Incorrect.
If we ask "What's the simplest explanation, that race cars exist or that they do not exist?", the simplest explanation is that race cars exist, because the public has access to race car technology, can drive in race cars, and can go to any race car rally and see a race car perform as claimed.
If we ask "What's the simplest explanation, that North Korea invented a Rail Gun that can rain tungsten rods down on Washington DC, or is the simplest explanation that they did not?", the simplest explanation is that they did not.
You're still asking the wrong kind of question. You're just asking, "Does this seem likely to you?" It requires us to make too many assumptions, like, "Things that appear unlikely are unlikely." The way you word the question affects how it can be answered, and your examples illustrate this point. Your first question has an easy answer because we
all have an experience of terrestrial transportation. We've all been in a car, even if we haven't been in a race car. The object is directly within our experience.
Your second question illustrates how problematic this phrasing is because its object is something of which we have no direct experience. The question doesn't even allow us to consider the evidence, it just asks, "Doesn't that sound too complicated to be true?" We'll always answer "yes" to these kinds of questions because we rarely have any direct, relevant experience of the matter.
Thus, your phrasing always leads us to conclude that things within our current sense experience are true, and anything which isn't must be unlikely, or false.
However, if cut right to the heart of the matter and ask, "What is the simpler explanation for our observations, that NASA is deceiving the public about space flight, or that NASA is not deceiving the public about space flight?" Now we can bring all kinds of common experiences to bear on the question because we're avoiding the topic we know little about: aerospace engineering. We're solely focused on our direct experiences of lying, getting caught lying, keeping secrets, ambition, etc.
Think of the North Korea example: "What's the simpler explanation, that North Korea is lying about its rail gun, or that it's being honest about its rail gun?" Without knowing anything about rail guns, I can think about my personal experiences with human behavior and conclude, for a variety of reasons, that North Korea is probably lying about its rail gun.
You forgot about Thomas Baron.
Thomas Baron wrote a scathing 500 page report on NASA’s fraudulence and testified about it in front of a Congressional investigation. Baron and his wife and daughter were dead 7 days later! Not surprisingly, Baron’s report also went missing as well and has never turned up.
1. Your own wiki isn't exactly solid evidence of your claims. It asserts that Baron believed that the space program was being faked. I cannot find a single piece of evidence to support this claim. Not one. I've now read both his testimony to congress and the reports he leaked to the press, and I can't find a single mention of fraud.
2. Baron's original report was leveled almost exclusively against North American Aviation, not NASA.
Check it out yourself. Interestingly, the report is hosted on NASA's website. It seems odd that they are hosting a document over which they once murdered someone...
3. Baron's report was about safety concerns, not a fake Apollo program.
So was his congressional testimony. In fact, in his testimony, he explicitly states that he believes NASA
does have the capacity to reach and land on the moon.
4. You're assuming that his missing report would have been bad for NASA. His first report barely mentions NASA. I don't get why the second one would be different.
5. Baron and his family were hit by a train in their car. I don't even get how you could murder someone in such a manner.
6. If he was killed to keep him silent, why wait until after he had already testified to congress?
I can keep going if you like, but I'll stop for now to point out that, at best, of the thousands of people who have worked for and with NASA for a half-century, you've found a single person who alleges fraud. And he didn't even allege fraud.
Why would the math need to be wrong? The assumptions are wrong. Earth orbit does not exist.
If the assumptions are wrong, I fail to see how we could derive mathematics from them that is convincing to all of the mathematicians and scientists who study them every single day for the last century or so. I also fail to see how it could make so many verifiable predictions, but that's another debate, and I doubt we'll resolve this issue here.
You forgot about the inconsistencies shown on this website.
I have yet to see them, although that may be a function of my very recent arrival. I would imagine that if there were any validity to these inconsistencies, it would've gone beyond the realm of youtube videos. The fact that a bunch of non-experts on an internet forum can't come up with an explanation for these "inconsistencies" isn't very shocking, and it certainly isn't evidence of a conspiracy.
NASA failed its last financial audit from the GAO. No one seems to know where the money went.
Exactly. No one knows where the money went. That's a far cry from, "It was spent as hush money." When money goes missing, I imagine that fraud is probably the first thing an audit looks for. I can't imagine that the possibility of financial fraud was not considered by the GAO. You'll notice that none of those audits report fraud of any kind. You'll notice these reports also record specific details on the origins of these financial discrepancies. They come from things like cost overruns, changes in the costs of materials, accounting errors, etc.
My guess is that you're going to suggest that bad bookkeeping
is the means by which the conspirators are stealing the money. This makes little sense given how much attention it brings on NASA. If you're trying to hide a huge secret about NASA, it hardly makes sense to constantly have congress investigating you and imposing new financial regulations. You don't want PricewaterhouseCoopers, or Ernst and Young, or Arthur Andersen looking through your books. They all have. None of them allege fraud. Weird.
One of the few audits NASA has endured shows that NASA has a major problem with keeping track of where the money is going.
There have been plenty of audits. Since 1999, NASA has been audited by PwC, E&Y, Andersen, and the GAO. they've probably been audited and investigated many, many times since the 1960s, including by Walter Mondale and the congressional investigations that proceeded the Apollo 1 accident.
Either way, you're still only demonstrating that NASA "has a major problem keeping track of where the money is going." That's not proof of anything except inefficiency and bad bookkeeping.
The Hubble may exist as a telescope on a high altitude airplane like the Sofia, or hung from a high altitude dirigible at the edge of space like the Blast Telescope, both of which are NASA affiliated.
No, it really can't.