You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.
Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.
That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of [....] the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania
Ooops!The "
photographic technology" on which I became overly focused seems not to be especially important to proof of those maritime disasters.
Altho' there were numerous still photos and some motion pictures of the ships before they set out on their final voyages across the Atlantic, it's my understanding that there were
no still nor motion pictures of either
sinking. But I claim no expertise for either maritime disaster; I'm not among the many people apparently obsessed with the grim details of such things, especially for the earlier sinking
[☆].
For the sinking of the
Titanic (Apr. 1912), there would've been
interviews of survivors and crews from rescuing ships. It was eventually
found on the deep-sea bottom where its iceberg-damaged hull settled. That wreck never having been raised, the "
video" or "
photographic technology" in the remotely-controlled
unmanned submersible was important to docuмent the wreck. Or are
Moon-landing deniers determined to
reject that kind of
evidence, too?
For the sinking of the
Lusitania (May 1915), the site where it sunk was no mystery. Its wreck has long been known to be in relatively shallow water offshore Ireland. Surely
that would
not be dismissed as "
not hard evidence", even tho' no
CathInfo member can travel to Ireland and just go stare at it
[†]?
Let all the above be as they may, I concede that they were my potentially
unwise digression(s). So after some quick answers, let's return to the "
Moon Race".
-------
Note ☆: E.g., once here in Central Florida, there was an exhibition of artifacts retrieved from the
Titanic; I never attended it. Not because of scheduling conflicts, but because of simple lack of interest. Likewise the more-or-less recent eponymous film; I already knew the ending.
[×]Note †: The wreck is nowhere even close to being within "tourist-diver" depth-limits. The sinking of the ship hasn't been a geopolitical issue for many decades, so I suppose it's safe to rely on
Wikipedia for all the details I've read today.
[×]Note ×: I've omitted links herein in hopes of discouraging members from derailing this
topic, whose debate has more-or-less briefly turned to issues of
proof that's typically not popularly demanded for popularly acknowledged historical events.
Topic: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge (Read 29983 times)