Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 61 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
The universes expansion accelleration solved.
by Marchimedes
05/14/20 07:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 4
Page 6 of 16 < 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options
#32871 - 12/09/09 01:44 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I think the stuff pretty much shows that he doesn't take you seriously.

Top
.
#32883 - 12/10/09 07:19 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...


Without reading the threads and just taking your description at face value, I disagree with them. I do agree with their explanation that lack of an atmosphere explains the observation adequately. I don't know much about sand, but it seems unlikely that one couldn't create relatively dust-free sand. Again, though, I'm ignorant about the physical properties of sand beyond what one would learn from the occasional excursion to the beach.

That's not to say that I consider it likely that this was dust-free sand. That is, I don't consider this evidence that the moon-landing was a hoax.

Top
#32887 - 12/11/09 01:35 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

First, the guy could be right. I'm no expert and neither are you on the properties of sand.

Second, the guy could be wrong and that still doesn't make him an agent. Maybe he's simply mistaken or maybe he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.

Third, it hardly matters to the point of the exercise, because this is not evidence the moon landing was hoax.

Science is not a game of gotcha where we're trying to catch people in verbal mistakes. "AHA! You said X here and Y here! You *must* be lying!"

Top
#32900 - 12/13/09 09:20 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I will consult a geologist when I happen across one - if I think of it. None of the geologists I know right now are at the PhD level. Just because a person is a geologist doesn't mean the person is an expert on the formation of sand - any more than the fact that someone has a PhD in computer science makes him an expert on artificial intelligence. That you have consulted a geologist is not very compelling to me, as people often misrepresent what they think they know - sometimes from lying and sometimes for other reasons.

We haven't discounted that the guy doesn't know what he thinks he knows. He may have some experience and have drawn some poor conclusion from the experience he does have.

Even if he is lying or exaggerating his experience, it's not evidence of any kind that he's a government agent. It's consistent with a government conspiracy, but it seems to me that any non-conspiring reality is consistent with conspiracy. The more reasonable and mundane, the more likely the conspiracy is just better than we can detect. OTOH, I could be part of this conspiracy. I can't prove otherwise. From my perspective, it could be YOU who is the government agent trying to make people who question the government seem like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Top
#32902 - 12/13/09 11:32 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
You know what-- if half the effort that people put into proving that this moon landing was a fake were to be put into the shot at Mars we'd be there in no time at all!

Occam's razor suggestion is usually right. The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one-- thus I believe those rockets got to the Moon-- and HOORAY for that!

However I don't want to stop your great string of rebuttals FF the first- keep going , it makes for great reading.


Edited by Ellis (12/13/09 11:33 PM)
Edit Reason: too many FFs

Top
#32903 - 12/14/09 12:55 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Ellis]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Ellis, it never ends.

Obscurantists have no idea that the rest of us actually have lives and interests beyond theirs - and if they did have an idea, they would not care. They expect everyone to drop everything we're doing and follow their "reasoning" and examine their "evidence" forever until we reach the same conclusions that they have.

This can go on indefinitely if we let it. If we don't respond, we're just under the influence of the powers that be. If we do respond, we're in on it.

Top
#32911 - 12/14/09 05:40 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
There were a LOT of issues I didn't address. As I pointed out in my message to Ellis, you're assuming I have a LOT of time that I want to spend going over your evidence. I don't have that kind of time. The fact that the PRC government orchestrates what their astronauts are going to officially say doesn't mean they faked their space trip.

If I were to expend the effort you ask, I anticipate I would find a lot more of what you have already provided - a whole lot of nothing.

Top
#32924 - 12/15/09 01:57 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
15 minutes here, 5 minutes there ... pretty soon it adds up to real time - and I actually have
1. A real job
2. A family I try to interact with
3. My own research in anticipation of entering a doctoral program
4. Volunteer work trying to educate students (partly a task of removing false knowledge)
5. A dog I like to spend some time with (6 hours every weekend)

And guess what - moon-hoaxers are not the only ones who want you to spend 15 minutes here and 5 minutes there.

In any case, I watched part of it. Difficult to tell much, except one thing. A lot of people with almost no knowledge and extremely poor reasoning skills are trying to refute something they don't even understand.

No. I don't think the Chinese space walk was faked.

Top
#32925 - 12/15/09 02:05 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
Kate Offline

Senior Member

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 334
It does seem rather far fetched that the Chinese would fake something so (relatively) mundane as a spacewalk. I do agree, though, that those "bubbles" are intriguing.

Top
#32929 - 12/15/09 05:17 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I think it's "fluttering" because it's made of a stiffer material than a normal flag. It absolutely does not look like what I would expect from a normal flag under water. The "fluttering" is more like "waving" or "jostling."

Top
#32935 - 12/16/09 01:59 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: bradp]
millenien Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/16/09
Posts: 9
It's sad that people question something like this, but there are still the flat earth people, so you never know.

Top
#32955 - 12/16/09 04:54 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"Now students can go and ask their physics professors what causes the fluttering and that should settle the issue."

The issue is already settled among scientists and even the vast majority of non-scientists. Those for whom it is not settled are not going to be persuaded by the ravings of lunatic physics teachers who are obviously government agents.

Top
#32962 - 12/16/09 06:58 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Certainly true that scientists can be paid to lie and certainly true that fraud is a problem. That doesn't mean that the majority of them are fraudsters or liars. It also obviates the problem that people from all walks of life can be paid to lie and might commit fraud.

But what you're alleging is that the VAST, VAST majority of scientists who actually understand the stuff are committing fraud in exactly the same way and on exactly the same side of the "argument."

A recurring theme with your denialism is that because the government can't be trusted, any crazy thing that you want to maintain must be true.

Top
#32969 - 12/16/09 08:59 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"There are probably lots of scientists who think Apollo was a hoax."

That's what you think. I think the number is staggeringly small.

But there's probably a huge number of scientists who doubt gravitation, but they don't speak out for for fear the zionist, Freemason, NWO reptilian overlords will make them "disappear."

Top
#32984 - 12/17/09 09:34 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Wow! Bill Kaysing's nonscientific "work"! And Eustace Mullins! Can't get any more authoritative than that! And this blogger took a physics class and met some random anonymous physics instructor who told him the truth! Can't get any more intellectually rigorous than that!

Top
#33049 - 12/21/09 09:13 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
millenien Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/16/09
Posts: 9
The moon flag was designed to look like a strong wind was blowing. In all the tv coverage before the moon landing, the flag was shown on earth, before it was taken up, as stiff as a board, stuck in the position it's always shown in. If anybody can find a picture of the flag on a day when the wind isn't blowing on the moon and it's drooping, then we'll have something.

Top
#33098 - 12/27/09 02:25 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
millenien Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/16/09
Posts: 9
I have a possibly dumb question. But then, what better place . . . .

The "Moon Landing" was covered by journalists from news agencies around the world. Pretend for a second or two that you own one of those news agencies. Either you are one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been brought into this vast conspiracy, or you have been kept from the normal investigation that goes into news reporting. In other words, you know or suspect that something of global importance, something that has been called the greatest achievement of mankind, is a fraud.

Where do you think your interest lies, in ignoring your suspicions, or in exploiting them for the unimaginable financial gain you would get from exposing the greatest hoax in the history of the world?

And just how much hush money would you, your descendents, the thousands of staff you employ and their descendents, and all the peripheral people who might have overheard conversations in the any of the bars that seem somehow to locate around newsgathering organizations--just how much hush money would you need for forty years of continuing this conspiracy?

Oh wait! I think I know the answer. Like Carl Allen (aka Carlos Allende) and his Philadelphia Experiment, you were probably one of those people in a bar who misunderstood a conversation and built a hoax of your own around it.

(Carl Allen, whom I never our in ten years of acquaintance saw sober, tried to get me to publish his research, which consisted solely of notes he had written in a science fiction novel. Any other versions you've ever heard of the Genesis of the Philadelphia Experiment are pure and unadulterated bullshit.)

Top
#33228 - 01/16/10 01:53 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: bradp]
Momos Offline
Member

Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 48
Loc: Germany

Top
#33230 - 01/17/10 04:04 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Momos]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Thanks for the links, Momos.

Top
#33251 - 01/19/10 01:23 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
Momos Offline
Member

Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 48
Loc: Germany
Well, I can really understand why they banned you smile
Sorry, but If I had a forum for discussions related to some particular topic (e.g. Astronomy) and sombody starts complaining about "green zombie-jews taking over world control" I would delete the thread immediately.

In my opinion there are at least two or three major problem in tlaking with conspiration-therorie-thruthers:

a) Lack of real knowledge, so wrong assumptions are made. Sometimes assumptions that "feel" right on first thought but wich are totaly out of context.
Usually these facts can be explained by real experts on the subject, but since these explanations are somewhat complicated the truthers just won't get it. (the universe and physics tend to be more complex then we think)

-> This is the case with: no stars visible, flag moving, shadows in wrong directions, too good light, etc.

b) The big picture is ignored.
For example: The Apollo-Programm and the Moonlanding wasn't done out of thin air. There have been other projects before (mercury), from other states as well. So the major obstacle (getting something into orbit) has been solved.
Or do you suppose all this other projects have been fakes as well?

Instead of looking at the really big holes in the conspiration theories (e.g. communication over several changing stations due to earth rotations is hard to fake and a Soviet Union eager to see a US project fail) the truther are always nitpicking at minor technical details (Which of course can be explained, but you would need certain knowledge to do so).
(the cross-hair stuff is such a technical detail)

c) No matter what the facts are, some people just believe in the absurdest things. There is no way to get you to change your mind. (Probably the same goes for me).
So the only reason to discuss such matters with truthers is to show other yet undecided people how to interpret these facts correctly.

-------------

So in my opinion the Apollo project was the culmination of a long series of projects, starting with the German A4 and V2, followed by several very successful steps by the Soviet Union and the United States (satellite, manned flight, space walk, rendezvous in orbit, ...) . So the really big task: "getting someone savely into orbit and back" was unquestionably solved. Therefore the moonlanding is exactly in the right political and technological timeframe. (Ok, would the US in 1950 have announced they brought someone to Jupiter and back, I would be skeptical to).



Edited by Momos (01/19/10 01:28 PM)

Top
Page 6 of 16 < 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 16 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.