Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

His claim of no evidence would make Randi and Phillip Klass(less) proud.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in news:JY6Xc.22578$UTP.10140

So be default, the American press and NASA is claiming to be the only
country capable of going to the Moon, and Russians are thus inept and
utterly incapable all this time since the 60's? I don't buy into that
line of reasoning because it leads to all sorts of false and ridiculous
conclusions.


It doesn't matter what you "buy into," it only matters what you can prove.


Round and round the merry go round we go, where we stop, nobody knows....




Meanwhile what justified the billions of dollars spent in
going to the Moon in the first place? No one has yet answered it other
than to say that it was politics? Absurd.


It is not up to us to provide accountability for NASA.


I am talking scientific papers which justify the billions spent. You
are talking politics.


Please contact your
congressman and ask how he or she justifies the billions of dollars. You
could, of course, call President Kennedy, but that would involve John
Edwards or Sylvia Browne, and there are many who would not accept that as
credible evidence.

It is not up to those showing evidence that the moon landings were
hoaxed, it is up to those claiming they weren't to provide evidence.




The Hubble team claimed they couldn't take pictures of the Moon's
surface when asked for proof of the lunar landing sites. Then they
released one single image of the moon which makes a radio shack
telescope seem powerful. They do this despite making claims that it
could photograph a fly in Tokyo if it were in New York.


Please cite a source for that claim. It is incorrect.


Your confusion noted.


The curvature of
the Earth would prevent such a photgraph from being taken.

I'll remember this argument next time someone tells me that you are a
sound and reasonable person.


Nonetheless,
Hubble's relatively small primary mirror cannot resolve the lunar landing
sites, and (as they clearly proved) takes lousy picutures of the moon.

Doesn't matter, still doesn't account for why the recent mapping mission
which does resolve even the smallest rocks found no evidence of any
lunar landing sites.

Nor do you explain why the exact same lunar landing site is shown for
two entirely different moon missions, which were supposedly miles apart.