@floridaswamptrash basically but that is how technical innovation works

Like nuclear fission reactors

THEY never had the capability that is why they never went so they faked it

It's kind of bad logic to be like "You know what we're going to do? Even though our budget keeps getting cut we're going to start replacing the technology we have that can take us to the moon even if we don't have the money for it." 🤡

I can't believe people would take this and accept it

They spent that money on the construction of the ISS

lol

Which I think is a better call

Nasa progressing backwards since the 1970s

What a lie to believe in

so then you must concede they never went

No it hasn’t been lol

It has just had significantly less funding

@SpiderLedgic (Cancer) If they wanted to use the tech they could have regardless

@floridaswamptrash going to the moon was not that scientifically useful at that time compared to the cost. LEO research was more efficencnt and probes were getting better

Not if it couldn’t get approved

The whole idea now is that because people believe we went to the moon then is the reason they didn't want to go back

You'd have to prove the moon landing in the first place

It already has been proven

it would have been harder to fake the moon landing to actually get to the moon

Just making excuses when there are actual facts of what happened to this day and you just ignore it for what? To hold on to your ball earth. Shitz redic.

😂

@l.caudri Prove it

That’s why it’s exposed, they couldn’t fake it well enough

[21:23] l.caudri: it would have been harder to fake the moon landing to actually get to the moon--lololol ffs that is so ridiculous

Modern day orbiters, like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, has taken pictures of the Apollo 11 landing site and it is still relatively undisturbed

the computational power in the 60's to replicate the footage would of been basically impossible with the computers used then

Also it should be known that they left lasers on the Moon too so that is also evidence towards it being true

😂

Mirrors*

Imagine thinking you can make something like 2001: Space Odyssey but can't make something like the moon landing

It would have been extremely simple

You are willfully ignorant so how they overcame the speed differential, Van Allen Belt, Fuel creation, Vacuum implosion etc?

to recreate the lighting and all the shadows, you would of needed millions of lasers which were incredibly expensive at the time, as well as the majority of lasers came in red. It was easier just to actually get to the moon than faking everyting with CGI (as cgi wasnt as powerfull enough like it is today)

Dude

@Sassy Undeniably they are not showing the actual footage of them faking anything at all. Just a narrated hit peice, I would want the raw footage uncut unnarrated

```speed differential, Van Allen Belt, Fuel creation, Vacuum implosion``` They did not go throught the Van Allen belts directly they went through the outer edges of them idk what is hard to think with the fuel creation Kerosene and LOX are easy to make. Vacuum implosion im sorry what, and Speed Differential what does that even mean

I've seen this argument a lot but it makes no sense because they did it easily in the movie with lighting

@floridaswamptrash Not with that good camera quality

@l.caudri

looks pretty sh-t to me