IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 , Candace Owens , moon landing hoax , NASA conspiracies

Reply
Old 31st January 2022, 10:26 AM   #121
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,300
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Would recommend Dutchsteammachine on Youtube, he's done some great video "conversions" to higher res and framerates. E.g.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
That's the same guy who has the Ampex tapes I posted about in post #76
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky 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 31st January 2022, 10:59 AM   #122
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Its kinda like he would be upset if he found out that very few of the ancient and classical texts we have are not original and almost all are copies of copies of copies.
Hans 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 31st January 2022, 01:05 PM   #123
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Its kinda like he would be upset if he found out that very few of the ancient and classical texts we have are not original and almost all are copies of copies of copies.
Why did the ancient Assyrians insist on writing all their important documents on slabs of dry mud? What complete idiots they were! They should have etched it all on stainless steel for posterity!

I'm not saying the ziggurat of Ur was a hoax, I'm just saying they should have documented it better if it was such a big deal.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 31st January 2022, 03:03 PM   #124
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
I was going to reply to some of Warp12’s characterizations of the reuse of telemetry tapes from Apollo 11, but Jay and others have covered it very thoroughly. Sure, he’s free to characterize it as stupid or mind-boggling or whatever. That’s his layman’s opinion.

I’ve been in aerospace for three-plus decades, and think such characterizations are overblown and not based in a good understanding of the record, nor of the operational realities of the time.

But I am still annoyed, many years and jobs later, by the loss of mass spectrometer data from a satellite I operated, due to proprietary format obsolescence. Not to mention the loss of tens of thousands of hours of creep test data compiled long ago by a colleague that would have been incredibly useful in another program. No one had any idea what happened to it over years of storage entropy and corporate reorganization. It probably wound up in a landfill because nobody knew what it was any more.

Unlike those examples, the reuse of the A11 tapes was a reasoned and defensible decision, and nothing was lost other than some clearer footage which in itself was part of a much larger record.

And none of which affects the point of this thread, which is that Candace Owens is really remarkably stupid.

Last edited by sts60; 31st January 2022 at 03:06 PM.
sts60 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 31st January 2022, 03:18 PM   #125
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Its kinda like he would be upset if he found out that very few of the ancient and classical texts we have are not original and almost all are copies of copies of copies.
Unfortunately the effect of that is that we only have many of them in translation, plus scribes would make "corrections" and change meanings for one reason or another. In this sense it is very similar. Information is lost by all the copying and translation. Perhaps all the original sayings of Jesus (whether a real man, or whatever people thought somebody called Jesus had said in AD50) are basically preserved in the Bible with reasonable precision, we'll never have the actual words. It's like only having Homer in a Latin translation. Something has been lost that cannot be recovered.

Last edited by shuttlt; 31st January 2022 at 03:22 PM.
shuttlt 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 31st January 2022, 03:21 PM   #126
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
And none of which affects the point of this thread, which is that Candace Owens is really remarkably stupid.
She was clearly joking.
shuttlt 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 31st January 2022, 03:25 PM   #127
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
And none of which affects the point of this thread, which is that Candace Owens is really remarkably stupid.
If that is indeed the point of this thread, I have to say that the evidence here is that she is decidedly ignorant on the subject of the Apollo 11 moonwalk tapes, but as we are ALL ignorant about a wide variety of subjects, I find it unreasonable to classify her as you did.
MBDK 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 31st January 2022, 03:48 PM   #128
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
The only thing I agree about is that it is mind-boggling that they would have not preserved the original footage.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Hmm. Seems like the footage wasn't fully preserved. Amairite?
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
So, was the best quality original data stream from the feed lost, or not? Yes or no.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Purest original data.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
If we add up all of the potentially usable data, were the most complete and unfiltered samples lost?
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
An unfortunate, and entirely avoidable fact. One that can't be buried in digital ink.

The important consideration is that somehow, amazingly, that data was lost.

These are your first six posts in this thread. The first being your opinion, and naturally that is fine. The next four are all your responses to explanations for the not-so mind-boggling (to many here) mundane reasons the telemetry tapes were reused. Those four responses are conceptually vague, and out-of-context for the time the original data was transmitted. Your 6th post's sentence, "One that can't be buried in digital ink" is indeed an accusation that some conspiracy is actually in consideration. With your opinion unchanged still, by claiming the matter "amazingly" happened, you are either unable to comprehend the actual benign series of events, or trying to say something else, which you have yet to elucidate on. Which is it?
MBDK 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 31st January 2022, 03:51 PM   #129
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
Your 6th post's sentence, "One that can't be buried in digital ink" is indeed an accusation that some conspiracy is actually in consideration.
I read that to just mean that posters here were trying to say that nothing had been lost and wasting a lot of "digital ink" to bury the fact that something had indeed been lost.
shuttlt 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 31st January 2022, 03:52 PM   #130
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
She was clearly joking.
We know that because?
Andy_Ross 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 31st January 2022, 04:04 PM   #131
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
Your 6th post's sentence, "One that can't be buried in digital ink" is indeed an accusation that some conspiracy is actually in consideration.
I don't know; I'd say that one's on me. The argument shifted from it being the "highest quality" data to it being the "original" data after the usability of the data in its telemetric form came into the equation. If it's deemed unusable in the form it exists in, then its assumed quality is moot. That's why the horse had to change to being "original" data, and my rebuttal that caused that equestrian shift has been reclassified as "digital ink." I gather Warp12 was trying to accuse me of obfuscation.
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 31st January 2022, 04:06 PM   #132
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
We know that because?
Reading comprehension, context clues, the fact that she calls it light hearted fun, the fact that a few tweets later she is saying that her new favourite light hearted conspiracy theory is "Rebecca Black's song "Friday" is about the Kennedy assassination", the laughing crying faces, the fact that the replies taking her seriously are people with the same perspective of this forum.

It happens over and over. Somebody like her says something, conservatives interpret it as if it was something a normal human being said and shrug or smile, people like those on this thread lose their minds about some diabolical or crazed message that is being communicated to conservatives.
shuttlt 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 31st January 2022, 04:10 PM   #133
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
I think what this shows is the exact opposite of what the OP intends. While people who are highly versed in all the evidence would say this is an absurd position to have, they say that only because they are experts who have a full and complete understanding of all the evidence.

It is understandable, and even laudable, that someone who is not an expert would listen to reasoned arguments (regardless if the reasoning is wrong) and have difficulty believing that humans walked on the moon using the equivalent of pocket calculators and slide rules over 60 years ago and we haven’t been back since.

Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s not crazy at all to see why some people have difficulty believing that given the technology and timeframes involved. Further, the government claiming this feat has a long history of lying.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned.
michaelsuede 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 31st January 2022, 04:11 PM   #134
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Candace Owens (Twitter)
Now for some light-hearted fun. What’s the one “conspiracy theory” that no matter what anyone says you believe is true. Mine is that the moon landing in 1969 was completely faked. Just nothing about it makes sense. Especially NASA “accidentally erasing” the original footage.
What do your context clues tell you about the highlighted portion of the Tweet? She specifically says this is a conspiracy theory she believes in no matter what other people say. How it's framed doesn't change a clearly-stated fact. She may be inviting people to laugh with her over it, or at her. But I see nothing that says the belief itself is intended in jest.

So we're laughing at her over it. It's some light-hearted fun.
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 31st January 2022, 04:34 PM   #135
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I read that to just mean that posters here were trying to say that nothing had been lost and wasting a lot of "digital ink" to bury the fact that something had indeed been lost.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I don't know; I'd say that one's on me. The argument shifted from it being the "highest quality" data to it being the "original" data after the usability of the data in its telemetric form came into the equation. If it's deemed unusable in the form it exists in, then its assumed quality is moot. That's why the horse had to change to being "original" data, and my rebuttal that caused that equestrian shift has been reclassified as "digital ink." I gather Warp12 was trying to accuse me of obfuscation.
Reasonable explanations acknowledged. I retract that portion of my post.
MBDK 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 31st January 2022, 04:53 PM   #136
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
She was clearly joking.
Did she admit this? Like her colleagues who excuse their lies by saying no sane person would believe what they said? You can always say it was a joke if you realize after the fact how stupid you were, but I don't think that's a very good excuse for saying stupid things in the first place.
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto 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 31st January 2022, 04:58 PM   #137
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Did she admit this? Like her colleagues who excuse their lies by saying no sane person would believe what they said? You can always say it was a joke if you realize after the fact how stupid you were, but I don't think that's a very good excuse for saying stupid things in the first place.
Why would she admit that a tweet she called lighthearted was not to be taken particularly seriously? This is like asking Trump whether he was going to disavow white supremacy after he'd done it countless times already. There is no point in her admitting it, just as there was no point in him denying it. The people asking for this won't accept it anyway.
shuttlt 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 31st January 2022, 05:32 PM   #138
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
...
I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned.
Reasoned, that is funny.

As reasoned as bigfoot claims. In fact, they could use the same reasoning.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut 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 31st January 2022, 05:42 PM   #139
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Reasoned, that is funny.

As reasoned as bigfoot claims. In fact, they could use the same reasoning.
Or as reasoned as anti vaccination conspiracy theorists.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 31st January 2022, 05:54 PM   #140
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
She was clearly joking.
That is your interpretation. Mine is that “lighthearted” was the intended tone, rather than she didn’t mean it. Which isn’t to say that she’s necessarily deeply attached to the stupid idea; but she did present it in all its brain-dead glory.

Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
If that is indeed the point of this thread, I have to say that the evidence here is that she is decidedly ignorant on the subject of the Apollo 11 moonwalk tapes, but as we are ALL ignorant about a wide variety of subjects, I find it unreasonable to classify her as you did.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable. She said profoundly stupid things, or rather regurgitated profoundly stupid things that she read somewhere. It’s no shame to be ignorant about various subjects; we all are. It’s quite another thing to proudly parade one’s ignorance; at least this time it’s just a bit of cultural vandalism, not propounding stupid ideas about vaccines that encourage her readers to die for that stupidity and her engagement metrics.

If I go on social media and start ”lightheartedly” propounding a conspiracy that doctors are covering up the fact that the spleen is actually responsible for respiration, you go right ahead and call me stupid.
sts60 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 31st January 2022, 07:38 PM   #141
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Why would she admit that a tweet she called lighthearted was not to be taken particularly seriously? This is like asking Trump whether he was going to disavow white supremacy after he'd done it countless times already. There is no point in her admitting it, just as there was no point in him denying it. The people asking for this won't accept it anyway.
Oh boy. You provided the outline. You were not required to color it in.
__________________
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 31st January 2022, 08:12 PM   #142
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Just imagine though. If it hadn't been for the money they saved on storing those 45 tapes, the ISS might never have been possible.
Guess you didn’t read any of the explanations? It had nothing to do with storing or not storing the tapes.
sts60 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 31st January 2022, 08:58 PM   #143
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
That is your interpretation. Mine is that “lighthearted” was the intended tone, rather than she didn’t mean it. Which isn’t to say that she’s necessarily deeply attached to the stupid idea; but she did present it in all its brain-dead glory.



I think it’s perfectly reasonable. She said profoundly stupid things, or rather regurgitated profoundly stupid things that she read somewhere. It’s no shame to be ignorant about various subjects; we all are. It’s quite another thing to proudly parade one’s ignorance; at least this time it’s just a bit of cultural vandalism, not propounding stupid ideas about vaccines that encourage her readers to die for that stupidity and her engagement metrics.

If I go on social media and start ”lightheartedly” propounding a conspiracy that doctors are covering up the fact that the spleen is actually responsible for respiration, you go right ahead and call me stupid.
Good points, but still conjectured, as are mine. Though my opinion remains that you are being a bit harsh, I respect your analysis. C'est la vie.
MBDK 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 31st January 2022, 09:55 PM   #144
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 6,332
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I think what this shows is the exact opposite of what the OP intends. While people who are highly versed in all the evidence would say this is an absurd position to have, they say that only because they are experts who have a full and complete understanding of all the evidence.

It is understandable, and even laudable, that someone who is not an expert would listen to reasoned arguments (regardless if the reasoning is wrong) and have difficulty believing that humans walked on the moon using the equivalent of pocket calculators and slide rules over 60 years ago and we haven’t been back since.

Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s not crazy at all to see why some people have difficulty believing that given the technology and timeframes involved. Further, the government claiming this feat has a long history of lying.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned.
You can reason and rationalize all you want. Willful ignorance is the problem. Too many people either stop at curiosity and get stuck in an endless loop of JAQing off or "do their own research" in conspiracy theory safe spaces instead of sitting down and trying to learn the subject. There's no substitute for education. We don't need to give much credit to rationalized speculation and old adages when there's tons of documentation and analysis for something already.
Venom 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 31st January 2022, 10:21 PM   #145
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I think what this shows is the exact opposite of what the OP intends. While people who are highly versed in all the evidence would say this is an absurd position to have, they say that only because they are experts who have a full and complete understanding of all the evidence.
I see what you did there - a subtle form of the appeal to ignorance. Maybe you didn’t realize you were doing it.

It’s not at all true that only experts who know “all the evidence” can see the absurdity of the claim that Apollo was hoaxed. Plenty of laymen have taken a bit of time to learn a few basic facts, or a particular general principle at even a non-mathematical level, which is all it takes to refute the majority of Apollo hoax claims. Most of the time, it doesn’t take an expert.

It’s also very rare to find someone who can be described as “knowing all the evidence”. The Apollo record - scientific, technological, and programmatic; text, imagery, data, and physical - is vast beyond your realization and virtually fractal in detail. JayUtah is the closest person here to that idealized state, and I’m sure he would readily acknowledge there’s much of the record he doesn’t know in breadth, let alone in depth.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
It is understandable, and even laudable, that someone who is not an expert would listen to reasoned arguments (regardless if the reasoning is wrong) and have difficulty believing that humans walked on the moon using the equivalent of pocket calculators and slide rules over 60 years ago and we haven’t been back since.
I don’t have a problem with someone looking at the Moon and having a hard time believing we ever walked on it. It’s a completely natural reaction - a “reasonable” emotional response.

It is by no means laudable to read some claim that one of humanity’s greatest scientific and technical achievements was a lie, and to accept such claims as reasonable or reasoned without interrogating the premise behind them even before tackling the details of the claim itself. There’s no explanation (taking a common conspiracist argument) for the apparent absence of a shadow in some photograph? Suppose, for the sake of argument, we can’t explain why we don’t see a shadow there. Is the more reasonable explanation that the Apollo program was faked, and the world’s engineers and scientists are all in on it, or maybe there’s just something about the photograph we haven’t figured out yet?

Or to address your characterization: is it laudable to doubt Apollo because the computing technology used was relatively primitive compared to today’s, a half-century later? Or is it laudable to say, “Hey, I don’t actually know what it takes to control a spacecraft, or even what approach they took. Maybe I should read about it or ask an expert before giving any credence to this weird claim”?

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s not crazy at all to see why some people have difficulty believing that given the technology and timeframes involved. Further, the government claiming this feat has a long history of lying.
It’s not crazy; it’s just lazy. Furthermore, the government has a long history of lying and telling the truth. The “government” (as if it was the monolithic entity fancied by conspiracists) has published reams of truth about Apollo. Oceans of truth. More truth in more detail than you could peruse in a lifetime. But there’s no corresponding body of counter-Apollo truth. There’s just ignorance and lies and fantasies promulgated by conspiracists, and lots of mistakes, and most of them are pretty damn silly mistakes to boot.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned.
I’ve heard, or rather read, most of the various “fake Moon landing arguments”. No, the vast majority of them are not reasoned. There are appeals to ignorance, ignorant interpretations, baseless assertions, and plenty of outright lies. There are very few that rise to the level of “reasoned”, and they’re still all wrong. And I’ve seen very few that were even made, or at least argued, in good faith.

Last edited by sts60; 31st January 2022 at 10:38 PM.
sts60 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 31st January 2022, 10:22 PM   #146
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
Good points, but still conjectured, as are mine. Though my opinion remains that you are being a bit harsh, I respect your analysis. C'est la vie.
Thanks. I may not agree with your interpretation, but I respect your argument.
sts60 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 31st January 2022, 10:25 PM   #147
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I think what this shows is the exact opposite of what the OP intends. While people who are highly versed in all the evidence would say this is an absurd position to have, they say that only because they are experts who have a full and complete understanding of all the evidence.

It is understandable, and even laudable, that someone who is not an expert would listen to reasoned arguments (regardless if the reasoning is wrong) and have difficulty believing that humans walked on the moon using the equivalent of pocket calculators and slide rules...
You could do the math in dirt with a twig. We invented the math doing it longhand. You think Newton ran calculus by supercomputer?

Quote:
over 60 years ago and we haven’t been back since.
To do what? And are you paying for whatever it is you want to do?

Quote:
Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s not crazy at all to see why some people have difficulty believing that given the technology and timeframes involved. Further, the government claiming this feat has a long history of lying.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned.
True enough, the USG does have a honesty-challenged history. But most CTers are starting from the assumption that if the government says something, it must be a lie, and reverse engineer their doubts. Impressive cynicism, but not usually helpful.

They could doubt heavier than air aircraft under those premises, too. Or submarines, or anything else. That doesn't make their doubting laudible. It just means they have a higher bar to demonstrate superior knowledge of the relevant science. Twitterers who doubt the fuel needs on a Saturn V rocket are not normally even vaguely familiar with...well, anything involved with fuel use in breaking earth gravity and slingshotting to the next big orbiting body..

Questioning is dynamite. Learning is better still. Cynicism is mostly a pain in the ass.
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 31st January 2022 at 10:38 PM. Reason: autocorrect was sure it was a Saturn IV rocket
Thermal 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 31st January 2022, 10:52 PM   #148
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I think what this shows is the exact opposite of what the OP intends. While people who are highly versed in all the evidence would say this is an absurd position to have, they say that only because they are experts who have a full and complete understanding of all the evidence.

It is understandable, and even laudable, that someone who is not an expert would listen to reasoned arguments (regardless if the reasoning is wrong) and have difficulty believing that humans walked on the moon using the equivalent of pocket calculators and slide rules over 60 years ago and we haven’t been back since.

Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s not crazy at all to see why some people have difficulty believing that given the technology and timeframes involved. Further, the government claiming this feat has a long history of lying.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned.
I know it's just a little bit of arithmetic and stuff, but I seem to recall that we did fly to the moon a few times later, and even if we kind of forget the ten other astronauts who went to the moon and even drove around on it in the subsequent three years, if 1969 was over 60 years ago I'm older than I thought, or my calculator is broken! Far be it from me to say you can't have a "reasoned argument" based on a nearly total disregard of the obvious, but I think it kind of weakens it. I mean do you really have to be an expert and have a complete grasp of the evidence to subtract 1969 from 2022?
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)

Last edited by bruto; 31st January 2022 at 10:56 PM.
bruto 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 31st January 2022, 10:55 PM   #149
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,806
Interesting that the original data, the absolutely original moonwalk data including the video, is certainly still in existence. Just that retrieving it is going to be...difficult.

Simply out, the LEM antennas transmitted the lunar mission data and video back to Earth in real time, to be picked up by tracking radio telescopes around the world. From those terrestrial stations, the data was sent to Houston, where it was processed and recorded, as has been discussed in excessive detail already.

However that signal didn't stop at Earth. It has kept on going ever since. So now it is just over 19,000 light-days (19,189, to be exact today) from the transmission point past Earth and into space. Granted, it has dissipated somewhat by now, but the data content should be as pure as the moment it was first sent back in July 1969.

Getting it now is simply a process of chasing it down, or somehow standing in its way, and recording it again. I leave it to the rocket scientists to determine how that is going to be done.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 31st January 2022 at 10:58 PM.
Norman Alexander 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 31st January 2022, 11:19 PM   #150
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Getting it now is simply a process of chasing it down, or somehow standing in its way, and recording it again. I leave it to the rocket scientists to determine how that is going to be done.
Ha! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that although Flat Earth is unquestionably wrong, the galaxy itself is flat. So, once the radio signals reflect back off the ice walls that hem in our galaxy, we will be able to reconstruct them in their original state. Also, FYI, it is those ice walls responsible for it being so cold in space, and the other observed galaxies are just distorted reflections of our own. This is why NASA has never been able to show us a picture from outside our own galaxy.

Did I miss anything?
MBDK 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 1st February 2022, 01:30 AM   #151
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
Ha! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that although Flat Earth is unquestionably wrong, the galaxy itself is flat. So, once the radio signals reflect back off the ice walls that hem in our galaxy, we will be able to reconstruct them in their original state. Also, FYI, it is those ice walls responsible for it being so cold in space, and the other observed galaxies are just distorted reflections of our own. This is why NASA has never been able to show us a picture from outside our own galaxy.

Did I miss anything?
Not sure if you want a genuine reply, but what bugs me most is the cranks flying in the face of reality. There are a slew of moon cranks who think A11 was an isolated one shot mission. That winds me up
__________________
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 1st February 2022, 01:37 AM   #152
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I know it's just a little bit of arithmetic and stuff, but I seem to recall that we did fly to the moon a few times later, and even if we kind of forget the ten other astronauts who went to the moon and even drove around on it in the subsequent three years, if 1969 was over 60 years ago I'm older than I thought, or my calculator is broken! Far be it from me to say you can't have a "reasoned argument" based on a nearly total disregard of the obvious, but I think it kind of weakens it. I mean do you really have to be an expert and have a complete grasp of the evidence to subtract 1969 from 2022?
Fifty-three years ago, leading up to the first lunar landing, public and private schools were wall-to-wall science projects related to the space program. NASA was going full-tilt in the PR department making films, and putting together easy in-class projects that would help kids understand space travel...so they could explain it to their parents. That would last through Skylab at my grammar school, and in 7th grade we built and launched model rockets. There were easy-to-follow diagrams on using the earth and moon's gravity to help sling-shot the craft, the difference in gravity between the earth and the lunar surface was clearly explained.

Somewhere between 1980 and now schools seem to have back-slid to the point where there are enough under-educated people to make a ridiculous claim like the moon landings being faked a serious point of discussion. And by under-educated I mean failed 7th grade science.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 1st February 2022, 01:49 AM   #153
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Not sure if you want a genuine reply, but what bugs me most is the cranks flying in the face of reality. There are a slew of moon cranks who think A11 was an isolated one shot mission. That winds me up
You remind me that the original tweet which mentions "the" moon landing did make me wonder whether the tweeter was unaware of there having been six landings. It adds "in 1969" which leaves open the possibility that they realised it was only the first of several, but it made me wonder.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 1st February 2022 at 01:52 AM.
Jack by the hedge 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 1st February 2022, 01:55 AM   #154
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Not sure if you want a genuine reply, but what bugs me most is the cranks flying in the face of reality. There are a slew of moon cranks who think A11 was an isolated one shot mission. That winds me up
Just seeing if anyone wanted to add on to the Poe's Law exercise. As for the moon cranks - the truly zealous ones - their willful ignorance just showcases the uselessness of unbridled pride. I wonder which would be worse, the possibility of being broken by losing so much they have invested by admitting they were fooled, or living with their unflinching stubbornness and thereby failing to be able to think critically. I personally believe the latter to be worse, but their own fear of the former is what seems to keep their blinders well fitted.

I realize none of that is really news to anyone. I just figured I should make it clear as to what perspective I hold.
MBDK 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 1st February 2022, 02:09 AM   #155
MBDK
Muse
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Fifty-three years ago, leading up to the first lunar landing, public and private schools were wall-to-wall science projects related to the space program. NASA was going full-tilt in the PR department making films, and putting together easy in-class projects that would help kids understand space travel...so they could explain it to their parents. That would last through Skylab at my grammar school, and in 7th grade we built and launched model rockets. There were easy-to-follow diagrams on using the earth and moon's gravity to help sling-shot the craft, the difference in gravity between the earth and the lunar surface was clearly explained.

Somewhere between 1980 and now schools seem to have back-slid to the point where there are enough under-educated people to make a ridiculous claim like the moon landings being faked a serious point of discussion. And by under-educated I mean failed 7th grade science.
Sadly, even those 53 years ago, it was the children lingering at the back of the class who, for whatever reason(s), paid little attention during those teachings and became susceptible targets for the Apollo Project conspiracy theories. I think the novelty of actual space flight has since eroded interest in it as a whole, increasing the numbers of unenthusiastic students.
MBDK 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 1st February 2022, 02:12 AM   #156
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, there are ****** conservative forums as well that would take some ambiguous or joking comment made by a progressive and then run with it, but it's a bit of a disreputable state of affairs for a "skeptics" site.
Sure. It simply is not possible to land on cheese, therefore Trump must be right.
__________________
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 1st February 2022, 03:29 AM   #157
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. It simply is not possible to land on cheese, therefore Trump must be right.
And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
shuttlt 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 1st February 2022, 05:18 AM   #158
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
You remind me that the original tweet which mentions "the" moon landing did make me wonder whether the tweeter was unaware of there having been six landings. It adds "in 1969" which leaves open the possibility that they realised it was only the first of several, but it made me wonder.
That was some of teh stupid, right there. There wasn’t just one lunar landing that year. Apollo 12 also landed on the Moon in 1969.

And Apollo 10 went to the Moon in 1969 and almost landed on it, with the LM descending to within about 50,000 ft if the surface in the final test prior to an actual landing. And Apollo 9 did operations in Earth orbit. So there were two lunar landings, three lunar missions, and four manned Apollo flights in 1969 alone.

By itself, the number of landings that year is simply a bit of historical trivia. The difference is that most people aren’t making a profoundly stupid claim like the Apollo program was faked. “The lunar landing in 1969” is a sure sign of someone who has no idea at all what they’re talking about, but will happily say stupid things for attention and/or money.
sts60 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 1st February 2022, 05:38 AM   #159
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
That was some of teh stupid, right there. There wasn’t just one lunar landing that year. Apollo 12 also landed on the Moon in 1969.

And Apollo 10 went to the Moon in 1969 and almost landed on it, with the LM descending to within about 50,000 ft if the surface in the final test prior to an actual landing. And Apollo 9 did operations in Earth orbit. So there were two lunar landings, three lunar missions, and four manned Apollo flights in 1969 alone.

By itself, the number of landings that year is simply a bit of historical trivia. The difference is that most people aren’t making a profoundly stupid claim like the Apollo program was faked. “The lunar landing in 1969” is a sure sign of someone who has no idea at all what they’re talking about, but will happily say stupid things for attention and/or money.
I've encountered numerous Apollo deniers who didn't know that there were any more than the Apollo 11 landing. Some were even of the impression that Apollo 11 was the only Apollo flight of any kind. I've seen people express their incredulity regarding their belief that NASA built one, never tested Saturn V, flew to the moon on its first and only launch, landed, returned, and never went back.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 1st February 2022, 05:44 AM   #160
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
That was some of teh stupid, right there. There wasn’t just one lunar landing that year. Apollo 12 also landed on the Moon in 1969...
Well now I get to feel stupid too as I didn't appreciate Apollo 12 also flew in 1969. Especially since I'm currently watching a box set of "From the Earth to The Moon" and only recently saw the Apollo 12 episode "That's All There Is".

(I was five in 1969. I got it firmly into my young mind that moon missions were rare special occasions like birthdays or Christmas, so I guess every year they fly to the moon, right? I still sometimes struggle to remind myself that's wrong.)
Jack by the hedge 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

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 07:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.