“It’s more difficult to prove that it happened than to prove that it didn’t happen. Yet most will blindly defend that it 100% happened.”
The idea that you can’t prove a negative seems to be disputed. Nevertheless, if proving that it DIDN’T happy is “easier” – then how do you go about that?
One “malonth” says: “Usually a technological breakthrough yields even greater technological breakthroughs.” How “usually”? And it admits the possibility that a breakthrough may NOT yield even greater breakthrough.
Though I think one “Dave” makes sense: “Maybe the trip to the moon isn’t worth the money? What can we get from the moon that we haven’t already?”
I assume that this is the moon landing hoax thread:
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1838268262020166030
Some dodgy thinking here. Take one “Pancho”:
“It’s more difficult to prove that it happened than to prove that it didn’t happen. Yet most will blindly defend that it 100% happened.”
The idea that you can’t prove a negative seems to be disputed. Nevertheless, if proving that it DIDN’T happy is “easier” – then how do you go about that?
One “malonth” says: “Usually a technological breakthrough yields even greater technological breakthroughs.” How “usually”? And it admits the possibility that a breakthrough may NOT yield even greater breakthrough.
Though I think one “Dave” makes sense: “Maybe the trip to the moon isn’t worth the money? What can we get from the moon that we haven’t already?”