|
Post by AtomicDog on Apr 11, 2009 21:06:00 GMT -4
Yeah. If you're going to fake something, it's just as easy to fake a battleship as it is to fake a rowboat.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 11, 2009 22:41:43 GMT -4
Frankly, I've always thought it was one of the lamest claims. How stupid would NASA have to be to make disproving Apollo that easy? Also, why did Grumman bother downgrading from a sleek, gleaming helicopter-like vehicle to a spindly tinfoil bug? Why not just say the Saturn V could handle the weight and leave it at that? It's examples like this that show how hoax claims can easily fall apart with you apply logic.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 12, 2009 11:26:37 GMT -4
Yeah. If you're going to fake something, it's just as easy to fake a battleship as it is to fake a rowboat. A battleship with human-sized doors, even, rather than a double-wide phone booth with a cat door.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Apr 12, 2009 13:25:37 GMT -4
Frankly, I've always thought it was one of the lamest claims. How stupid would NASA have to be to make disproving Apollo that easy? Part of the problem with many of the alleged claims that prove Apollo was faked, is that many HBs take the default position that any claim made against the authenticity of Apollo should be assumed to be correct. It is up to NASA, or non-HBs, to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the claim is incorrect. Even casting 90% doubt isn't sufficient. If it isn't proven to be incorrect, then it might be correct, therefore it is part of the huge body of evidence that somehow proves Apollo was faked, simply because there is so much of it. Problem is, a load of old hogwash isn't any more convincing than a teeny bit of hogwash. Not to my mind anyway.
|
|