Well yeah, but that still doesn't prove it 100%. What if they tried to build a craft but it didn't really work? It would certainly look real, and there would be dozens of engineers who could testify that they worked on it, and there'd be receipts for the materials used, and manuals and logs and everything else.
That type of approach to evaluating the plausibility of something is riddled with unknown holes, and it's arbitrary to boot i.e. everyone has a different threshold for how much of that type of evidence is enough. That means this type of evidence really isn't conclusive.
The problem with believing what you just said is that it works against you by making the elephant in the room even larger. Given human ingenuity and drive; given von Braun's dedication; given the extensive research and development of new materials, all meticulously documented: Why, then, have we not been able to go back? How exactly has it gotten more difficult? It's not like NASA exploded to shreds and everything was lost. It's not like all the engineers were executed. There were lessons learned. Advancements made. Modern computer technology is lightyears ahead of what we had back then. We have better materials, better manufacturing standards, and the scientific value of developing that technology has always and will always be infinite.
You would have me believe that all these things you give as proof...these things that convince you that the moon landings happened...that they only existed for a couple of decades of the last century, and formed a perfect storm of ideal conditions to achieve arguably the greatest feat of human kind, but they've become completely unattainable to us in this day and age when almost every facet of technology and engineering has advanced by leaps and bounds since then...my friend, you are going to have to work extra hard to sell me that bridge.
Well yeah, but that still doesn't prove it 100%. What if they tried to build a craft but it didn't really work? It would certainly look real, and there would be dozens of engineers who could testify that they worked on it, and there'd be receipts for the materials used, and manuals and logs and everything else.
That type of approach to evaluating the plausibility of something is riddled with unknown holes, and it's arbitrary to boot i.e. everyone has a different threshold for how much of that type of evidence is enough. That means this type of evidence really isn't conclusive.
The problem with believing what you just said is that it works against you by making the elephant in the room even larger. Given human ingenuity and drive; given von Braun's dedication; given the extensive research and development of new materials, all meticulously documented: Why, then, have we not been able to go back? How exactly has it gotten more difficult? It's not like NASA exploded to shreds and everything was lost. It's not like all the engineers were executed. There were lessons learned. Advancements made. Modern computer technology is lightyears ahead of what we had back then. We have better materials, better manufacturing standards, and the scientific value of developing that technology has always and will always be infinite.
You would have me believe that all these things you give as proof...these things that convince you that the moon landings happened...that they only existed for a couple of decades of the last century, and formed a perfect storm of ideal conditions to achieve arguably the greatest feat of human kind, but they've become completely unattainable to us in this day and age when almost every facet of technology and engineering has advanced by leaps and bounds since then...my friend, you are going to have to work extra hard to sell me that bridge.
So you're saying there's no economic motivation for developing space travel technology?