Live data from Hacker News

Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

kottke.org

11–20 of 201 posts

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#11

What gets me most about these fools is they completely ignore how much such a huge fake job would cost. It would be so expensive that you could cut the budget in half and just...go to the moon.

Isn't this the joke? That if Kubrick really was going to be employed by the US Government to "fake" a moon landing that, with his penchant for realistic set design, he would've filmed it on site.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#12

What gets me most about these fools is they completely ignore how much such a huge fake job would cost. It would be so expensive that you could cut the budget in half and just...go to the moon.

There are always people that actually believe it, but there are good reasons to suspect it's not entirely organic. If one made a list of times the "fake landing" thing was used, the vast _minority_ would be arguments agreeing with this skeptic; in reality, it serves a different purpose.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21170684

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21057230

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#15
I think the sad part is there are people who still fall prey today to this and many other conspiracies, anti-vaxx just to name one.

But this is a core tenant of freedom of speech and information, so not matter how objectively wrong, I'll defend the teacher's right to say it.

There will always be those who fall into fringe ideas regardless of how disprovable they are because they choose to believe the moon is made of cheese. The tool of critical thinking not being applied well can easily end up here.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#16
They would have you believe that the United States Government perpetrated a gigantic fraud on its citizenry.

Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that happened, by any government. The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn’t even twenty years ago.

Not defending the moon landing doubters, or conspiracy theorists in general, but: the proper response to these things isn’t to point and laugh. It’s to recognize their origins - a (often justified) loss of trust in institutions and governmental narratives - and work on addressing and fixing them.

Edit: commenters seem to be focusing on a single example, which I presented as an illustrative point for a much deeper and more important phenomenon. You’re missing the forest for the trees.

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#17
post #2

Armstrong's reference to the moon reflectors brought back memories of this classic Big Bang clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k&feature=youtu.be In this context I can easily imagine that Zack is the teacher.

not sure why I feel the urge to reply :) but Zack is the very opposite of that teacher. Zack is asking questions and wants to learn. That teacher just tries to push her opinion on someone, leaving to room for reply, no room for a conversation, exactly what no teacher should do, no one in general but especially someone who should promote discussions, questioning and argumentation

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#19

They would have you believe that the United States Government perpetrated a gigantic fraud on its citizenry. Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that happened, by any government. The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn’t even twenty years ago. Not defending the moon landing doubters, or conspiracy theorists in general, but: the proper response to…

Oh and didn't the WMD fraud come out internally ? Tell me one NASA or JPL scientist officially on the mission who is claiming that it was fake ?

Stop being contrarian for the sake of it .

Re: Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic

#20

What gets me most about these fools is they completely ignore how much such a huge fake job would cost. It would be so expensive that you could cut the budget in half and just...go to the moon.

Isn't this the joke? That if Kubrick really was going to be employed by the US Government to "fake" a moon landing that, with his penchant for realistic set design, he would've filmed it on site.

See also this Mitchell and Webb sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
Post reply on HN