REASON Posted January 16, 2008 Report Posted January 16, 2008 You people are ignoring the video evidence. I'd believed they went to the moon until the arrival of the internet when I was able to see the evidence that they hadn't gone. I didn't have any problem modifying my opinion. Most people who ignore the evidence can't admit to themselves that they've been fooled. If someone shows me some conclusive proof that they went to the moon, I'll be happy about it; I think it would be great to go to the moon. The evidence shows otherwise though.Why don't you explain why the above evidence doesn't show they were in a studio instead of the moon? I watched those videos, and I've seen several of them before. They are not convincing to me since rational explanations have been provided that account for what are considered anomalies by HB's. I'm not sure you've read those. Phil Plait does a fine job of answering the challenges of hoaxers but you discredited him because you didn't like the way their forums are moderated. You didn't even address the explanations for the so called anomalies, so I question whether you have actually seen those. Maybe you should go back and review those explanations and then raise any specific questions you have about them here. I'm not sure, other than a moving flag, what makes you think that the moon is just a movie set.
modest Posted January 16, 2008 Report Posted January 16, 2008 Smile and grin at the change all around me, :)Buffy Thanks to you buffy and all your wonderful quotes, my favorite game on hypography is "Who said that". -Well then, who said that? Yes. -I mean the fellow's name. Who. -The guy that said the quote. Who said that. -That's what I'm asking, Who said that quote? Yes - That's right. :hihi: -modest
REASON Posted January 16, 2008 Report Posted January 16, 2008 I agree modest. I do that too. :) But where's the the? :hihi:
modest Posted January 16, 2008 Report Posted January 16, 2008 Aye REASON, And in case no one knows what we're talking about - buffy's quote is by "The Who" hence the 'who's on first' reference.:) -modest
Buffy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 But where's the the? :hihi: Oh well, sometimes tha 60's get in the way of the the 80's... All I ever seem to do is sit here playing around with this stupid guitar, ;)Buffy
Michaelangelica Posted January 18, 2008 Report Posted January 18, 2008 China has a moon exploration programme on the drawing boards. I agree with Buffy, it is such a slap in the face to NASA. It may not have been the best way to start exploring space. but it did capture people's imagination. An international orbiting space station, then another self-sufficient SS on the moon is the way ahead. I would like to see someone try Sir Fred Hoyle's (?) idea of a "space lift/elevator" in order to get gear quickly into space. this would make building in orbit alot less expensive. It is probably is too good to be true.
Turtle Posted January 18, 2008 Report Posted January 18, 2008 ...I would like to see someone try Sir Fred Hoyle's (?) idea of a "space lift/elevator" in order to get gear quickly into space. this would make building in orbit alot less expensive. It is probably is too good to be true. It is well underway. Space elevator contest gets off the ground - Innovation - MSNBC.com
cosmored Posted January 18, 2008 Report Posted January 18, 2008 I'm not sure, other than a moving flag, what makes you think that the moon is just a movie set.There's this stuff I posted.http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-5.html#post203675 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips. YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent. At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed. Man didnt land on the moon http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo It looks just like movement in earth gravity. I started a thread about this at Clavius.ApolloHoax.net - Difference in Body Movements Here are the responses I got.ApolloHoax.net - Difference in Body MovementsApolloHoax.net - Difference in Body Movements Out of seven pages, only two posts were made to explain the difference in body movements. Do you think those two posts explained the difference? Everything else in the thread is just filler. --------------Then there's this issue.YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1 YouTube - Moon Hoax- The Lies In Your Visors http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_gYouTube - Moon Hoax- The Lies In Your Visors-Addendum http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_GkYouTube - Moon Landing Hoax-One Giant Spotlight For Mankind http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw I started a thread at Clavius about this one too.ApolloHoax.net - Reflection of Sun in Visor is Too Big Tell me, do you think they debunked this claim in this thread? They provided other possible explanations but they never came close to actually debunking it. Both Bad Astronomy and Clavius have pages to "Explain" the anomalies in the footage and still videos.Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TVClavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax Mistakes have been made by the hoax believers and they have corrected those mistakes but for most of those anomalies they just gave other possible explanations for them and then just considered them debunked. I posted this back on page three but nobody has commented on it.ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue Those people who put forth all those other explanations for the anomalies made a big blunder in a discussion and lied about something basic. I want to see how objective you people are. Do you think Jay Windley and those other regular posters at Clavius and Bad Astronomy who participated in the above thread were right, or wrong when they said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?
DougF Posted January 18, 2008 Report Posted January 18, 2008 TurtleIt is well underway. Space elevator contest gets off the ground - Innovation - MSNBC.com Sweet! I'm glad to see it, I bet that would be one hell of a ride.
freeztar Posted January 18, 2008 Report Posted January 18, 2008 It is well underway. Space elevator contest gets off the ground - Innovation - MSNBC.com Criag's calculations show that it is highly unlikely that we can make a space elevator with the materials we have to work with in this day and age.
Buffy Posted January 19, 2008 Report Posted January 19, 2008 They provided other possible explanations but they never came close to actually debunking it. Both Bad Astronomy and Clavius have pages to "Explain" the anomalies in the footage and still videos. Mistakes have been made by the hoax believers and they have corrected those mistakes but for most of those anomalies they just gave other possible explanations for them and then just considered them debunked. Those people who put forth all those other explanations for the anomalies made a big blunder in a discussion and lied about something basic.So, you want to try to give us your definition of "debunking?" The evidence from your posts in this thread so far basically comes down to, if you're able to imagine and even more improbable hoax to explain the faults found in your theories, then its not "debunked." The thing that appears to be hard for you to understand is that this piling up of one virtually impossible conspiracy after another, all interdependent, and all requiring leaps of faith because there is absolutely no evidence--only wild conjecture based on unsupported interpretations of videos--is just so far beyond the realm of possibility, that the only interpretation here is that the proponents are either making a tone of money off of taking these positions or that they have serious weaknesses in their ability to rationally evaluate any part of reality. I want to see how objective you people are.How are you defining "objective?" Do you understand that objectivity requires assigning probabilities to different explanations and favoring those that are the most probable? Do you understand that this means that some "explanations" are so improbable that they simply aren't taken seriously? Do you understand why its necessary to use this technique both in science as well as simply surviving in our society? Throughout this thread you've been doing nothing except that which you accuse your opponents of: simply providing a "different" explanation, while completely ignoring the factors that make them more or less likely. It appears that for you this is a black and white debate between hoax-believers who always make minor "mistakes" and always "correct" them and their opponents who always make "big blunders" and then "lie" about them. The question here is not about *our* objectivity, but rather the techniques you're using to evaluate reality. Don't you wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence? There's one marked 'Brightness,' but it doesn't work, Buffy
DougF Posted January 19, 2008 Report Posted January 19, 2008 cosmoredMistakes have been made by the hoax believers and they have corrected those mistakes but for most of those anomalies they just gave other possible explanations for them and then just considered them debunked. well I just looked though all of the videos and well let me start out buy saying that I grew up watching this on the TV stayed up all night when they went around the dark side of the Moon for the first time and I have heard all of the conspiracy theories before and even look at their evidents. now, having said that the reflection of the sun on the visors the lack of m moon dust on the lander legs (and no blast hole under lander) the scenery shots with and without lander radiation ................... well to tell you the Truth it makes me wounder now, I'll have to see of i can do some more research. :shrug: I can see why you are questioning this, and I hope it is not true I would hate to think I spent my whole life living a lie. :doh:
cosmored Posted January 19, 2008 Report Posted January 19, 2008 I want to see how objective you people are.How are you defining "objective?" Do you understand that objectivity requires assigning probabilities to different explanations and favoring those that are the most probable? Do you understand that this means that some "explanations" are so improbable that they simply aren't taken seriously? Do you understand why its necessary to use this technique both in science as well as simply surviving in our society?What you're doing here is avoiding my question. (The issue is explained here.)ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue Those people who posted in that thread are supposed to be explaining why the hoax-believiers are mistaken. They are supposed to be explaining science to people who supposedly don't understand it. They lied about science. Ask anybody with a background in geology and he or she will say that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Those people were so accustomed to lying about science that they got careless and lied about something basic. Do you know who Jay Windley is?Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author He said that he knew from "Experience" that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Look at these posts of his.ApolloHoax.net - Rover Footage Filmed on EarthApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue What he said would make a geologist laugh. This issue is a good litmus test to see who the objective people on forums are. Unobjective people don't want to say anything negative about Jay Windley or the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites so they usually take some kind of non-committal position; they say they don't know, they avoid the question, etc. All the people who don't simply say they were wrong are not to be taken seriously as this is a very basic fact. Any high school science teacher will tell you that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Whether the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites are run by sincere people who believe what they say or government shills who know that Apollo was a hoax is an Apollo-related issue. If the regular posters on their forums are obviously lying about science, isn't that circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax? If they really went to the moon, why are there people with science backgrounds lying about science? Please simply answer this question.Do you think Jay and his friends were right, or wrong?ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue I can see why you are questioning this, and I hope it is not true I would hate to think I spent my whole life living a lie.I was thirteen when they broadcast the fake Apollo 11 landing. I stayed up late to watch it. I believed it until the arrival of the internet when I finally had the opportunity to see the evidence of a hoax. There's no reason to feel bad about having believed it if we hadn't seen the evidence yet. If I'd seen the evidence back in the seventies, I would have become a hoax-believer then. I never came across any books that talked about the anomalies. I think that no big name book stores carried them. Those were the class of books that could be ordered if you knew about them, but couldn't be found in very many places by people who were just browsing. There's no reason to feel bad at all; I modified my opinion immediately when I saw the evidence. The goverment lies about a lot of things so it really didn't take me by surprise. ApolloHoax.net - All of the Apollo data are bogusApolloHoax.net - All the Apollo Data are BogusApolloHoax.net - The Lying American Press
Michaelangelica Posted January 19, 2008 Report Posted January 19, 2008 How are you defining "objective?"Complete disinterest? Sorry can't watch video on my link but will remain disinterested. Although I can't see why the USA/NASA would want to hoax this. Even if they could. What is the pay-off? Every USA department leaks eventually- or all the time if they have anything to do with national Security. So someone would have blown the whistle by now.Like the people from Australia relaying radio signals and the people who mocked up those photos of the earth from the moon etc. A bloody big conspiracy PS Q-IF it was a conspiracy; does it really matter? There's one marked 'Brightness,' but it doesn't work, Bloody hell I thought I was getting better every day!
modest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Posted January 19, 2008 I like the episode of Family Guy where a passer by sees Neil Armstrong while he is supposedly on the moon. Neil says some gibberish about solar winds… then kills the guy.
modest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Posted January 20, 2008 What you're doing here is avoiding my question. What we’re doing is pointing out the absurdity of your questions. If thousands of eyewitnesses can’t convince you of something that’s well-known then discussing the finer points of sand and dust aren’t going to do it either. If we were to argue with you the details of your lens-flares and properly-bouncing-astronauts then we would give credibility to your argument merely by assuming it needs debunked. Your argument is so bad that our engagement toward proving it wrong would literally make it a better argument. For example: If a credible organization assembled a team of scientists to disprove the existence of leprechauns then there would be some assumption toward some evidence of their existence in the first place. It would have the opposite effect of its purpose. Just like Project Blue Book which is now seen by conspiracy theorists as evidence of aliens. Just like when the US government recently published a report on Roswell with a very reasonable explanation of how a giant misconception got started. People literally said “The government is trying too hard to explain it”. Unbelievable but true. After years of begging the government to offer some rational explanation for Roswell they criticize the government for complying. I have honestly heard a conspiracy theorist use the argument: “If I’m wrong then why is everyone trying so hard to prove I’m wrong.” So, perhaps it is not helpful for us to argue with you. It seems clear you are not looking for evidence in the forums which you take part. You are looking for someone, anyone, to say something inconsistent while arguing with you. Jay Windley said something inconsistent once and we’re still having to hear about it here. Do you realize how transparent and thin that is? You are asking us to explain something the webmaster of another site said. Perhaps if you examine your own arguments as closely as you apparently examine his there would be progress. I think it would be a mistake to discuss the finer points of a leprechaun’s gold with someone who honest-to-god believes in leprechauns. I equally see the mistake in a point-by-point examination of your ‘evidence’. -modest
cosmored Posted January 20, 2008 Report Posted January 20, 2008 If thousands of eyewitnesses can’t convince you of something that’s well-known then discussing the finer points of sand and dust aren’t going to do it either.Most of the people working on the Apollo program were probably so compartmentalized that they weren't in a position to know if the whole thing would work. Most of the lower level people were probably fooled. You are looking for someone, anyone, to say something inconsistent while arguing with you. Jay Windley said something inconsistent once and we’re still having to hear about it here. Do you realize how transparent and thin that is? You are asking us to explain something the webmaster of another site said. Perhaps if you examine your own arguments as closely as you apparently examine his there would be progress.What Jay Windley did was lie about science. Objective truth-seekers don't lie. Just the fact that he's there on the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums lying about science is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. If we were to argue with you the details of your lens-flares and properly-bouncing-astronauts then we would give credibility to your argument merely by assuming it needs debunked. If you were to say that in a debating hall, the audience would roar with laughter. The stuff I posted shows that at least some of the footage was taken in a studio. If they really went to the moon, why fake any part of it at all? It was all faked. If you think it wasn't taken in a studio, please explain why. This is a possible explanation for your reluctance to consider the evidence.Cognitive Dissonance and learning
Recommended Posts