modest Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 If they didn't go, I wonder how they put those laser-reflecting mirrors up there that scientists have been bouncing lasers off of for decades... hummm... Maybe the people at area 51 had their ET friends put the mirrors on the moon. Yeah, that'll work. - modest (wrapping tinfoil around his head)
cosmored Posted January 2, 2008 Report Posted January 2, 2008 If they didn't go, I wonder how they put those laser-reflecting mirrors up there that scientists have been bouncing lasers off of for decades...An unmanned craft could have soft-landed on the moon. It could have had laser reflectors attached to its sides. Surveyor had landed before the supposed Apollo missions. I have a lot of stuff I want to post but I can't post links until I've made ten posts. Here's a thread I started on another forum that has the stuff I can't post yet.forum.sbrforum.com/politics/49943-did-we-really-go-moon.html You have to copy and paste it.
freeztar Posted January 2, 2008 Report Posted January 2, 2008 An unmanned craft could have soft-landed on the moon. By the same logic, why couldn't a manned craft land on the moon?
cosmored Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 By the same logic, why couldn't a manned craft land on the moon?Copy and paste that link in my last post and look at reply #18 in that thread. It has some stuff I found about space radiation. Sorry I can't just post it here but I can't post hotlinks until I've made ten posts.
freeztar Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 Copy and paste that link in my last post and look at reply #18 in that thread. It has some stuff I found about space radiation. Sorry I can't just post it here but I can't post hotlinks until I've made ten posts. I haven't looked at your link. I'm guessing you are talking about the Van Allen radiation belt though. Take a look at this link:MAD Scientist: The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon Also, these moon hoaxes have been discussed in pages and pages on this very site not too long ago. You can find that thread here:http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/2281-flags-moon.html Pay close attention to the second post in that thread. That link will take you to a site that brings up the common claims of hoax believers and debunks them. After you read all of that, come back and let me know what you think. :eek_big:
REASON Posted January 3, 2008 Report Posted January 3, 2008 You've got to be kidding, of course we went a moonwalkin'. Falling for this conspiracy is simply foolish. And I agree with Buffy, it is incredibly disrespectful to all of those men and women who dedicated their lives to accomplish such an amazing goal set forth by JFK. The Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo programs were the foundation for all of the astounding accomplishments of the space program today. Where would we have developed all of the experience necessary for current missions if all we were doing back then was bouncing around a movie studio. Here is another site that debunks all of the conspiracy claims: Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions
modest Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 And I agree with Buffy, it is incredibly disrespectful to all of those men and women who dedicated there lives to accomplish such an amazing goal set forth by JFK. Or, is it disrespectful to deny there was a conspiracy and ignore all the hard work thousands of people put into the cover up? - modest (checking his teeth for transmitters)
REASON Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Or, is it disrespectful to deny there was a conspiracy and ignore all the hard work thousands of people put into the cover up? Or the hard work of the ensuing whistleblowers. Not! It would never be disrespectful to deny the work of liars and cheaters once it is proven they are as much.
cosmored Posted January 7, 2008 Report Posted January 7, 2008 Here is another site that debunks all of the conspiracy claims: Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions That site has no credibility. I was posting there. Look at the way they control the way debates go. This is a thread I started.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html Look at the lame excuse the moderator gave for closing the thread. Bad Astronomy is a government damage-control site. The pro-Apollo people who post on that forum don't even believe their own arguments. This site describes what's going on at Bad Astronomy opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222(excerpt)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry that you have to copy and paste my links; I'm still too knew here to be able to post hotlinks.
REASON Posted January 7, 2008 Report Posted January 7, 2008 That site has no credibility. I was posting there. Look at the way they control the way debates go. I wasn't suggesting that anyone look at their forum discussions. I've never read any of those. The link I provided leads to a page that includes a number of links to Apollo Conspiracy Theories and their Debunkers. This is where your attention should be focused.
Buffy Posted January 7, 2008 Report Posted January 7, 2008 If you don't respond to people's questions and requests for data, and can only scream "its a conspiracy and they're out to get us heretics," no one will take you seriously. To repeat Freeztar's question above: if you believe that we've successfully put probes on the moon, why don't you believe we've sent men there? The thing you need to consider is that its far more difficult to keep a secret about having faked something than it is to actually do it! The popularity of conspiracy theories is explained by people's desire to believe that there is some group of folks who know what they're doing, :phones:Buffy
cosmored Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 To repeat Freeztar's question above: if you believe that we've successfully put probes on the moon, why don't you believe we've sent men there?Look at post #17. There is evidence that at least some of the footage was taken on earth. If they really went, why did they fake any footage at all?Space radiation is a possible reason for their not going. The official version of space radiation is that it's safe to travel through it for short periods of time. The only people who know the truth are people who work for governments that have sent probes into space who have high security clearances. The government lies about science all the time. I was discussing that at the Clavius forum. Here are the threads. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1172922252 apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1180875941 After you copy and paste those links, you'll see a space. You have to close the space or the link won't come up. Sorry, but I can't post hotlinks yet. The link I provided leads to a page that includes a number of links to Apollo Conspiracy Theories and their Debunkers. This is where your attention should be focused.The regular posters at the Bad Astronomy forum are the same ones that regularly post at Clavius.I was debating at Clavius and those people made a big blunder when they were lying about science. It's explained in this link.apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1194111920 Look at the third post of this link.apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1187016551 (again close the space when you copy and paste those links) Notice how Jay Windley ducks questions about science.clavius.org/about.html(put three Ws in front of this link) It's the duty of both the Bad Astronomy and Clavius sites to support the official government version of everything including Apollo. If there's an issue they can't obfuscate, they avoid it. Just the fact that those two sites are there is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax.
cosmored Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 I wasn't suggesting that anyone look at their forum discussions. I've never read any of those. The link I provided leads to a page that includes a number of links to Apollo Conspiracy Theories and their Debunkers. This is where your attention should be focused.What they do at Clavius and Bad Astronomy is provide an alternative explanation for the anomalies and then just consider them debunked. Here's an example.clavius.org/photoret.html(put three Ws in front of this link) It's plausible that the hoax theory explanation is correct and it's plausible that the explanation given by Clavius is correct. This if far from debunked. I'd like to hear your analysis of this.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4(put three Ws in front of this link)
Buffy Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 Look at post #17. There is evidence that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.No, there is a stretched interpretation that does not hold up to scrutiny. So saying:If they really went, why did they fake any footage at all?...is an attempt to create a situation where those who disagree with you have to prove a non-existence, which is a non-scientific approach. Space radiation is a possible reason for their not going. The official version of space radiation is that it's safe to travel through it for short periods of time. The only people who know the truth are people who work for governments that have sent probes into space who have high security clearances.This is patently false, and we've had a discussion of this topic right here at Hypography among people who don't have security clearances. I have personal friends at Cal Tech who deal in space science, and unless they're all in on the conspiracy too, then I have first hand testimony that while its dangerous out there, its not that big of a problem given how and when the moon landings were performed.The government lies about science all the time.Well I'd agree that the current administration has done so extensively on Global Warming and other topics that are hostile to business and the social conservatives, but that actually argues *against* your claims of massive, successful conspiracy: These more recent "coverups" leak like sieves, and the press has the information on the falsification very quickly. You have to ask yourself, with the *thousands* of people who would have had to be in on the cover up, given the fact that conspiracies of just a few people can fall apart so easily, how did they pull this one off? What they do at Clavius and Bad Astronomy is provide an alternative explanation for the anomalies and then just consider them debunked. ... It's plausible that the hoax theory explanation is correct and it's plausible that the explanation given by Clavius is correct. This if far from debunked.In some cases here they're doing much more than just "providing an alternative explanation" they're providing reasons why your explanation *can't* be true. I'm sure that's hard to see when you're strongly advocating for your position. In other cases, you are simply engaging in the phenomenon I described earlier of proposing an explanation, providing no evidence and then demanding to show why it didn't happen that way. Here's an example: An apple falls from a tree. Two possible explanations:Over time the connective tissues between the apple stem and the tree branch weaken, eventually getting to the point where gravity is able to exert a greater force on the mass of the apple than the remaining connective tissues are able to support it and it falls.A little invisible man is sitting in the tree and he pushed on the apple until it fell.Unless you can prove to me that it wasn't Explanation 2, then Explanation 1 is false. That's the essence of your argument, and that's not science. Honestly, if you want to argue this, go back to Bad Astronomy and try to argue it there. We've got people on this site *who were there*, and these silly conspiracy theories with such flimsy, non-scientific "evidence" coming from people who are far more concerned about the "government" or the "Trilateral Commission" or the "Black Helicopters" being out to "get me for being a heretic" is not only unbelievably tiresome its downright offensive. To those thousands of men and women who were there--and obviously would have had to have been in on the "conspiracy"--posts like this are just an offensive "you're all liars!" If you enjoy doing that, go down to your local biker bar and walk up to the biggest guy there and call him a "pansy." Its much more interesting than arguing with us. Why is this thing safe for me and not for my keys? :)Buffy
CraigD Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 I suspect that “manned moon landing a hoax” conspiracy theories will continue to enjoy a large, ever-renewing fringe following until clear images of Apollo landing artifacts can be viewed. Though die-hard conspiracy theorists may not be convinced even by such evidence, I think their numbers are few, about the same as the number of true flat earth proponents. Since my optics-making days in the late 1970s, I’ve been intrigued by the possibility of answering these hoax accusations by simply pointing a really powerful telescope at these artifacts (a footprint would be ideal) and saying “look at this”. Thought there’ve been lots of advances in telescope technology in the past 30 years, this is still a bit beyond anyone’s capability. This was discussed in greater detail in and around post #66 and post #71 of the old “Flags on the Moon thread”. A nifty feature of the Google Lunar X Prize is that it offers a bonus prize for a moon lander/rover that captures close-up images of Apollo artifacts. This is, I suspect, more likely to happen in the next decade than imaging by a Earth-based telescope, but might itself be subject to accusations of being a hoax. The Google X prize is much discussed in the 12819. Personally, I believe men walked on the moon for essentially the same reason I believe claims of people visiting any place I’ve not been myself: I trust the word of the people who say they’ve actually been there. Buzz Aldrin in particular I’ve heard and read a lot by, and just don’t, on a gut level, feel he or the 11 others claiming to have walked on the moon are lying about it.
cosmored Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 I don't have time to do a long post today so I'll start with this. Look at post #17. There is evidence that at least some of the footage was taken on earth. No, there is a stretched interpretation that does not hold up to scrutiny. So saying: Please say what caused the flag to move if it wasn't a gust of air caused by the passing of the astronaut. youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4(2 minute 35 second mark) There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs Sorry but you have to copy an paste those links. You also have to put three Ws in front of them or they won't come up. As soon as I've made ten posts, I'll be able to post hotlinks.
modest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Please say what caused the flag to move if it wasn't a gust of air caused by the passing of the astronaut. YouTube - Apollo 15 waving flag(2 minute 35 second mark) I hate to even engage you on this as I have a sneaky suspicion you're not going to see reason, however: By process of elimination: Is it air? No air on the moon. Is it the astronaut? No, too far away. What else is there? Moon dust. Are they kicking up a lot of moon dust when they BOUNCE around? Yes Are we really, really sure? Yes, Same video at 0:10, 0:13, 0:40, 0:42 - every time they move a foot they kick up a great deal of moon dust. Could debris kicked up from the ground reach the flag? Obviously, the moon has 1/6th earth’s gravity. Could we expect the flag to move after the astronaut bounces by it? Yes - the combination of low gravity, no air resistance, and fine dust on the ground shows exactly what we would expect to see. What is it about conspiracy theorists that leaves them incapable of deductive reasoning?This one I can't answer. -modest
Recommended Posts