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 25th January 2013, 11:52 AM   #41
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Redtail View Post
What proof would you accept that I showed them your position as posted in this thread & they disagreed with you?

Eta: Also, your position is now that dust would have to be beaten with sledgehammers to create... dust?
None, because anyone who disagrees with him is obviously a paid disinformation agent. That's the point of his litmus test; anyone who fails it is not credible and can be dismissed out of hand.
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 25th January 2013, 11:55 AM   #42
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,193
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.
Your criteria were explicitly met and you refuse to acknowledge it. Your "guarantee" is a lie.

This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.
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 25th January 2013, 12:11 PM   #43
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
Quote:
Oddly enough, every scientist I know rejects your moon hoax claims. That includes myself.
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldnít someone have spoken out.

A: Panís claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him itís for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. Itís probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain itís not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to ďkeep mumĒ. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media.
FatFreddy88 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 25th January 2013, 12:21 PM   #44
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldnít someone have spoken out.

A: Panís claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him itís for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. Itís probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain itís not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to ďkeep mumĒ. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media.
What a load of handwaving. ALL scientists would fall into line and ALL scientists are 100% patriotic to the US?

George Koval

There are plenty more, including those in the "Rosenberg ring"

The science community is not the Borg - all one hive mind.
__________________
"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 25th January 2013, 12:28 PM   #45
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldnít someone have spoken out.

A: Panís claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him itís for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. Itís probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain itís not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to ďkeep mumĒ. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media.


Begging the question much?
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X 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 25th January 2013, 12:33 PM   #46
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,278
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.
No, this is your speculative excuse for why all the relevant experts uanimously disagree with you. The whole world isn't paid by NASA or beholden to it.

I find this highly disingenuous. Not just a few hours ago, you urged people to go talk to their scientists and professors and determine whether they backed you or backed Apollo. You suggested that they would support you. But now you're telling us they can't support you, otherwise their funding would get cut off. So when all these people report back unanimously that science uniformly rejects you, you have a predetermined excuse not to believe it.

How is this any sort of meaningful check or test of your claims, as you propose? Are you intentionally sending people off to obtain answers you know you have pre-rejected? How does that qualify as honest?
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 25th January 2013, 12:35 PM   #47
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
Quote:
It's not that there isn't as much dust as in that race video. It's that there isn't ANY dust left hanging.
Just transporting and placing dust-free sand wouldn't cause enough erosion to create any dust. To create enough dust to be noticable, it would be necessary to pound the sand with sledge hammers for a few hours. This is so basic that I can't see how you people can even argue your position. This is destroying your credibility.
FatFreddy88 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 25th January 2013, 12:40 PM   #48
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,278
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
Just transporting and placing dust-free sand wouldn't cause enough erosion to create any dust.
Asked and answered.

Quote:
This is destroying your credibility.
Also asked and answered.
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 25th January 2013, 12:41 PM   #49
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
Quote:
No, this is your speculative excuse for why all the relevant experts uanimously disagree with you. The whole world isn't paid by NASA or beholden to it.
I didn't say it was. I provided a list of people who were able to speak their minds without fear. Here it is again.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax

Some scientists have to be careful of what they say and some don't. We rarely hear the words of the ones that have to because of the control of information.
FatFreddy88 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 25th January 2013, 12:52 PM   #50
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
Quote:
I find this highly disingenuous. Not just a few hours ago, you urged people to go talk to their scientists and professors and determine whether they backed you or backed Apollo. You suggested that they would support you. But now you're telling us they can't support you, otherwise their funding would get cut off. So when all these people report back unanimously that science uniformly rejects you, you have a predetermined excuse not to believe it.
This is a pretty simplistic response. You're behaving like a sophist. It's hardly worth the trouble but I'll explain it anyway.

Some physics professor talking to a student in his office probably wouldn't have anything to worry about. A scientist who wants access to the Hubble Telescope would have to be careful about what he said to a stranger.

If one were to go to a physics professor with only the dust-free sand issue and not mention the connection with Apollo, he would laugh at the idea that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand was driven over.

This is such a basic thing that your attempts at damage-control are going to be fruitless. All of you have lost your credibility on this one.
FatFreddy88 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 25th January 2013, 12:58 PM   #51
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,278
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a pretty simplistic response. You're behaving like a sophist. It's hardly worth the trouble but I'll explain it anyway.
You've devoted five years of your life to an almost single-minded endeavor to destroy my reputation by just about any means possible, to anyone who will listen. Now is a pretty convenient time to decide I'm not worth your attention.

Answer my questions to my satsifaction, if you please.

Quote:
Some physics professor talking to a student in his office probably wouldn't have anything to worry about. A scientist who wants access to the Hubble Telescope would have to be careful about what he said to a stranger.
Can you prove any of that applies in Redtail's case? Can you prove any actual coercion or bribery? Or is this just what you infer must be the case from your beliefs?

Quote:
If one were to go to a physics professor with only the dust-free sand issue and not mention the connection with Apollo, he would...
Supposition, rejected.

Evidence was provided that contradicted your claim here, and you accused its reporter of lying.

Quote:
This is such a basic thing that your attempts at damage-control are going to be fruitless. All of you have lost your credibility on this one.
Tautology, rejected.

Tests of your credibility have been taken, and you do not pass.
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 25th January 2013, 01:05 PM   #52
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
I didn't say it was. I provided a list of people who were able to speak their minds without fear. Here it is again.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax

Some scientists have to be careful of what they say and some don't. We rarely hear the words of the ones that have to because of the control of information.
So let me see if I get this right, now. The only scientists who are really telling it like it really is and being truthful are the ones that say whatever you agree with?

All others are lying to save their reputations and funding... Is that about the size of it?
__________________
"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 25th January 2013, 01:16 PM   #53
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,275
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's his standard litmus test. He got banned at another forum in 2007 for basically stalling the discussion until everyone took one of his litmus tests to prove they were conspiratorially-minded enough to appreciate the "basic truth" of all his conspiracy theories. Essentially if you don't agree that his arguments are so obviously self-evidently correct that anyone who disputes them must ipso facto be irrational, then you aren't worth his attention.

His treatment of every subject is tautological. If the report comes back that the qualified scientists dispute him, then either they're being government-controlled zombies who don't deserve attention, or you're lying. That is, the only response he considers to someone who disagrees with him is that someone is "obviously" lying. The criterion he uses to determine whether someone is worth his honest attention is whether that person already believes him.
Yeah, I gathered. I just find it funny that the more he tries to hand wave, the clearer it is that he didn't count on laymen having access to physics profs.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd 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 25th January 2013, 01:49 PM   #54
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
So let me see if I get this right, now. The only scientists who are really telling it like it really is and being truthful are the ones that say whatever you agree with?

All others are lying to save their reputations and funding... Is that about the size of it?
That's exactly how I gathered it. And of course, none of the ones that agree with him are in a position where they have proof of a hoax, I would surmise. ALL scientists in government employ will ALWAYS not reveal what they really know because they are ALWAYS worried about losing their funding. ANY scientist who disagrees with his opinion will ALWAYS be in the group that is afraid of funding and is therefore and unbelievable source. No proof necessary for this assertion, it comes from the ultimate arbiter, who is FF88 and therefore cannot be wrong.
__________________
"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 25th January 2013, 02:13 PM   #55
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
Here's the footage in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud.
As I said earlier even if you could prove such a thing were possible on the scale needed to create an Apollo set that in no way demonstrates such a thing was done and adding in the totality of the Apollo evidence the reasonable conclusion is that the Apollo footage was shot on the moon.

Oh and of course there's the slight problem with your theory that we do see dust kicked up during various lunar activities which demonstrates properties that point to it being in a vacuum and under 1/6th gravity, all the sifting in the world won't help you there.
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 25th January 2013, 02:44 PM   #56
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,709
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
You do realize that once you start linking metapedia you've already lost the argument?
Especially when you read the names on the list. LOL
__________________
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 25th January 2013, 03:02 PM   #57
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,193
FF88, you misrepresented support for you Magic Sand claims, and you lied about your guarantee. Do you think you fooling anyone? At all?.

This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Redtail View Post
Why did you lie about your guarantee FF?
rocky/DavidC/FF88 has to lie, because admitting that experts - or even laymen - might honestly disagree with him threatens his fragile, cramped worldview. That's why he monomanically repeats the same oft-debunked claptrap year after year. That's why he refuses to learn anything about Apollo, or space flight in general, or engineering or physics. He simply can't deal with the possibility that his fixation is just that - his fixed delusion and not that of anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You've devoted five years of your life to an almost single-minded endeavor to destroy my reputation by just about any means possible, to anyone who will listen. Now is a pretty convenient time to decide I'm not worth your attention.
Well, anything to allow him to pretend he's relevant.

Let me repeat for emphasis:

FF88, you misrepresented support for you Magic Sand claims, and you lied about your guarantee. Do you think you fooling anyone? At all?.

This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.
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 25th January 2013, 03:17 PM   #58
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,709
Out of curiosity I started going through the list.
1. Hugo Chavez. Nuff said
2. Dr Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski. Professor of economics geopolitics and international relations. Right. 1 link to a bulgarian tabloid.
3. Dr. Li Zifeng. 2 links provided, one to a paper on special relativity, the second to a blog rehashing Kaysing.
4. Prof. Dr Takahiko Soejima. Political scientist. Can't read his site or his book.
5. Prof. Federico MartŪn Maglio. Argentinian higher educator. Social sciences.
6. McCanney. Hahahaha.
7. Prof. Luke Sargent, American historian, professional violinist. Well he should know. Remind me how many violins were on the moon.
8. Dr David Groves. Nuff said
9. Dr Marco Stefanelli, Italian PhD in Indovedic psychology, analyst-programmer, Web engineer, painter, Reiki Usui alternative medicine practitioner, researcher, audio engineer, sound designer, composer, multi-instrumentalist. Yup, a crackpot.
10. Dr Neville Thomas Jones. Yeah see clavius.org for that one.

That's it, I have snorted enough coffee for one sitting.
__________________
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 25th January 2013, 04:35 PM   #59
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
Here's the footage in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud.

Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters maintain that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without the moving and placing of the sand's causing enough erosion to create enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

They're saying that dust-free sand couldn't be carefully loaded into a dump truck and driven to the site and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is laughable; the sand would have to be beaten and beaten and beaten to create that much dust.

I've told a few people with backgrounds in geology about the position of the pro-Apollo people on this issue and they all said they were wrong. One of them thought it was so silly that he laughed.

The position of the pro-Apollo camp on this issue is ludicrous.

Here's a relevant video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
You know, he wasn't laughing with you.
tsig 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 25th January 2013, 05:09 PM   #60
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
That's exactly how I gathered it. And of course, none of the ones that agree with him are in a position where they have proof of a hoax, I would surmise. ALL scientists in government employ will ALWAYS not reveal what they really know because they are ALWAYS worried about losing their funding. ANY scientist who disagrees with his opinion will ALWAYS be in the group that is afraid of funding and is therefore and unbelievable source. No proof necessary for this assertion, it comes from the ultimate arbiter, who is FF88 and therefore cannot be wrong.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like a very boring way to argue.
__________________
"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 26th January 2013, 12:24 AM   #61
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

Then why did you ask, FF?
John Jones 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 26th January 2013, 12:30 AM   #62
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.
I didn't ask anybody from NASA, or any other gov't agency. You do realize there are scientists that don't depend on public or gov't funding, don't you?

Why did you challenge us to ask scientists about Apollo when you knew you wouldn't accept contrary opinions under any circumstances?
John Jones 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 26th January 2013, 01:51 AM   #63
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
Yes...just to underline it, the Magic Sand has to simultaneously have so little fines it never aerosolizes sufficiently to be visible, but is fine enough on average that the mesh tires of the Rover can throw it several meters in the air.

And that's just for the Grand Prix video. Later, the Magic Sand has to be fine enough to let astronauts leave well-defined footprints, yet, again, never hang in the air.

Rocky, if it were that simple to get the stuff, why didn't Tom Hanks have a handful of it for "Apollo 13?" Just one simple shot. No calisthenics, just tipping a glove to let a handful of lunar material fall off it. And the dust that hangs in the air is CLEARLY visible.
nomuse 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 26th January 2013, 09:27 AM   #64
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
Rocky, if it were that simple to get the stuff, why didn't Tom Hanks have a handful of it for "Apollo 13?" Just one simple shot. No calisthenics, just tipping a glove to let a handful of lunar material fall off it. And the dust that hangs in the air is CLEARLY visible.

Well, duh, it's because Ron Howard had to agree not to show anything in the movie that would give away the the fact that it was all a hoax, in order to secure NASA's cooperation during production.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 26th January 2013, 08:51 PM   #65
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,807
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny and the pro-Apollo posters say all of the people with relevant backgrounds that they consult say that my position is laughably funny. I think it's so clear that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would not create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over that no viewers have any doubts and need to consult any experts to clear up their doubt.

If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable. This is really a basic issue.
Since you don't name any of the people you talk to with relevant backgrounds, I think we can safely assume that they exist only in your imagination.
CORed 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 27th January 2013, 01:43 AM   #66
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,571
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Since you don't name any of the people you talk to with relevant backgrounds, I think we can safely assume that they exist only in your imagination.
In his what now?

On another note, for the benefit of those who do not frequent Apollohoax.net and in the spirit of shameless self publicity I have been adding exciting new things to my Apollo page, including comparisons of lunar orbiter and LRO images of the landing sites and scans of Apollo related stuff from Life Magazines (my own copies).

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/apollo.html
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 30th January 2013, 06:07 AM   #67
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Maybe they should have a conference with the myth busters like they do with other things in science to work it out.
littleelvira 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 30th January 2013, 10:42 AM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,831
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Maybe they should have a conference with the myth busters like they do with other things in science to work it out.
They did.
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 2013, 07:31 PM   #69
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
Seems like to study the problem appropriately FatFreddy you'd need to do a full scale mock up. These small scale affairs don't work for me one way or the other.
littleelvira 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 2013, 07:54 PM   #70
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
I meant the Russians referred to in FatFreddy's note and the Myth Busters should get together.
littleelvira 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 2013, 08:10 PM   #71
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
Seems like to study the problem appropriately FatFreddy you'd need to do a full scale mock up. These small scale affairs don't work for me one way or the other.
As soon as I saw your post I started to work out how I would do that. What does that say about me?
__________________
"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 31st January 2013, 08:14 PM   #72
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
As soon as I saw your post I started to work out how I would do that. What does that say about me?
Not sure exactly Mudcat except I like you and your enthusiasm. Maybe we should collaborate and actually try it?!
littleelvira 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 2013, 08:39 PM   #73
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a pretty simplistic response. You're behaving like a sophist. It's hardly worth the trouble but I'll explain it anyway.

Some physics professor talking to a student in his office probably wouldn't have anything to worry about. A scientist who wants access to the Hubble Telescope would have to be careful about what he said to a stranger.

If one were to go to a physics professor with only the dust-free sand issue and not mention the connection with Apollo, he would laugh at the idea that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand was driven over.

This is such a basic thing that your attempts at damage-control are going to be fruitless. All of you have lost your credibility on this one.
I'm kinda shocked you think Hubble is real and that NASA isn't just giving out pretty paintings.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 2013, 09:15 PM   #74
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
As soon as I saw your post I started to work out how I would do that. What does that say about me?

It means you need to re-mortgage your house.
click here for your next lawn ornament
And landscaping to match. Your house would be the talk of the neighborhood. Bonus points if you have a Homeowners Association.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

Last edited by X; 31st January 2013 at 09:16 PM.
X 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 2013, 11:31 PM   #75
BazBear
Possible Suspect
 
BazBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Slightly Over The Hill, Not Too Far Around The Bend
Posts: 2,569
Originally Posted by X View Post
It means you need to re-mortgage your house.
click here for your next lawn ornament
And landscaping to match. Your house would be the talk of the neighborhood. Bonus points if you have a Homeowners Association.
Ehhh, that's just keeping up with the Joneses. If you want to stand out, you need to get the full scale Saturn V, MLP, and Crawler-Transporter!
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill

Last edited by BazBear; 1st February 2013 at 01:19 AM. Reason: missed a word, whoops.
BazBear 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 2013, 10:46 AM   #76
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
This is a tactic that pro-Apollo people use to mislead people. Scientist have to be careful of what they say publicly as their funding can be cut off.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldnít someone have spoken out.

A: Panís claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him itís for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. Itís probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain itís not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to ďkeep mumĒ. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media.
The matter having to do with mainstream scientists not challenging the mainstream dogma is a good one freddy. I liked the Rover film freddy with the still astronaut. The Russian's pointing out the texture difference between the foreground and background sand is a good one as well.
littleelvira 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 2013, 10:54 AM   #77
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
The matter having to do with mainstream scientists not challenging the mainstream dogma is a good one freddy. I liked the Rover film freddy with the still astronaut. The Russian's pointing out the texture difference between the foreground and background sand is a good one as well.

No, no its not. The reason that so-called mainstream scientists don't question what you call dogma is because theirs is an evidence based profession. All the evidence shows that we went to the moon.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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 2013, 11:04 AM   #78
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,573
The thing I don't understand is why all those astronomers, scientists etc who supposedly know it was fake don't tell the world about it after they retire. I mean they're not beholden to NASA any more, and it can't be the mainstream media keeping them off the air since a) Patrick Moore was given national airtime every month until his recent death and b) ignorant cranks have no trouble putting their message out on the internet so why not all these smart scientists and engineers? Perhaps they don't know how to use computers.

It's a mystery, it really is.
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 1st February 2013, 11:16 AM   #79
littleelvira
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
The thing I don't understand is why all those astronomers, scientists etc who supposedly know it was fake don't tell the world about it after they retire. I mean they're not beholden to NASA any more, and it can't be the mainstream media keeping them off the air since a) Patrick Moore was given national airtime every month until his recent death and b) ignorant cranks have no trouble putting their message out on the internet so why not all these smart scientists and engineers? Perhaps they don't know how to use computers.

It's a mystery, it really is.
They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree. There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars. But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen. So a good suspicious journalist and a good suspicious atronomer like Patrick Moore(not) would realize the contradiction there is not trivial. It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.

Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag. But that doesn't mean he wasn't conned . Obviously he was. Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that.

Last edited by littleelvira; 1st February 2013 at 11:24 AM. Reason: put (not) after Moore
littleelvira 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 2013, 11:24 AM   #80
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by littleelvira View Post
They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree. There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars. But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen. So a good suspicious journalist and a good suspicious atronomer like Patrick Moore would realize the contradiction there is not trivial. It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.

Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag. But that doesn't mean he wasn't conned . Obviously he was. Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that.
Hmmm. How complicated is a lunar lander to, let's say, a bicycle?
__________________
"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
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 01:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.