Moon landing

[fivebob]

I find it interesting that you believe an infinitesimally small amount of 'counter evidence' (which has been debunked anyway) over a massive amount of actual evidence.

That's because it's standard operating practice for "The Church of the Unbeliever". They sow seeds of doubt, no matter how preposterous, then from that point onwards everything else is false, no matter how much evidence there is in it's favour.

That's just the way cults work, they don't need, or want proof, only (dis)belief

[Timmo]

What they DIDN'T approach was the fact that some photos from one part of the moon looked identical to photos from another part of the moon, no doubt because they were studio shots. So you were all conned.

Can you believe ALL of the evidence 100%?

Steve

Debunked: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm


Can I believe ALL of the evidence 100%? Of course not! But I would prefer to believe 99.9999999999% as opposed to the 0.0000000000001% of counter 'evidence'. I don't go around claiming that all cars have square wheels just because I once saw one with them.

[sergei]

I find it interesting that you believe an infinitesimally small amount of 'counter evidence' (which has been debunked anyway) over a massive amount of actual evidence.

That's because it's standard operating practice for "The Church of the Unbeliever". They sow seeds of doubt, no matter how preposterous, then from that point onwards everything else is false, no matter how much evidence there is in it's favour.

That's just the way cults work, they don't need, or want proof, only (dis)belief

I guess also majority of population are wired in favour of such thinking, mostly will believe in mainstream and some will fall into believing extremes, both of types are not objective thinkers. And both of types will defend their believes no matter how preposterous they are. I guess the trait is evolutionary, certainly religious traits were in favour (unlike reason) in early stages of pre-human evolutionary development. As it allowed some sort of control and organisation.

Also majority population will fall into denial if there is evidence of their wrong.

This is why I am misanthropic.

[Timmo]

Well I just hope that the 30% of people here that answered 'unsure' or 'no' aren't involved in scienctific testing or any sort of analysis!

'After extensive testing of different shaped wheels, the results were that round wheels seemed to be better at supporting motion than any other shaped wheels. However, since square wheels did kind of rotate, we can't be certain that they are worse than round wheels. We, therefore, recommend that all cars are equipped with square wheels.'

[Adamal]

'After extensive testing of different shaped wheels, the results were round wheels seemed to better at supporting motion than any other shaped wheels. However, since square wheels did kind of rotate, we can't be certain that they are worse than round wheels. We, therefore, recommend that all cars are equipped with square wheels.'

I agree with this. Square wheels are the obvious choice. We have just been blinded for years by the propoganda of the wheel and tyre companies, beleiving what they WANT us to believe. But have they ever backed up their claims that the round wheel is better than the square one???

Any tests that they show in videos are obviously misconstrewed and fabricated. Anything they show you could have been manipulated with CGI or by speeding up video playback.

THEIR reports tell us one thing, but has anyone performed any independant testing? No. Didn't think so.

You see, its all a big ploy by the tyre and wheel companies, and finance companies, and banks, and the governments.
When you park, they WANT your handbrake to fail, so your car goes and smashes into another car. Then you have to get a bank loan to pay it back, which has interest. Everybody wins except you.
Imagine, if you will, having square wheels and parking up. Your hand brake cable breaks. Its cool, you're not going anywhere.
THEY don't want this.
THEY want you to HAVE to take loans.
THEY are screwing you over. They have been for years and they will continue to do so until YOU OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE TRUTH.

Recognise a conspiracy when you see one!!!

[geishaboy]

I stumbled upon this site http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/132112.html

Giving the top ten strangest conspiracy theories, the faking of the moon landing taking the no.2 position

My personal favourites

Barcodes are really intended to Control people

Some conspiracy theorists have proposed that barcodes are really intended to serve as means of control by a putative world government, or that they are Satanic in intent.

Mary Stewart Relfe claims in "The New Money System 666" that barcodes secretly encode the number 666 - the Biblical "Number of the Beast".

This theory has been adopted by other fringe figures such as the "oracle" Sollog, who refuses to label any of his books with barcodes on the grounds that "any type of computer numbering systems MANDATED by any government or business is part of the PROPHECY of the BEAST controlling you."

Microsoft sends messages on Wingdings Font

The Wingdings Font included with Windows has a history of controversy. In 1992, only days after the release of Windows 3.1, it was discovered that the character sequence "NYC" in Wingdings was rendered as Skull and crossbones symbol, Star of David, and thumbs up gesture. This could be interpreted as a message of approval of killing Jews, especially those from New York City.

Microsoft strongly denied this was intentional, and insisted that the final arrangement of the glyphs in the font was largely random. Various other combinations of Wingings characters are alleged to have special significance by conspiracy theorists, but these results are likely purely coincidental.

Be right back, gotta go stock up on tin foil

[fangsport]

cop out.

wheres the evidence?

where's the 1000000000% verified evidence they did???????
as i stated earlier, just because the masses believe in in a line of thinking..are they (f)actually correct?? if it wasn't for thinknig outside the square, a fair portion of clever science and invention would have come about at much later date
at that time in the US, there were all sorts of reasons for the US govt. to save face by going to the moon (if they did). it was quite a shameful time for their government, and it was a very good way to instill public confidence again.


i take it as read, that all of those who absolutely believe it happened , are fervent believers in the life and times of Jesus and all his apostles.

[Adamal]

I believe the evidence that supports it, outweights the evidence that they haven't.

And most of the evidence that supports it was a hoax has been debunked anyway.

However, there ALWAYS seems to be an excuse.
Its like if you have an argument with a devout Christian. Even if you managed to completely prove that God does exist etc etc, they would still disagree with you.

[Timmo]

haha fangsport- perhaps you need to read this:

NASA apologists say there's no physical evidence for a conspiracy theory. There's plenty of evidence, such as the photo and video anomalies.
This reveals a fundamental flaw in the conspiracist understanding of the nature of hypothesis and proof.

A hypothesis is a statement whose truthfulness is not known, but which -- if it were true -- would explain some set of observations. The proof of that hypothesis would be some other observation (not the one being explained) which would would be seen if and only if that particular hypothesis were true, and not, say, some other hypothesis which also explains the first observations.

If you think this sounds a lot like the scientific method, you're right. The scientific method uses a carefully chosen experiment to test which of several hypotheses is the right one. The experiment tries to see by-products or effects that could only be caused by the hypothesis the scientists are testing.

But the problem comes when conspiracists want to test a hypothesis. You can't use the initial observation as proof of your hypothesis. This is a fallacy -- an example of erroneous thinking -- which logicians call a "circular argument". The notion of a circular argument can be best summed up in the following fanciful dialogue:

Sir Bedevere: Why are you trying to burn that woman?
Villagers: Because she is a witch!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: Well, we wouldn't be trying to burn her if she weren't.

Let's say, for example, that I observed my car windshield was wet. I might hypothesize that it has recently rained. But how would I prove that? If I were like the villagers in the exchange above, I would consider it already proved: The wet windshield proves it rained. But the wet windshield was the observation I was trying to explain. To know whether or not it rained I would need to look for other signs of recent rain. For example, I could look at the sky and see if it's cloudy. Or I could see if the distant surroundings were also wet. Or I could ask somebody who may have witnessed the rain.

I have to do that because there are lots of other hypotheses. Perhaps some sort of moisture has leached out of the glass. Perhaps a nearby sprinkler doused the car. I have to find some way of choosing one hypothesis over the other. I can't just cite the wet windshield as evidence. I have to find evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the windshield itself, but has to do with the process I hypothesize.

With the circular argument I can put each of these hypotheses into a syllogism and say,

My windshield is wet, therefore it has rained.
My windshield is wet, therefore moisture has leached out of the glass.
My windshield is wet, therefore a sprinkler has sprayed my car.
All three of these seem reasonable, but they all can't be correct. I can be absurd and hypothesize that my windshield is wet because space aliens controlled by G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on me and put that moisture there to absorb my brainwave patterns. The resulting "proof" would be
My windshield is wet, therefore G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on my brainwave patterns using alien technology.
Yes, that's supposed to sound absurd. It's supposed to show that a pattern of reasoning which can produce such absurd conclusions isn't a valid pattern of reasoning. Circular arguments are "tautological" meaning that they're always true. They're true not because they arrive at a good conclusion, they're true because they're structured to be true no matter what conclusion or premise is involved. That's why they aren't useful for proving anything.
Let's do an example that involves Apollo data.

Conspiracists observe that in certain Apollo photographs the "fiducials" or crosshairs seem to pass behind objects in the photo. They hypothesize that the photos were produced in a laboratory by cut and paste techniques. This hypothesis, if true, would explain the observation. If a photo lab technician pasted an object into a photo already containing fiducials, he might obscure a fiducial by overlaying his addition on top of it.

But how to go about proving it? Unfortunately most conspiracists simply use the circular argument. When asked to provide evidence that a photo lab pasted up the Apollo photos, they point back to the missing fiducials and say, "See? The fiducials are missing, therefore they were created in the lab."

But reasonable people are not convinced by the tautological argument, nor should they be. When we say there is no evidence for such hypotheses, we mean that there is no evidence which undeniably and unquestionably shows that a photo lab produced the photographs. The conspiracists need to provide secondary, unambiguous evidence that could only be explained by their hypothesis. For example, they could try to find increased activity at government-funded photo labs. They could try to document the purchase of equipment and supplies by NASA that would only be useful to a photo lab that was falsifying pictures instead of just developing them. They could even try to find some of the people who participated in this alleged falsification of photos.

The absence of the fiducial doesn't prove the existence of a previously unknown photo lab any more than the villagers' desire to burn a woman proves she's a witch.

Thinking 'outside the square' is all fine and dandy....but the onus of proof is on you to provide a better reason why we should accept your hypothesis over the common version of events.

[fangsport]

Thinking 'outside the square' is all fine and dandy....but the onus of proof is on you to provide a better reason why we should accept your hypothesis over the common version of events.

what hypothesis???? havn't supplied, nor do i need to.
yes , i may have used a CT anedocte earlier as a laugh, but i fail to see why i have to use a scientific evidence to support something i believe in.
had i stated, 'i know for fact that it didn't happen', then, and only then, would i have to supply compelling evidence against what has been portrayed previously.

[Timmo]

The general hypothesis that the USA didn't land on the moon. However, specifically- here is one rephrased for you.

why didn't USSR follow it up??... i suspect they know it can't be done.

Hypothesis 1: The USSR didn't follow the (fake) moon landing up because they new that a moon landing is impossible.

You don't need evidence to believe in something. However, Logic would suggest that believing in something supported by a wealth of strong evidence is better than believing in something supported by very little/none.

[fivebob]

where's the 1000000000% verified evidence they did???????

The evidence they did is available to anyone that wants to see it. There is plenty of independent verification available, but such verification is only useful if you are actually willing to accept the possibility that it could be true.

How about some evidence from the conspiracy theorists.For the sake of repeating myself for the third time...

explain how the telemetry (complete with Doppler shift) can be faked. i.e. How did they fake a signal coming from the mission, and more specifically from the command module orbiting the moon?

at that time in the US, there were all sorts of reasons for the US govt. to save face by going to the moon (if they did). it was quite a shameful time for their government, and it was a very good way to instill public confidence again.

Was the 60's really a shameful time for their Government? Having lived in that era I can't recall much to be ashamed of. Certainly not when the Apollo missions started. Vietnam & Watergate came much later if that's what you are referring to

For the fake to work they had to convince the Russians, there's no point in just convincing your own people if the opposition can prove you faked you're far worse off than when you started. Given the political climate at the time the Russians would have loved to show the Americans had faked it, the fact that they never even tried is proof in itself that it did happen.

And how did they fake it, certainly not using CGI or any such related technology as the super computers at the time had less power than an early 90's PC.

i take it as read, that all of those who absolutely believe it happened , are fervent believers in the life and times of Jesus and all his apostles.

Religious fervour of such magnitude in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the realm of the conspiracy theorists, not those that can rationally examine the facts

[Adamal]

but i fail to see why i have to use a scientific evidence to support something i believe in.

Because I can't think of any other kind of evidence that would support your beliefs?

[MAGN1T]

Doppler shift?? where? probably so small it's not measurable anyway.

Steve.

[fivebob]

Doppler shift?? where? There isn't any, not measurable anyway.

If 43kHz isn't measurable then I wonder how the tracking stations that followed the missions arrived at that figure

[Mr Revhead]

Doppler shift?? where? probably so small it's not measurable anyway.

Steve.

wtf

oh i get it

your taking the piss!



Fangsport..... "where's the 1000000000% verified evidence they did"
ok, they filmed themselves on the moon
they took photos there
they bought back samples
no one has ever come forward EVER saying they were involved in a faking.

theres some evidence
now, please. refute it. properly.
with links etc to back it up.

and i challenge ANYONE to do the same.

seriously..... where is even the slightest HINT that they faked it?
just because the feat is so amazing you can't understand it, doesn't mean it didnt happen.

[fivebob]

NASA even used the doppler shift as part of their trajectory monitoring systems

The systems developed for Apollo were so sensitive that they could even detect the slow roll used to keep temeratures down on board

Computers on the ground were able to predict the precise Doppler shift that should be occurring at any moment on the pre-defined trajectory and compare it to what was being measured in order to check the spacecraft's path

[Mr Revhead]

hell fivebob, your not using facts as proof are you?
thats cheating!!!


http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landi ... ndings.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... unked.html


i don't know who to believe now

[fivebob]

hell fivebob, your not using facts as proof are you?
thats cheating!!!

oops, Forgot this wasn't a logical debate but a battle of idealogies, and facts have no place in such conflicts.

Besides which if one side has all the facts, and the other only has innuendo and conjecture, then it can't really be a debate

[sergei]

Russia didn't follow it up as they wanted to be first, there is no political advantage in wasting billions of roubles for just being second.
Their next move would be going to Mars, but at that time it was impossible, so they dropped it.
Do you know that first artificial satellite/dog/monkey/man in space was Russian? There was race to be first.

As for conspiracy theorists, there are conspiracies out there for sure, but they are more plausible (usually involves overturning some 3rd world contry government), and certainly moon landing is not one of them.