:laughing: If you wanted to, I don't think it'd be difficult for you to debunk it. But let's just pretend it's real. It's too brilliant to be proven wrong.

Precisely.

Really?
 

Not to insult you, but how could you possibly not know that people landed on the moon? It's common knowledge, it's one of the most talked about feats of human achievement and you just found out about it like 6 months ago. That just strikes me as ridiculous. I guess maybe you've got an excuse if you're really young or something, but otherwise: RIDICULOUS. :crazy:

I think (hope) it was sarcasm.

He could live a sheltered existence where all knowledge that doesn't come from indoctrination comes from the internet.

I guess one question one could also ask is why should it be so hard? Expensive, yes - obviously, but is really sending people to the moon the kind of sci-fi feat people take for granted that it is? You need a rocket to get everything up there, once in orbit, you need to point the "ship" in the right direction and have some kind of propulsion, you need to contain pressure in the ship and a landing module and so on. Taking off from the moon and coming back should be easier than escaping the earth's gravity. Then you need some kind of heat shield when you reenter atmosphere. Parachutes will allow for safe landing .. On top of all this, you need communications with earth.

The solutions to this put together is impressive, but when you dissect it, it doesn't seem so unbelievable that someone could do this by the end of the 60s. Rocket technology from WW2 was available for example. So was radio and they could "easily" calculate trajectories and so on.

Exactly. Regardless of which side anyone takes in this debate (if you can call it that), I don't see how the concept of a moon landing in 1969 could be considered infeasible given technology and knowledge of the time. I mean what do people think rocket scientists, astrophysicists and aeronautical engineers were doing for decades before that? Twiddling their thumbs?