User talk:PseudoscientistFrank/moon

Wondered how long this'd take to get here. 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel really, really embarrassed that I once took this shit seriously. FML. 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to feel embarrassed about this. I think it is good to open discussions with sceptics about the moon landing hoax, because it is an area where I, myself, am a sceptic. Lucho (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify Lucho. Are you skeptical that we went to the moon or are you skeptical of all this moon denialism stuff?  --DamoHi 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious, he is skeptical that the US Apollo Program landed men on the Moon. By the way, Lucho, you know we already have an article on moon landing hoax, right? 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Is sceptical of scepticism though.  Maybe improve through edits. Lucho (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
A look at Lucho's user page and contributions in Wikipedia may be illuminating... See also this and this. --ZooGuard (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What wrong with my edits to other sites? I am expert on the moon hoax, and try to tell that story on other site. Lucho (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me
Most of your arguments favoring a moon landing "hoax" come from sources from the former Soviet bloc who would have an opinion to the contrary, because the moon landing was an historical defeat for the Soviet Union in a technological and informational sense. It was highly embarrassing, and thus Soviet Union sources, to this conservative mind, are highly untrustworthy. Conservative Punk (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In America, you land on moon. In Soviet Russia, moon lands on YOU!!!   07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who better to be sceptic of moon landing than Soviet scientists who had nothing to gain from it? Lucho (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But everything to lose. tmtoulouse 17:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is plenty of political gain. Even today, as the Soviets are deemed to have "lost" the Cold War and demonised quite badly (yes, much of it deservingly, but still) there's plenty to gain by attempting to discredit or smear the US and its space program, even post facto. 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right. But there are other sceptics from western Europe and Americas that also do research and are notable. Lucho (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic
"The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when... I ask my friends and readers to get behind Obama's new policy. Join with me and help usher in a new age of space. A space programme that truly goes somewhere!"

You are right, I am totally convinced! Obviously Buzz Aldrin was admitting that they didn't go to the moon, as opposed to, say, referring to the fact that the space programme in recent years was rather lackluster compared to the 60s and past promises and expectations (no moon landings, no man on mars, no moon colony etc.) -- Nx  / talk 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The budget speaks volumes for that. At 5.5% of US GDP at the height of the space race to 0.5% now (which is about half in real money). Also, Aldrin FTW! 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You take out of context. I use lack of moon funding to highlight the fact that United States does not have the technology for moon landing, and will not fund something that it hasn't technology for, now that there are sceptics this time to double check it. Lucho (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. So let me get this straight. NASA has a lower budget not because the US is no longer engaged in a pressing space race and the public's imagination for it has waned as a result, but because they faked the moon landing and so won't fund another one? I'm really, really sorry, but you either need to get your head examined or come clean admit that you're just having us on. 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you make bad assumption. What I saying is that they cut plan to go to moon because they knew the technology was not there. It has less to do with NASA funding and more to do with delaying indefinitely plan to go back to the moon. Lucho (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No... I understand you perfectly. It's just that your reasoning is really, really bad. 13:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I not saying it is the best of argument, I just find it suspectious that, when NASA budget is cut, a moon trip is gone but they want to fund research into going to mars. Lucho (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be worth asking why NASA should return to the moon? Are there technical reasons for it, or would a return to the moon have the sex appeal of visiting the mysterious planet of Mars? -- ConcernedResident pillow, for the ladies 14:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many reason for it. Usually, I heard it is a good place to starting a point to go to Mars. Lucho (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heard from whom?  17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete
OK, so it was put here for a practical joke (see "Lucho"'s user page). But since this is an article/essay by some guy at another site, who hasn't actually posted here, I don't reckon we should keep it around unless we're going to do anything with it, like a point by point refutation or some such. I know there is no actual copyright issue over keeping it, but I think it would be better just to delete it. 06:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I'd see for keeping it is for reference. While an SBS would be nice, I think it'd be clunky and it's worth integrating the points better into the main moon landing hoax article. Then it can be deleted. 06:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He turned up as a BoN. I see no reason to delete, arbitrarily, a user's sub page.  07:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)