RE: so-called "moon landing" question
July 13, 2011 at 2:21 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2011 at 2:27 pm by Napoléon.)
Surely it would be more evident that it WAS faked if there WAS dust on the lander?
I don't understand the line of thinking that because there is no dust, it means that it's faked? WTF? *EDIT* Nevermind, I seem to have forgotten about the arguments from ignorance (I don't understand so god did it, I don't understand so it was faked) oops, silly me!
I don't understand the line of thinking that because there is no dust, it means that it's faked? WTF? *EDIT* Nevermind, I seem to have forgotten about the arguments from ignorance (I don't understand so god did it, I don't understand so it was faked) oops, silly me!