's face, moreso that you're just some shithead and not a rocket scientist who can actually make an in intellient analysis of the data.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50062971)

the 'evidence' of a moonwalk amounts to the following argument: 'Uh, if we HAD in fact faked the landing, surely the Russians would have said something! So QED! That proves we did it.'

plus: a few very dodgy photos and the retarded 'feather drop.'

that's it? it's very weak evidence, objectively. anyone who cannot admit this is not worth engaging.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50062974)

Your poast is it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50063230)

it's basic analysis. you look at motive -> opportunity -> process to implement -> expected results. if process to implement is very difficult you simplify it so you can achieve the expected results.

endless retarded shitposting like this is why you get nulloed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065761)

The real explanation is Consuelas One World System theory, i.e. the cold war was fake as hell just like the current Ukr/Rus nonsense and the Iran b.s.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065477)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065590)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065652)

all technology builds on itself except for moonlanding tech, which mysteriously disappears, as well as all the original blueprints, footage, and telemetry data

hell, they even made a recent movie with scarlett johannensen about how it was wink wink nudge nudge faked

whatever reflectors are on the moon are either a natural phenomenon or landed there like landing a mars rover

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50064513)

WTF are you talking about? All this stuff is available. If you want to argue it's faked I'd say you're stupid but it is a colorable claim. Saying it's non-existent is just objectively wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065447)

Same as what they do with dinosaur bones, and iirc same playbook for sequencing Covid19 "virus"

Also btw the footage is absolutely not available, they dont even pretend with that one

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065456)

Also the telemetry data was conducted by ordinary, unencrypted radio. It was independently confirmed by many other nations, universities, and individuals. This includes the Soviets, who monitored it very closely and had every incentive to poke holes in it if it.

Other space programs have also captured evidence if the lunar landing from their own photos. This also includes hostile countries that have every incentive to claim it's fake.

The moon landing is impossible to fake you retards. As if the US had the ability to prevent anyone from watching it just like NASA with their own equipment, or sending their own probes to observe the landing sites since. To be believe it's fake you have to believe ALL the other space agencies, indepdendent universities, etc across the world with the equipment to verify it are in ln the conspiracy. But you, some retard who thinks "They admitted the recordings are simulated!" when you could take 2 seconds to find out they DID NOT say that, cracked the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065493)

it's like consuela claiming, in full "sincerity," that he believes that every single scientist in the entire world with access to microscopes and genetic sequencing (tens of millions of people) is lying about the covid virus being different from the common flu virus

no one actually believes this, just like nobody really believes in the moon landing being faked once they're forced to look at it in this way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065519)

But anyone with the means can indepently confirm the COVID genome, the curvature of the Earth, and the moon landing site. These retards think everyone that does so today is lying but can't be assed to do it themselves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065568)

you're just spamming cunty midwit ad hom that only makes you look like the "overconfident" retard you are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50065606)

https://imgflip.com/i/aysrbp

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50066299)

but hey check out this black hole 5,000 light years away!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50071087)

also see here

https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5195472&mc=141&forum_id=2#45198099

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50071333)

IS THIS REAL?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50075399)

@azngirl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2…id#50075441)