ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Top5s on October 19, 2014, 07:42:17 PM
-
I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?
Thanks!
-
I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?
Thanks!
Well, I learned that there are millions of conspiracy believers, that the Moon has almost zero gravity and Photoshop existed in the early Seventies.
-
So the point of emphasis on your #2 example is to show that Neil Armstrong is a liar.
Hmmm....
-
1: Flag moving done and done again. It does not move unless the astronauts interact with it. And it isn't gravity that slows it down, but internal friction in the material.
2: Near zero gravity? No - 1/6th of Earth. That's not near zero. Again - the idea that the footprints require moisture to be crisp and clear is an old idea which does not account for the special environment on the moon. The dust is meteorite debris and formed by impacts of micro-meteroites which give up their energy as heat - melting and reforming as glass with many sharp edges. They interlock and keep the imprint that way.
3: NO STARS? Oh please. The starlight is so weak compared to the sunlit landscape that the cameras - adjusted for sunlight - could not bridge the gap. There is approximately a 1:1.000.000 difference. No, the light from the surface is not "washing out the stars" but the stars are simply too weak to register.
4: Neil Armstrong was a private man, not comfortable with the spotlight. He gave lots of interviews but NONE TO CONSPIRACISTS. Look around on youtube, and you'll find them. Hint: "Neil Armstrong interview" in the search box will help. And his unknown brother supplying an un-documented opinion is not proof of anything.
5: The crosshairs are PERFECTLY VISIBLE in the original - high-quality photos. Only low-quality prints have this issue.
-
what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?
My thoughts on each conspiracy is that even if you had made this clip 10 years ago, the claims would all have been long debunked. You obviously did almost no research before advancing these claims. How can the human race hope to progress as long as clueless people keep bringing up the same hogwash year after year despite the readily-available facts?
-
I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?
Thanks!
Like the others have said, those 5 theories have all been debunked. Good video though, I appreciate that you provided both sides of each claim. I think most reasonable people will end up believing the landings really happened after watching it.
-
The words 'NASA says' really grind my gears.
Apparently NASA is the only authority on anything space related, no matter how tenuous the link, and comprises unanimous and opinion between the many scientists and experts who work in its various departments.
The example here is in the context of seeing stars in Apollo images, where the words "NASA says" can be replaced with "Anyone who knows even the tiniest bit about photography'.
-
I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?
Thanks!
Yawn, thanks been having trouble sleeping lately. :)
-
The clincher for me is that those of us who know that Apollo really took place, know that it is superbly documented in the intricate scientific and technical details of the Manned Space Flight procedures, manuals and design schematics, involving hundreds if not thousands of contractors, and hundreds of thousands of people, starting with the Mercury program, through Gemini to Apollo, and beyond into the STS programme. Manned Space Flight has to be one of the most extensively documented programs in the history of humanity. There is only one story throughout, consistent within itself, verifiable at every step, and able with withstand the most minute scrutiny.
The conspiracy theories on the other hand, are many and various, often conflicting with each other, are not verifiable, and they simply don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Not one conspiracy theorist has so far been able to document a candidate scheme, a plan down to the fine detail required, for exactly how the Apollo moon landings were supposed to have been faked. Plenty of innuendo and unproven theories... but NO FACTS!
-
How is this in any way "5 most believed moon landing conspiracies?"
I mean, the expected semantic meaning is that there are a number of different conspiracy beliefs centering around the Apollo landings (or, more broadly, around the general concept of landing on the Moon), and the video wishes to list the five which are most accepted, popular, or some other similar ranking.
If I was coming up with an ad-hoc list based on no systematic research, at least two wouldn't even be Apollo-related. "Nazi Flying Saucers on the Moon" would be one, and "Secret (modern) Government Moon Base" would be another.
To pad out the five, one might (depending on who you included in your survey and when you took it, or what other method of determining what you meant by "most believed") be the "Apollo 20" flight as well.
In no possible way does any possible parsing that agrees with customary English usage translate "5 most believed moon landing conspiracies" (particularly, note the plural!) into "the top five stupid reasons people have given for thinking the Apollo Program faked it."
It even more so does not stretch to "What I believe are the top 5 bits of evidence supporting the conclusion that they faked it."
I wouldn't bother to watch the video. If he can't express his meaning in a SINGLE SENTENCE, there's no hope he would create anything worth deciphering in a video.
-
(Heck, I'd even settle for "Five complete but different and internally consistent narratives for a faked landing" (as opposed to the Blind Texan Sharpshooter we have today, which is hoax believers pointing to a barn full of holes and assuming it is possible to draw a circle around some significant majority of them).
-
Five Most Often Recycled Claims of Hoax Believers
-
This strikes me as the video equivalent of the tired old "I'm just asking questions" approach.
The OP is quick to adopt the claim of dishonesty by Neil Armstrong, citing some contextually ambiguous quote by a family member as his only proof, yet in another part of the video states, "there is no way of knowing for sure what to believe", referring to the authenticity of the boot prints and the missions in general. Does this unequal weighting of evidence sound familiar?
With due respect to our esteemed webmaster's opinion, I don't think the video is very good at all. The creator's ideological biases bleed through the facade of neutrality he's tried to construct. It's clear that it was poorly researched, with slipshod claims in places, and downright falsehoods in others. Technically, the narration is somewhat amateurish and "rushed", with substandard audio quality. Visually it's essentially a bland collection of stills, with an occasional low quality clip inserted - most likely leeched from other YT videos or some of the low-res examples on Nasa.gov.
Yeah... color me unimpressed.
-
It strikes me as a wannabe filmmaker trying to drive traffic to his site.
-
I think maybe some of you interpreted the video differently than I did. Yes, he does seem to lean a little more to the HB side, but I give him credit for at least presenting the counter arguments for each hoax claim (has JW ever done that?), and I don't think he ever actually takes a side one way or the other. You can't say that about most HBs on YouTube.
He strikes me as a young kid with an interest in making videos... I'm not going to discourage that, even if I don't agree with his stance on a particular topic. And given his age (or at least what I assume to be his age) I won't give him a hard time for trotting out old hoax claims that the rest of us have probably known about since before he was born.
I'm sure we could all write a better history paper now than we could have when we were in high school, so I guess I just don't think it's fair to be so hard on him for not having a certain level of skill or knowledge about a subject that is new to him.
-
I just don't think it's fair to be so hard on him for not having a certain level of skill or knowledge about a subject that is new to him.
He came here of his own free will to solicit honest opinions. It would appear his request is being fulfilled.
-
Yes, but I see LunarOrbit's point. What I would offer as appropriate criticism would differ depending on what I knew about the filmmaker's motives and intent. It seems like we were asked to comment on the content, so we did. But we don't necessarily have to assume the filmmaker believes one way or another.
-
I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?
Thanks!
Re. "Iffy" boot print explanation: I don't know where you heard that the absence of wind was the main explanation for such good boot prints. The absence of an atmosphere would explain why we can still see foot tracks today, but not why they looked very crisp right after they were made.
Regolith particles are mostly very small and talc-like. And they are jagged and irregular in shape. When compressed, they tend to hold together better than, say, sand on earth. In addition, in 1/6 earth gravity, edges can be steeper and higher without crumbling or slumping. There may be a sticking effect due to differential electrical charges on the surface particles, but I'm not sure of that yet.
When all the facts are revealed, it is considerably less "iffy."
Re. "star" obscuring fiducial (cross-hair): Stars do not appear in Apollo EVA photos which are exposed for the sunlit surroundings, as you alluded to elsewhere in your video. That is a lens flare caused by the sun, which is just outside of the frame. But the principle is the same. Bright areas in a photograph will bleed over thin, dark lines.
-
I'm sure we could all write a better history paper now than we could have when we were in high school, so I guess I just don't think it's fair to be so hard on him for not having a certain level of skill or knowledge about a subject that is new to him.
Quite true. But a little personal introduction would go a long way to dispelling the speculation. So many people have come here with a similarly blank introduction only to weasel their way into showing their true hoax believer colors.
-
So many people have come here with a similarly blank introduction only to weasel their way into showing their true hoax believer colors.
That's true, but I would rather we didn't assume that was the case every time someone new joins the forum. Let's give people (especially youths) the benefit of the doubt. If they're here to troll it will become obvious soon enough, but we can't really judge someone on a single 15 word post and a 5 and a half minute video.
-
Civility and generosity to newcomers is something no one can argue with.
-
Civility and generosity to newcomers is something no one can argue with.
This is, of course, correct.
Personally, I find it much easier to be civil and generous when the newcomer isn't accusing Neil Armstrong of being a liar straight out of the gate.
-
Top5s, welcome to ApolloHoax. Please hang around and learn some real stuff about the marvellous Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. Had you come here first and asked questions, we might have been able to help you make a much more accurate video.
I apologise for some of the uncivil remarks here. Normally, most of us at ApolloHoax attack the message, if we disagree with it, but not the messenger.
To me, your video is a disappointment. It is very full of errors and omissions, such as no mention of the flag having a horizontal bar along the top to hold it up.
At 0:36 your commentary says, "The fact that the flag placed by Neil Armstrong was flapping..." yet doesn't mention if that was after Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their hands off it, because it certainly didn't flap at all after that, as can be viewed in the movie film, the video, and the still photos. In fact, it is quiet famous among Apollo people for staying absolutely motionless right up until many hours after the EVA when the test of the Lunar Module's thrusters caused it to turn. The only visual evidence of that is one of the last views before liftoff taken by the 16mm DAC camera.
Furthermore, your photo at 0:36 doesn't even show either Neil Armstrong or the Apollo 11 flag, and instead shows photo AS12-47-6897, taken by Apollo 12's Al Bean, of Pete Conrad holding up the flag because, as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal's caption says, "Pete is grasping the flag because the locking hinge that was supposed to hold the crossbar and flag out from the staff would not latch."
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
and
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6897HR.jpg
Take a close look at the central fiducial. It is clearly in front of the flag and Conrad's left arm. Not behind because of "pasting".
Your entire video seems to imply that there was only one lunar landing, yet it uses stills or video clips from Apollos 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.
Is that what you intended – to imply that there was only one moon-landing? If so, your knowledge might be similar to that of the hoax-believer with whom I had my briefest ever debate on a New Zealand forum:
Hoax-Believer: I reckon the moonlanding was faked.
Kiwi: Which moonlanding?
HB: The moonlanding!
Kiwi: Which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17?
HB: I didn't know there were that many.
Another glaring error in your video is at 4:23: "Crosshair markings from the camera lens..."
Wrong. There is no way that the lens itself could form the markings on the film. The reticule, or fiducial, or crosshair marks were produced by a reseau plate right at the film plane at the back of the camera. I would guess that it was actually in close contact with the film's emulsion, but JayUtah might be able to confirm or deny that. (Have you checked out Jay's excellent website Clavius (http://www.clavius.org)?)
From the document "APOLLO-11 HASSELBLAD CAMERAS" by Phill Parker:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.
The reason that the lines are diminished in the presence of bright light is due to emulsion bleed (a type of flare) in the film. It is a simple thing for bright light to spread around those tiny 0.02 mm-wide, black marks on the reseau plate.
Some of the lines that are not visible in digital photos were actually visible in large photographic prints from the original copy negatives, but there is another reason why marks disappear from online photos: digitising itself. Even the most recent high-quality online scans are reduced versions of the original scan, and very fine vertical or horizontal lines can be among the first things to vanish when scans are reduced in size.
Strangely, you talk about no stars in the lunar surface photos, yet at 5:05 you say, "You can see the crosshairs are visible in all areas, apart from the over-exposed, bright white star."
Wrong again. If you had a basic working knowledge of photography you would be able to recognise that that is not a star at all. It is a lens flare caused by the sun catching the front element of the lens. Many of these flares appear in the upsun lunar photos. Probably hundreds, if we took the time to research the subject.
That particular photo is AS16-108-17618, taken by Charlie Duke at Apollo 16's Station 6.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17618HR.jpg
And here's the entire stitched-together 360-degree panorama which shows more of the lens flares. Hopefully, you can see that they are indeed caused by the sun.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16pan1461110.jpg
By the way, your video implies that that entire photo is over-exposed. It's not, but obviously the two small flares are, and there's a much larger, weaker flare.
However, at top left and bottom right you can see something that might be what got some hoax-believers going at times – in one case claiming they were studio lights. Wrong. They are examples of hurried or careless negative-numbering that has strayed into the image area. Sometimes I got the same effect when using a pen with a nib and Indian ink to number negatives back in the 1970s. It happened less once I graduated to a draughting pen.
Take a close look at the fiducial (or crosshair) near John Young's left elbow in AS16-108-17623 in the same panorama:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17623HR.jpg
Note how it's right arm fades where it crosses the bright sunlit portion of his sample bag. That is the emulsion bleed or flare at work. Nothing at all to do with the image being "pasted on top". Compare that cross with the other crosses over grey regolith, which look quite normal.
Finally, you imply in the video that Photoshop existed in the 1970s. Do you really believe that? Or that the moon has near-zero gravity? And would you please quote your source(s) for Neil Armstrong's "lie."
Perhaps I should add that I'm a New Zealander and have been a bit of a space nut ever since seeing Sputnik 1 back in October 1957, and NASA does not, and never has, paid me to parrot whatever they say. In fact, I don't think NASA cares what I say.
-
Personally, I find it much easier to be civil and generous when the newcomer isn't accusing Neil Armstrong of being a liar straight out of the gate.
This is why I feel like I interpreted the video differently than most people here. I don't feel like he was personally accusing Neil Armstrong of lying. He was saying "this is what conspiracy theorists are saying", which is true because they are saying it.
I think this video is just one of those typical "Top 5" videos like you'd see on BuzzFeed or whatever. It's click bait. I don't put it in the same category as a video from someone like Jarrah White because he (the OP) is likely not going to dwell on the subject. His next video might be "the Top 5 cats who look like Hitler". If he starts doing nothing but Apollo hoax videos we can start taking it more seriously.
-
I stopped watching at @ 1:15 in the video, when the narrator says "from the believers point of view"...
Belief has nothing to do with the reality of Apollo.
-
I stopped watching at @ 1:15 in the video, when the narrator says "from the believers point of view"...
Belief has nothing to do with the reality of Apollo.
Totally agreed. When someone in a forum makes the statement "I believe the moon landings were faked", my response is "How sad. I know Apollo happened." :)
-
When someone in a forum makes the statement "I believe the moon landings were faked", my response is "How sad. I know Apollo happened." :)
It sounds pretentious to just say "I know Apollo happened", but that's just the only conclusion that can be reached based on the mountains of evidence.
I agree...I know Apollo happened...I witnessed it as it happened.
-
When someone in a forum makes the statement "I believe the moon landings were faked", my response is "How sad. I know Apollo happened." :)
It sounds pretentious to just say "I know Apollo happened", but that's just the only conclusion that can be reached based on the mountains of evidence.
I agree...I know Apollo happened...I witnessed it as it happened.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to seem pretentious in a debate. I use this term only, when the HB pretends to be superior (like IDW, turbonium and several others) but show their lack of knowledge and understanding and show their conclusions based on their beliefs.
-
Is that what you intended – to imply that there was only one moon-landing? If so, your knowledge might be similar to that of the hoax-believer with whom I had my briefest ever debate on a New Zealand forum:
Hoax-Believer: I reckon the moonlanding was faked.
Kiwi: Which moonlanding?
HB: The moonlanding!
Kiwi: Which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17?
HB: I didn't know there were that many.
That is a statement I can relate to.
I have a one metre long panorama canvas at the back of my shop of the famous "Earthrise" photo that was taken as the spacecraft rounded the moon for the first time. Most customers think it was taken from Apollo 11, and they usually make some sort of remark to indicate that its what they think. But the photo was actually taken by the crew of Apollo 8, on Christmas Eve, 1968. Most people seem to be surprised when I tell them that before Apollo 11, there were two manned missions to the moon (Apollo 8 and 10) that didn't actually land.
-
Personally, I find it much easier to be civil and generous when the newcomer isn't accusing Neil Armstrong of being a liar straight out of the gate.
This is why I feel like I interpreted the video differently than most people here. I don't feel like he was personally accusing Neil Armstrong of lying. He was saying "this is what conspiracy theorists are saying", which is true because they are saying it.
At 3:55 of the video: "But it would be good to know why Neil did lie to the public about his famous words."
His next video might be "the Top 5 cats who look like Hitler".
Or maybe he'll make one about "Believable 9/11 Conspiracies"...
-
Or maybe he's not coming back at all. He signed up, posted his link, and he's never been back since. Not that this excuses the crotchety-old-man response I wrote, but I doubt we'll need to worry about what he thinks of our criticism. If he does come back, let's hope he feels like telling us what the point was of making the film and publicizing it here.
-
It strikes me as a wannabe filmmaker trying to drive traffic to his site.
I agree.
I tend to believe Top5s was posting this here, believing this was a forum comprised mostly of hoax believers and he was looking for subscribers and hits on his video. I'd be interested in knowing what other forums he posted this on.
If someone was actually looking for some kind of peer review, it seems to make more sense that he would post the video unlisted first, and then make corrections before uploading it publicly. After all, YT videos do have comment sections.
One way to judge will be to see if he makes annotations or removes his video and re-uploads an edited version of it, based on what people have said here.
-
Hello, I am a bit shocked at all the comments. Manly the rude ones accusing me of expressing my views on the moon landing. My views are not expressed in this video, and much like the 9\11 conspiracy theory video I posted I state that in the description.
Throughout the video I say "Many people believe" or "some conspiracy theorist say" the whole point of the video is just to show what the conspiracy theorist to this day believe. I then wanted peoples feedback on the theories, not to express your views on how well the video was made and so on....
I am sorry I have not been able to reply I have been very busy.
Ben.
-
Hi Ben,
I, for one, am sorry you were upset at the response.
However, the 'conspiracy theories' you present in the video (although they are more perceived anomalies based on misunderstandings and ignorance than actual theories) are old and long debunked. Not just here, but all over the internet.
I think most serious(?) Hoax Believers have accepted that these particular accusations no longer have much traction and have started presenting ideas which are, on the surface, more complex and esoteric. They're still wrong, but at least they're trying to come up with something new!
-
Hello, I am a bit shocked at all the comments. Manly the rude ones accusing me of expressing my views on the moon landing. My views are not expressed in this video, and much like the 9\11 conspiracy theory video I posted I state that in the description.
Throughout the video I say "Many people believe" or "some conspiracy theorist say" the whole point of the video is just to show what the conspiracy theorist to this day believe. I then wanted peoples feedback on the theories, not to express your views on how well the video was made and so on....
I am sorry I have not been able to reply I have been very busy.
Ben.
You may be new to the Apollo hoax, but many hoax believers come here with the tactic of "what do you think" or "just asking question" when they have in fact already made up their minds. So when something peculiar just lands on the doorstep, it is not out of the ordinary to speculate on why it is there. How was anyone to know the video did or did not express its makers views or that you defiantly were the maker based on "what are your thoughts?"
I then wanted peoples feedback on the theories, not to express your views on how well the video was made and so on
They are old, untrue and long ago debunked.
I am sure people will be happy to engage in a conversation on why they are bunk, if you have the time and interest. That is primarily what we do here. Do you have any more specific ways you want feedback on this?
-
Hello, I am a bit shocked at all the comments. Manly the rude ones accusing me of expressing my views on the moon landing. My views are not expressed in this video, and much like the 9\11 conspiracy theory video I posted I state that in the description.
So you don't endorse those claims, you just promote those claims by repeating them?
...the whole point of the video is just to show what the conspiracy theorist to this day believe.
For what purpose?
I then wanted peoples feedback on the theories...
...and you got that....the ideas expressed are "old news", and have been addressed years ago.
...not to express your views on how well the video was made and so on...
If you didn't want your video, criticized, then you shouldn't have posted it to youtube.
...oh, and welcome to the board. :)
-
I would like to welcome our new member, but I have to add a word of general scientific advice. It's best to do your research before putting your presentation together, and releasing it to the public, with a request for comments about its quality. That avoids putting others in the position of having to criticize it for inaccuracies or out of date information.
The other route would be to put it together, but then not go actively seeking opinions on it.
-
Welcome back, Ben.
Thanks for clarifying your intent. Sorry folks misunderstood what you wanted, but it's usually best if you say right up front what kind of criticism you're looking for. Otherwise you'll get whatever criticism people feel like dishing out at the moment, whether it fits your plan or not.
Perhaps my mother could give you some helpful advice. For many years she ran the public speaking program at a university up north. She often taught the introductory public speaking classes that survey all the different kinds of ways you can speak. When they get to the persuasive speech, invariably some student would choose to argue faked Moon landings. Not that they necessarily believed it, but it was a topic they thought they could research and persuade people about, and thereby get a good grade. When my mother told them, "My son is one of the world's experts on debunking those hoax theories," they invariably changed topics. I think the message is here is "Know your audience." You registered here, posted your video, and left -- all within five minutes. Had you read through the first pages of the top five or so topics, you might have found a better way to frame your video here in order to get the response you wanted.
What I said at first about your video is still mostly what I would say now, but I would naturally temper it a bit knowing that it's a survey film and not and advocacy film. Namely, your material is about 10 years old. Given that your theme is, "People still believe these 5 things," that's not necessary a bad thing. But if that's what you're trying to say -- i.e., that this stuff keeps coming up although we should know better -- then frame the evidence that way. Make that point. A simple point-counterpoint presentation on a controversial subject still leaves people wondering why you're saying it. And yes, while this is what people were commonly saying 10 years ago, most of the prolific hoax claimants have moved on from them. So they're not really the top 5 anymore.
Before we leave the point-counterpoint notion, I think you got some good suggestions. "Many people believe..." and "some conspiracy theorists say..." are probably reasonably good introductions to the hoax claims, the personification of the other side needs work. "NASA says..." should be used only if you get the rebuttal material from NASA. NASA, by and large, does not acknowledge or respond to hoax theories. Most of your rebuttals are going to come from the private or academic sectors. So, for example, if you're going to talk about crosshairs, frame the rebuttal in words like, "Photography experts have shown how the crosshairs can fade away under ordinary circumstances." You have to show that the rebuttals have real teeth and aren't just gainsaying or denials from the people accused of perpetrating a hoax.
Toward that end also, framing rebuttals with "Believers say..." is unfair. "Believer" suggests someone who takes a conclusion on faith. That is not a fair characterization for most of the people who dispute hoax theories. In my case especially, and in the case of many others here on this forum, my conclusion that Apollo was real is based on my professional training and experience as an engineer working in aerospace -- 25 years in the field -- and a very lengthy, exhaustive program of historical research into the history of the program and its claims. It's not a pseudo-religious belief.
If you're going to get into characterizing the players on both sides of the issue that you treat, characterize them accurately: among the relevant qualified scientists, engineers, technicians, historians, etc. there is as close to unanimous acceptance of Apollo's authenticity as one can get. Your audience might want to know that. "You mean there aren't any scientists who think the Moon landings were hoaxed? Hm..."
That's the general flaw in the overly centrist approach. I know some teachers say you should give equal weight to both sides and let the audience decide. But they're generally talking about topics on which you could likely have a well-reasoned debate on both sides. Take America's new universal healthcare system -- I'm sure you could make a great summary film on the question, "Will the Affordable Care Act help or hurt the U.S. economy?" See, on that point we aren't too sure, and there are experts on both sides making informed predictions. But not so with the authenticity of Apollo. Therefore, many of us here think it's a fatal flaw to given the appearance of equal credibility to both sides of the Moon hoax question when the sides simply are not scientifically or factually equivalent at all.
You have to decide, "Should I give equal time/weight to both sides?" or "Should I weight my presentation of the evidence according to what I think the evidence itself indicates?" I've been involved with professional filmmakers making full-length documentaries using my expertise on this subject. The best one gets shown occasionally on National Geographic. The approach they took was to test hoax claims according to science, believing it likely that a scientific discussion or demonstration would refute the hoax theory. They didn't think the hoax claims were true, but at the same time they allowed the claimants to make their statements in their own words.
That's a reasonable sense of fair play. But if you pick a topic where the evidence is clearly skewed toward one outcome, and you make a purely centrist, "equal time and weight" film, it reflects badly on you. Some of your audience will wonder how good an analyst you are if you can't see that there's no legitimate controversy. They'll accuse you of making "fluff" pieces that simply aim to stir up a controversy without offering any real insight. There are, however, pitfalls also to weighting your presentation. The people on the other side will complain that you misrepresented them or that you are biased.
The specific flaw in the centrist approach is what Echnaton brings up above. Read his response carefully. Almost all conspiracy theorists at first adopt a centrist position. They say they haven't really made up their minds, or that they just have a few questions. Then over the course of several dozen pages of debate, they slowly reveal that they're quite ardent hoax believers -- they just weren't honest about it at the beginning. I can go into greater detail about this if you want. But the bottom line is that you probably honestly thought that by not explicitly taking sides, you'd convey to your critics sufficiently that you weren't advocating anything. You probably had no way of knowing that the nature of this particular debate is that if you don't explicitly say in big bold letters, "I believe we really did go to the Moon," any centrist presentation is likely to be interpreted as the "stealthy" approach to advocating a hoax.
My "How can we make progress?" comment is an expression of my frustration at having to debunk the same nonsense over and over. Sorry if that personally offended you.
-
...releasing it to the public, with a request for comments about its quality.
For all we know at this point, this is his rough draft. But generally yes, asking open-ended questions like, "What do you think of this?" is going to engender lots of different kinds of responses.
I've been handed communiques written by my colleagues for me to review before they get sent to the client. Very often I'll point out the logical or factual flaws in them, only to be told that I was just supposed to review the spelling and grammar. You really do have to be explicit with people in order to get what you expect will be helpful.
-
Hi Ben
If by "Most Believed" you mean the most commonly heard, you might want to consider the radiation argument - lately it seems to me to be the one that crops up most frequently. Just as debunked as the others, of course, but it does seem to currently very popular.
A more interesting video might be "5 Most Ridiculous Claims of Moon Hoax Believers". You could start with the notion that rockets won't work in a vacuum. Just a thought.
-
Hello, I am a bit shocked at all the comments.
Ben.
I was going to do this before seeing your recent comment here.
I owe you an apology, Ben. Not because I think anything I've said was wrong, but because of my attitude. On your channel I sneered at what you were doing. That was wrong. If I was your age I would probably be doing the same kind of thing. Just because my involvement in YouTube is quite different from yours doesn't make yours invalid. You are just there for purposes that most people on this forum wouldn't be interested in.
I feel that Jay and Kiwi and some others have expended misplaced effort on dealing with you and your video, because I still believe it really doesn't matter to you that much. I may be the only one here who's actually spent some time studying your channel and I have a pretty good idea where you're coming from. You're really not in this for the issues -- you're in it for your channel. I was saying that cynically before, and I really don't have the right to do that. What you are doing really is not worthless, seditious, or contemptible!
That having been said, I wish you good luck with your channel. Who knows, some hot chick at school might come up to you one day and say, "Hey! You're that 'Top5s' guy! Cool! My name's Lisa, and I just broke up. Doing anything tonight?" ;-)
You have a good narrating voice, you write a good script, your videos are well-edited, and I think they are a helluva lot better than many I see on YT. (I hate the kind where they sit in front of the camera and ramble on and on with some unscripted nonsense, don't you?)
So don't let old codgers like me spoil it for you. Go ahead and have some creative fun.
-
You could start with the notion that rockets won't work in a vacuum. Just a thought.
Man, you know, I've been seeing that more and more lately. Does this conspiracy garbage have any bottom???