ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Reply
Old 11th May 2013, 10:23 AM   #361
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by Call Me Crazy But View Post
I am probably going to get shot down on this but here goes. I took 'A Level' physics back in the day (UK exam taken at 18) but I am just a little lost, possibly due to translation. I do not back Honolulufilly and yes I think that P1K is back but I don't quite follow the acceleration argument. I thought that an object in orbit was always under acceleration due to the vectors involved because of gravity. Am I missing part of the argument here or have I just misread a post? For the record I watched the moon landings aged 10 on a tiny mono TV. I believed it then and I believe it now.
Gravitational acceleration affects all parts of the spacecraft equally. As far as an object in freefall and all its components are concerned, there's no acceleration. Accelerometers won't tell you anything about your orbit, no matter how you integrate their output. They only tell you about changes to your orbit.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 10:55 AM   #362
Call Me Crazy But
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Gravitational acceleration affects all parts of the spacecraft equally. As far as an object in freefall and all its components are concerned, there's no acceleration. Accelerometers won't tell you anything about your orbit, no matter how you integrate their output. They only tell you about changes to your orbit.
Thank you for that. I was admittedly confused over whether the poster was talking about normal acceleration in orbit. You have now clarified that for me.
Call Me Crazy But is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 11:42 AM   #363
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,532
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
and what about the stamps that have been moistened and stuck to envelopes?

You did those right?
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 12:13 PM   #364
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
Irrelevant. How does the stamp get this sunning from inside the Apollo craft?

I'm still waiting for your insight on solar x-rays. You seem to answer all manner of posts that don't call you out, but ignore those that do!
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 12:20 PM   #365
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,654
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
So what part of the 'sunning' makes the gum go hard. How much of the 'sunning' would reach the stamps inside the spaceship and within the container they are in?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 01:41 PM   #366
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
1) are these lick-and-stick or peel-and-stick stamps?
2) did you control for temperature and humidity?
3) Is this adhesive softening a permanent change or does the adhesive firm up again over time?
4) Which stamps do you think replicate the exposure of stamps inside a container inside the C/SM, the ones exposed to direct sunshine or the ones left in the dark?
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 02:45 PM   #367
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,513
Hello Patrick

The only way that radiation can have a permanent effect on something is if the something is DESIGNED that way. For example a film emulsion is permanently affected by exposure to light and heat. You can only see that effect when the film is developed.

Experiment:

1. Take four brand new rolls of colour film from the same four pack. Number them 1 to 4

2. Put No. 1 and No. 2 the oven at 150C for one hour.

3. Take out the two film rolls from the oven and allow them to cool down to room temperature.

4. Open No 1 and No 3 and examine the film emulsion side (the inside of the film roll). They will look identical. You will not see any noticeable difference

5. Develop No 2 and No 4. You will immediately see the difference. The film emulsion of No. 2 (oven baked) will be much darker and will have a dark olive-green tinge.

This is because film emulsion is DESIGNED to be affected by visible light, and a side effect of this is that it is also sensitive to heat, and x-ray radiation (if you have ever had a film ruined by an airport bomb-detecting x-ray machine, you will know this).

However, stamp gum is not designed to react to heat, light or radiation, (its designed to react to being made wet, like being licked) so there will be no permanent effect if you expose it to radiation.
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 02:47 PM   #368
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,301
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
Here's a bit more, a good way to work through some of this. GENERAL RELATIVITY'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE wants to argue that in principle, one cannot discern if she is in a gravitational field or is simply accelerating, the two are said to be=equivalent.

But alas, there is a way to tell if one is standing on the earth in a box, or being pulled at 32 feet per second per second through the vacuum of space in a closed box.

See if you can see a way someone could tell the difference, standing on the earth in a box vs being pulled through space at an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared. It's a great exercise, thought experiment to play with, and one that pays great dividends in the understanding of its solution. Think about dropping things from different positions in the box and measuring where EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY LAND ON THE "FLOOR".
If the box is in free fall, tell me, how long will it take a dropped object in it to hit the floor?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 02:55 PM   #369
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,513
Originally Posted by Call Me Crazy But View Post
I thought that an object in orbit was always under acceleration due to the vectors involved because of gravity.
You might be getting confused with the often made reference to objects in orbit "always falling".

When a spacecraft is in Earth orbit, the occupants feel "zero G". This is not because the spacecraft is in space "per se" its because it is "always falling" toward the Earth with precisely enough forward velocity (about 8km/sec) to keep it falling towards a surface that is curving away from it, effectively, the Earth's surface is falling away at the same rate that the spacecraft is falling towards it.

Here's a snip from a web page that explains orbits quite well

"An object's momentum and the force of gravity have to be balanced for an orbit to happen. If the forward momentum of one object is too great, it will speed past and not enter into orbit. If momentum is too small, the object will be pulled down and crash. When these forces are balanced, the object is always falling toward the planet, but because it's moving sideways fast enough, it never hits the planet. Orbital velocity is the speed needed to stay in orbit. At an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers) above Earth, orbital velocity is about 17,000 miles per hour. Satellites that have higher orbits have slower orbital velocities."

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstud...-orbit-58.html
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah

Last edited by smartcooky; 11th May 2013 at 03:04 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 02:55 PM   #370
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
See if you can see a way someone could tell the difference, standing on the earth in a box vs being pulled through space at an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared. It's a great exercise, thought experiment to play with, and one that pays great dividends in the understanding of its solution. Think about dropping things from different positions in the box and measuring where EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY LAND ON THE "FLOOR".
This is nothing new or profound. A likely easier way would be to measure the apparent acceleration at the top and bottom of the box, or the tension in a vertical rod or distance between two spheres free-falling within the box. But this is all irrelevant: converging acceleration vectors and tidal forces are a result of the mass distribution of planets, not due to some aspect of gravitational acceleration or violation of the equivalence principle.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 04:02 PM   #371
Call Me Crazy But
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You might be getting confused with the often made reference to objects in orbit "always falling".

When a spacecraft is in Earth orbit, the occupants feel "zero G". This is not because the spacecraft is in space "per se" its because it is "always falling" toward the Earth with precisely enough forward velocity (about 8km/sec) to keep it falling towards a surface that is curving away from it, effectively, the Earth's surface is falling away at the same rate that the spacecraft is falling towards it.

Here's a snip from a web page that explains orbits quite well

"An object's momentum and the force of gravity have to be balanced for an orbit to happen. If the forward momentum of one object is too great, it will speed past and not enter into orbit. If momentum is too small, the object will be pulled down and crash. When these forces are balanced, the object is always falling toward the planet, but because it's moving sideways fast enough, it never hits the planet. Orbital velocity is the speed needed to stay in orbit. At an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers) above Earth, orbital velocity is about 17,000 miles per hour. Satellites that have higher orbits have slower orbital velocities."

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstud...-orbit-58.html
Thanks for the response.

I follow what you are saying but I think it's possible I am getting over pedantic over the definition of acceleration that I learned at school (many years ago!).

Acceleration and Vectors were constantly drilled into us during physics classes and followed up by integration/differentiation in what my mates joyously called sums lessons (Maths A level).
Call Me Crazy But is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 04:17 PM   #372
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Call Me Crazy But View Post
Thanks for the response.

I follow what you are saying but I think it's possible I am getting over pedantic over the definition of acceleration that I learned at school (many years ago!).

Acceleration and Vectors were constantly drilled into us during physics classes and followed up by integration/differentiation in what my mates joyously called sums lessons (Maths A level).
Yeah. Technically, from the reference frame of the body being orbited, the accelerometers are being accelerated - but relative to the ship's own reference frame, they are not. And since their reference frame is the same as the ship's, they will measure zero acceleration even though, from the frame of reference of an observer, they are being accelerated around in an orbit.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 04:44 PM   #373
FramerDave
Muse
 
FramerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
Ok. So your stamp* has been exposed to visible light, UV and infrared energy, and maybe the odd cosmic ray. Of any changes observed in the stamp, which changes do you attribute to each type of EM radiation? And how do you come to those conclusions? Is the type, amount and duration of exposure equivalent to what would be experienced on an Apollo mission? How do you reach those conclusions? Do you have a stamp or stamps from Apollo 15 to compare?


* Do you really plan to have a sample size of one?
__________________
"You're likely to be the next one to get sucked up in a spaceship and butt-diddled and dropped off at the Seven Eleven." mayday

"If you want to see what baby oil does to lactating breasts pm me your email." mayday
FramerDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 06:10 PM   #374
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
So which one was in cislunar space?
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 06:28 PM   #375
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,960
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
Here's a bit more, a good way to work through some of this. GENERAL RELATIVITY'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE wants to argue that in principle, one cannot discern if she is in a gravitational field or is simply accelerating, the two are said to be=equivalent.

But alas, there is a way to tell if one is standing on the earth in a box, or being pulled at 32 feet per second per second through the vacuum of space in a closed box.

See if you can see a way someone could tell the difference, standing on the earth in a box vs being pulled through space at an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared. It's a great exercise, thought experiment to play with, and one that pays great dividends in the understanding of its solution. Think about dropping things from different positions in the box and measuring where EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY LAND ON THE "FLOOR".
If the box were large enough you might build a Foucault pendulum inside and demonstrate that it revolves over time.

Of course that doesn't demonstrate any failing in the equivalence between remaining still in a gravitational field or accelerating. It merely shows that seeming to remain still is deceptive when we are sitting on the surface of a revolving planet.
Jack by the hedge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2013, 09:15 PM   #376
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
You could add the slow changes in motion to the accelerating box and make the Foucault pendulum behave the same way as a box on the surface of a rotating planet.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2013, 09:03 AM   #377
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,625
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
The sunned stamp has a soft gumming, the out of sun stamp has firm gumming.
And please explain how this is science.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2013, 10:24 AM   #378
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,625
The weather was nice, so I took the weekend off to be out in the desert before it really and truly becomes a desert. Sorry if this is a repeat of the pending arguments our newcomer has posed.

It is suspicious that Neil Armstrong photographed before taking contingency sample
The allegation is that because the lunar surface checklist called for Armstrong to obtain the contingency sample before retrieving the camera and taking pictures, and Armstrong did these steps out of order and never gave an accounting for it, it is a suspicious portion of the Apollo record. The premise given later is that the checklist and astronaut drills should have been considered involiable or at least second-nature, hence Armstrong's behavior is suspicious. That NASA never called him to account for that behavior is allegedly further suspicious.

The premise that checklists and training drills were sacrosanct fails logically because it is a begged question. It fails factually because information was provided that NASA considered no such thing. In fact, information was provided that NASA's belief was actually to the contrary. Hence there is nothing suspicious about Armstrong going "off script."

The premise that Armstrong never accounted for his behavior is factually false. Citations to the appropriate debriefing were provided.

This claim seems to be abandoned without being withdrawn or conceded.

There exists a trove of documents to be declassified and made available in 2026, and they will shed unfavorable light on Apollo's authenticity
The allegation is that Lyndon Johnson classified such documents, that they will be declassified in the year given, and that they relate at least in part to Apollo.

None of these premises was substantiated by any form of evidence. They remain speculation. The proponent seems to recognize this and although he characterizes his belief as speculation, he does return to that statement of belief quite often. If it is to be considered a premise to or background for some other claim, it must be substantiated in all three elements (existence, subject matter, and release date).

Function of Apollo guidance system
The proponent made specific claims about how Apollo's guidance system worked. Specifically the claim was that it updated the state vector by integrating acceleration to arrive at velocity, the integrating velocity to arrive at position. A correction was given, specifically that due to the design of the Apollo guidance platform, acceleration during powered flight was reckoned outside the computer and presented to the software as velocity.

The proponent pressed the issue and changed the argument to be allegedly one of how those quantities relate abstractly in Newtonian physics. This is a correct assessment of Newtonian physics, but it is still incorrect to imply that the AGC implements the abstract model verbatim. In fact this is a common mistake made by people who try to understand production hardware based on cursory examination of the underlying basic principles.

The relevance of this claim to Apollo would seem to be that the prevailing discussion of Apollo here at JREF recently has emphasized the guidance system as a fertile ground for claims that it could not or did not work.

The propenent appears to be continuing to ignore his original claim in favor of trying to foist the straw man as "indisputable fact" that his critics must respect. We await commentary on the original claim.

Effect of "radiation" on Apollo 15 first-edition covers
It was proposed that the stamps Apollo 15 exposed to the space environment should, if authentic, exhibit observable properties. The proponent was asked several questions regarding this methodology, during which questioning he either ignored the questions, answered that he did not know how it work, or made answers that got wrong some basic scientific facts such as the nature of the radiation allegedly involved, its strength and other physical properties, and its expected or likely effect.

The proponent offered an experiment he said would validate the hypothesis, but refused to explain exactly how. He conducted the experiment anyway and reported the results, but has not explained how this constitutes any sort of valid scientific methodology to vet the method he propose to use to test the Apollo 15 stamps for authenticity. Nor does he explain how or why he would have access to those specimens.

This claim seems to be a going concern, but the proponent seem uninterested in critics' concerns and questions.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2013, 07:49 AM   #379
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Apollo "hoax" discussion Part II

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Sorry if this is a repeat of the pending arguments our newcomer has posed.
No worries, of course....even your "repeats" are educational.



<SNIP>

Mod InfoSNIPed portion deals with forum management and was split to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=260253
Posted By:Locknar

Last edited by Locknar; 10th June 2013 at 08:19 AM.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 08:51 AM   #380
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Hm, true. Where am I getting Hans?

You've got it from me.

We all know the "shining code", where a lot of hints are shown, that Stanley Kubrick was involved.

I found a new sublingual message in the scene, where Wendy discovered, that Jack typed nothing else than "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy".

It begins at 1 min 03 sec and ends at 1 min 48 sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

Do you see it ?

regards Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain

Last edited by Hans Peper; 12th August 2013 at 10:09 AM.
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 10:00 AM   #381
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,625
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
You've got it from me.
No. I don't know you.

Quote:
We all know the "shining code", where a lot of hints are shown, that Stanley Kubrick was involved.
Begging the question. Quite a lot of relatively uninformed people have trumped up quite of nonsensical coincidences purporting them to be some sort of intent to blow the whistle on his involvement with NASA. I have corresponded extensively with Kubrick's people, estate, and most notably his personal assistant regarding them. All are false.

As with the Bible Code, the da Vinci Code, or any other such fanciful "code" that assigns unsupported meaning to contrived coincidences, the Shining Code is merely a tacked-on attempt to invent something for one's own attention and profit.

Quote:
I found a new sublingual message in the scene, where Wendy discovered, that Jack typed nothing else than "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy".
Great. Prove Kubrick intended it the way you say, and to have the meaning you claim.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 10:22 AM   #382
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
I can read the messages from Kubrick and I checked what he pointed out :

1.) Something is wrong on the set.

2.) The truth is in the mirror.

3.) See Apollo 12

And there is a lot which is wrong in the set and the pics in the golden surfaces of the visors show the truth.

In the movie 2001 he checked out, how to make a projection at the glas of astronaut bowmans helmet. But it does not work really good. Did he use the frontprojection system to send pictures at the visors? I think it must be possible.

Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain

Last edited by Hans Peper; 12th August 2013 at 10:23 AM.
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 11:16 AM   #383
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,625
Originally Posted by quote
And there is a lot which is wrong in the set and the pics in the golden surfaces of the visors show the truth.
No, you're just doing what the Nostradamus fans do: try to sew together unrelated statements and ascribe to them a meaning their author never intended. If one is dead-set on finding some sort of "hidden meaning," I guarantee he will find it.

Quote:
In the movie 2001 he checked out, how to make a projection at the glas of astronaut bowmans helmet. But it does not work really good. Did he use the frontprojection system to send pictures at the visors? I think it must be possible.
This is just Jay Weidner's long-debunked garbage. He knows as little about photography as he does about Kubrick. Among the Kubrick estate his claims vacillate between annoyances and laughing stock.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 11:17 AM   #384
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As with the Bible Code, the da Vinci Code, or any other such fanciful "code" that assigns unsupported meaning to contrived coincidences, the Shining Code is merely a tacked-on attempt to invent something for one's own attention and profit.
I've seen the Bible/da Vinci/Shining Code approach by conspiracy theorists a lot more recently and it really lends credence to the belief that they are severely out of touch with reality and unable to differentiate between fact and fiction.

While I don't believe this approach is by any means recent, it makes me stop and think. Who would be stupid enough to pull off the perfect conspiracy and remove all evidence of it and then turn around and intentionally leave encoded clues of it for all to see? Sounds so stupid, don't you agree?
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.

Last edited by Mudcat; 12th August 2013 at 11:19 AM.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 02:46 PM   #385
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,411
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
You've got it from me.

Do you see it ?

regards Hans
Oh great another Hans to confuse the issue
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 08:18 PM   #386
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
You've got it from me.

We all know the "shining code", where a lot of hints are shown, that Stanley Kubrick was involved.

I found a new sublingual message in the scene, where Wendy discovered, that Jack typed nothing else than "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy".

It begins at 1 min 03 sec and ends at 1 min 48 sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

Do you see it ?

regards Hans
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. I don't know you.



Begging the question. Quite a lot of relatively uninformed people have trumped up quite of nonsensical coincidences purporting them to be some sort of intent to blow the whistle on his involvement with NASA. I have corresponded extensively with Kubrick's people, estate, and most notably his personal assistant regarding them. All are false.

As with the Bible Code, the da Vinci Code, or any other such fanciful "code" that assigns unsupported meaning to contrived coincidences, the Shining Code is merely a tacked-on attempt to invent something for one's own attention and profit.



Great. Prove Kubrick intended it the way you say, and to have the meaning you claim.
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
I can read the messages from Kubrick and I checked what he pointed out :

1.) Something is wrong on the set.

2.) The truth is in the mirror.

3.) See Apollo 12

And there is a lot which is wrong in the set and the pics in the golden surfaces of the visors show the truth.

In the movie 2001 he checked out, how to make a projection at the glas of astronaut bowmans helmet. But it does not work really good. Did he use the frontprojection system to send pictures at the visors? I think it must be possible.

Hans
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, you're just doing what the Nostradamus fans do: try to sew together unrelated statements and ascribe to them a meaning their author never intended. If one is dead-set on finding some sort of "hidden meaning," I guarantee he will find it.



This is just Jay Weidner's long-debunked garbage. He knows as little about photography as he does about Kubrick. Among the Kubrick estate his claims vacillate between annoyances and laughing stock.
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
I've seen the Bible/da Vinci/Shining Code approach by conspiracy theorists a lot more recently and it really lends credence to the belief that they are severely out of touch with reality and unable to differentiate between fact and fiction.

While I don't believe this approach is by any means recent, it makes me stop and think. Who would be stupid enough to pull off the perfect conspiracy and remove all evidence of it and then turn around and intentionally leave encoded clues of it for all to see? Sounds so stupid, don't you agree?
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Assigning arbitrary meaning to random coincidences is pervasive in conspiracism, as is "anomaly hunting." These are all variations on begging the question. The former even has a semi-legitimate incarnation as various forms of art and literary criticism wherein the critic insists that his tacked-on analysis or interpretation must necessarily be what motivated the author.



Especially those that slip by the filmmaker's closest associates and colleagues, and generations of professional scientists and engineers -- only to be adeptly "discovered" by self-proclaimed third-rate researchers who jump from one conspiracy theory to another (e.g., Weidner).
Is there a particular reason why the quoted posts got moved from a thread about when lunar landing hoaxes got started to here?
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 11:24 PM   #387
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Oh great another Hans to confuse the issue

Something moved me here. A wormhole ?

As much as I understand is nobody able to see what is pointed out in the clip.

"I found a new sublingual message in the scene, where Wendy discovered, that Jack typed nothing else than "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy".

It begins at 1 min 03 sec and ends at 1 min 48 sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

Do you see it ?"
__________________
Do not trust your brain
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 11:57 PM   #388
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,570
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
Something moved me here. A wormhole ?

As much as I understand is nobody able to see what is pointed out in the clip.

"I found a new sublingual message in the scene, where Wendy discovered, that Jack typed nothing else than "All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy".

It begins at 1 min 03 sec and ends at 1 min 48 sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOevu4zC5o

Do you see it ?"
Oh look. Somebody has convinced himself (and nobody else) that a movie director is responsible for another murder.

I don't suppose you have any objective testible evidence to connect the film to the murder of JFK?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 12:36 AM   #389
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Oh look. Somebody has convinced himself (and nobody else) that a movie director is responsible for another murder.

I don't suppose you have any objective testible evidence to connect the film to the murder of JFK?

My posting has nothing to do with murders. The topic is moon landing fake and a mod moved me here.

I suppose, that you are not able to see, what Kubrick had pointed out.

regards Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain

Last edited by Hans Peper; 13th August 2013 at 12:40 AM.
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 01:54 AM   #390
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,570
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
My posting has nothing to do with murders. The topic is moon landing fake and a mod moved me here.

I suppose, that you are not able to see, what Kubrick had pointed out.

regards Hans
Oh.

So you admitted the posts were moved by a "wormhole" then continued to talk about you theories in a thread that is about the murder of JFK, knowing it was off topic?

OK. My mistake. I will report your posts as being off topic and hopefully a mod will put them where they belong. (AAH hopefully).
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:07 AM   #391
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Yes, thank you for your help. In the meantime, I am waiting here.

I see, that you'v got headashes when looking at that clip I pointed out. Did you read something about "artificial intuition" since we had discussed it ?

When I saw the clip, I've got the idea, that this part of the movie is the best to store a message. But only "All work and no play..." could be read hundredwise and nothing else. there are lots of fails in typing, but this leads to nothing. And then I saw it.

After all, I must say, that Kubrick knows a lot about that stuff.

Regards Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:14 AM   #392
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
....then continued to talk about you theories in a thread that is about the murder of JFK, knowing it was off topic?...

Somebody thought that this thread is the right one. JFK started the moon project. After he was murded, the moon project was obvisiouly murded too.
I never thought about a connection like this.

So thank you to the unknown person or software, who casted me to this beach.

regards Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:55 AM   #393
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,727
What on earth is moon hoax nonsense doing in a JFK assassination thread?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:59 AM   #394
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,570
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
What on earth is moon hoax nonsense doing in a JFK assassination thread?
I know. Even if the posts ended up here by accident, it is clearly off topic. Perhaps Hans could not discuss it here, and wait until the posts are moved to which ever thread is suitable.

Otherwise it just becomes Spam (and is already Wrong and Very Silly).
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 05:36 AM   #395
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
I know. Even if the posts ended up here by accident, it is clearly off topic.....

Now you do not know what to do, isn't it. That's a real funny situation.

I came here on a legal way. I was moved by the mods or by the software into that topic.

There is no reason to hurt me. Meanwhile, try the moon stuff. It is as interesting as the JFK assassination.

regards Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 09:03 AM   #396
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,283
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
Now you do not know what to do, isn't it. That's a real funny situation.

I came here on a legal way. I was moved by the mods or by the software into that topic.

There is no reason to hurt me. Meanwhile, try the moon stuff. It is as interesting as the JFK assassination.

regards Hans
And by interesting you mean ill-conceived and based on ignorance of physics, engineering, and politics?
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 11:48 AM   #397
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,625
Originally Posted by Hans Peper View Post
After all, I must say, that Kubrick knows a lot about that stuff.
I still don't see how this fails to rise above simply hunting around for "coincidences," deciding what the meaning of them must be, and trying to attribute your "discovery" back to Kubrick. Do you understand why that is not a convincing approach?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 12:08 PM   #398
Hans Peper
Thinker
 
Hans Peper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
..... Do you understand why that is not a convincing approach?

A convincing arrival was not possible because I am landed here without knowing how and why. I have a tiny discovery in the case and wanted to hear your opinion. How I judge you, you have already viewed the video clip and unfortunately can not see anything, right?

So, I will not bother you longer, I'll move on.
The JFK video clip is certainly interesting, maybe I'll study it later.

stay in touch

Hans
__________________
Do not trust your brain
Hans Peper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 12:13 PM   #399
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I still don't see how this fails to rise above simply hunting around for "coincidences," deciding what the meaning of them must be, and trying to attribute your "discovery" back to Kubrick. Do you understand why that is not a convincing approach?
Jay, this same poster made identical arguments in one of the 9/11 conspiracy threads, claiming that Kubrick knew about 9/11 and encoded this information into his films. I wouldn't expect too much.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 05:52 PM   #400
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,413
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Jay, this same poster made identical arguments in one of the 9/11 conspiracy threads, claiming that Kubrick knew about 9/11 and encoded this information into his films. I wouldn't expect too much.
It's all one topic to Peper... Kubric was in on all of it.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.