How can there be people like Engineers who can believe the moon

Shoot a laser at one of the mirrors.

>>8220516
What I've never understood is whether or not sceptics deny all the moon landings or only the first one.

>>8220516

They didn't have the tech and it would have been far cheaper to just fake it

>>8220546

Prove the mirrors were placed in 1969

>>8220568

Only the 1st

>>8220546
Better yet, he should look at the mirror with a telescope so he can notice he is a faggot.

File: tumblr_inline_nxfe9vGlrP1rqbbvq_500[1].png (230KB, 500x443px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 500x443px

> I-I believe it coz I saw it o-on tv guise
oh poor kid...doy ou believe in transformers too ?

>>8220516
>but how do educated people fall for this meme?
There have been studies showing that people with higher IQ are more gullible.

>>8220614
Never mind. I can't seem to find anything past some psychological mumbo jumbo. Nothing conclusive.

>>8220609

Sure, have you seen any ? Where are they ?

>>8220516

>mechanical engineer

You found one that knows his stuff.

>>8220538
The burden of proof is on you because you accused it of being fake. It's like if I were to tell you "Prove that you aren't a racist or a pedophile or a murderer who has never been caught" and as you sat there stunned I started yelling "I KNEW IT I KNEW IT YOU CANT COME UP WITH ANYTHING IM CALLING THE POLICE"

Anyways, to answer the OP I guess it depends on what you consider to be an educated person to some degree. A person can be educated in one thing but not others. A person who is intimately familiar with what technologies we had at the time, and whether or not they could get us to the moon, would be a good source. He would have to be somewhat removed from the space program to prevent a bias answer though

>>8220734
>The burden of proof is on you because you accused it of being fake
the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim

if you claim the moon landing was fake, you have to prove the claim

if you claim the moon landing was real, you also have to prove that claim

>>8220743
its a well documented project with numerous indicators that they were in fact there. Soil samples were brought back, rock samples, seismograph recordings were taken, we discovered 3 new minerals from the mission, one of which being unsynthesizable on earth...

>>8220761
>Soil samples were brought back, rock samples, seismograph recordings were taken,
So... some rocks, dust, and squiggles on paper?

Also: "Oops! We accidentally exposed them to Earth atmosphere! And no, you can't look at them yourself!"

>we discovered 3 new minerals from the mission, one of which being unsynthesizable on earth...
The rock sample being impossible to find or make on Earth isn't a credible claim. How the fuck would you prove that? You can't rule out every possible clever trick.

I believe the moon landings happened. I find the claim that they did it credible. The explanation of how they did it is detailed and should work. There's clearly been unmanned soft landings on the moon. Manned ones wouldn't be harder, just bigger, more expensive missions. And it's not that much harder keeping people alive in space than on submarines.

But there's really no way of absolutely proving that it wasn't faked, and I understand why people are skeptical. The American manned space program since then has been completely insane and the rhetoric about it has been profoundly dishonest.

>>8220761
and all of that constitutes the evidence to support your claim

i never said i thought we didn't go to the moon. i was just pointing out a mistake in your statement

>>8220516

There are engineers who think that hydrocarbon fires cannot cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse.

Some go as far to say that the notion of three such buildings collapsing due to hydrocarbon fires for the first time in history on the very same day seems terribly unlikely.

There are also some veteran pilots who think that unremarkable and inattentive pilots of light Cessna aircraft would be unable to manually pilot commercial jet airliners in the absence of computerised flight controls and navigation systems.

Some go as far as saying that the idea of such an unremarkable pilot being able to descend 7000 feet to tree-top level, while executing a 270 degree turn, is plain ludicrous.