Author Topic: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?  (Read 254513 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.

I like to think of "conspiracy theory" as a term rather than as a description. Its a bit like "Video Tape Operator" (VTO) in a news studio. Few studios use tape any more, most use digital recording, but the person who does the setting up and cueing is still called a VTO, its a legacy term 
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Ah. That's a shame.

I take it then that you won't be responding to my post: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=763.msg26085#msg26085

Thanks.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
    • ApolloHoax.net
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

Further evidence of Rommy's keen intellect....   :)
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
LO it wouldn't be a proper flounce if there wasn't some post flounce stairway wit thrown in for good measure.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline beedarko

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.




Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Flounce #2. Will it stick or  will it slide it's slimey way into the bit bucket?

Offline Sus_pilot

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
@Jay::  Just struck me this morning - if a Hasselblad lens can be characterized as "good", justwhatinthehell would you call "great"!?

BTW, if you consider the intersection of art, science, and technology, I think a candidate for the single greatest photographic lens was the one-off that Panavision built for Sir David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia.  Used only for the "mirage" shot of Omar Sharif, it really stretched the state of the art at the time.  I'm sure more technically perfect lenses have been made since, given digital grinding techniques, etc., but it's the sum of the circumstances I'm considering. [/derail]

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.
Wait, are you saying Romulus said he wouldn't post here any more, then made 11 more posts after that?

I hope you release his posts; maybe one of them will discuss why he said the photographs he posted were "totally undeveloped".  Or maybe he'll decide to rejoin the conversation.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 10:06:37 AM by sts60 »

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.

I wonder if any of those posts is an apology to the black members of this board?

Nah.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 11:43:57 AM by AtomicDog »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
@Jay::  Just struck me this morning - if a Hasselblad lens can be characterized as "good", justwhatinthehell would you call "great"!?

Maybe the optical systems in the Keyhole spacecraft.  ;D

The Biogon was actually a Zeiss lens, although I understand Hasselblad licenses the design now and brands it a Hassy lens.  Zeiss had a history of building great lenses for aerospace.  They knew how to build a lens that would stand up to the rigors of space.  The Apollo Biogon is a good lens, but it's not a great one.  Where it stands out is obviously in the spatial fidelity that's hard to achieve in a wide-angle lens.  I did use it sans viewfinder, just as the Apollo astronauts did, with zone focusing and the Apollo exposure recommendations.  And it worked quite well.  Where I find fault with it is in the f/5.6 maximum aperture and (in the Apollo version) the susceptibility to catadioptrics.  Nowadays we have lens antiglare coatings that don't outgas in space, but back then there were only a limited number of ways they could reduce interreflection among lens elements.  So when you get that lens pointed anywhere near a bright light source, you're guaranteed some sort of intrusive artifact.

Quote
BTW, if you consider the intersection of art, science, and technology, I think a candidate for the single greatest photographic lens was the one-off that Panavision built for Sir David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia.

No argument there.  That lens is a legend.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Wait, are you saying Romulus said he wouldn't post here any more, then made 11 more posts after that?

I hope you release his posts; maybe one of them will discuss why he said the photographs he posted were "totally undeveloped".  Or maybe he'll decide to rejoin the conversation.

Romulus is a specialist in contradiction.

For example, he first provided a link to David Groves' experiment (Reply #4). A day later he babbled about NASA being unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories (Reply #267). Jay pointed him to "Apollo by the Numbers" (Reply #271), which he didn't know, because it's propaganda. (Reply #278)

And now Reply #308, where he told us he has never read any Apollo critics books either. He made it clear in Reply #354.

If this isn't amusing, I don't know  :D
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
I get your point about "hoaxtards", but I don't necessarily agree with it as I consider wilful ignorance as the most cowardly of intellectual failings.

I do too, but name-calling ought to be beneath us.

Quote
I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.

That's quite correct.  But that problem transcends conspiracies.  Science uses the term "theory" to mean a specific kind of thing.  But the broader usage among the general public is closer to what science calls a hypothesis.  You can't make that usage go away.  You can only resolve the individual amphibolies as they arise.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

Every once in a while I wonder if they can even read anyone else's posts.  As I recall, at Bad Astronomy he even demanded that the moderators keep everyone else but me from posting, so that he could have free reign to play out his obsession.  While I don't dispute the likely sexist overtones in his disregard for you and Andromeda, and the general trend of sexism (for which you should feel genuinely offended) in these debates, I really think he's ignoring you mostly because you're not me.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Unless you have met them and carried out a clinical diagnoses then you have just done an armchair diagnoses. :o

Um, no.  Because it would not be a diagnosis of anything, just an observation of behaviour.  (Actually, I have met several conspiracists of various stripes, and while I'd say one is an alcoholic, few of them to my understanding have anything that's been diagnosed by a professional.)  It would be a description of behaviour and how that behaviour does and does not fit with the various diagnoses I've heard thrown around.  Also why extreme conspiracy belief has made it into the DSM.

Quote
Stupidity is defined (albeit by Wikipedia) as "a lack of...    ...understanding, reason, wit or sense". That seems to sum up some of the recent hoax believers that we have seen on here. Indeed, many of them would do well to learn Cipollas Laws of Stupidity

  • Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  • The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  • A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  • Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  • A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

That's an extremely broad definition of stupidity; by my thinking, literally everyone fits into it at one point or another.  To me, a stupid person must be incapable of understanding, reasoning, wit, or sense.  I seldom believe that conspiracists are incapable of thinking.  In fact, we've seen that most of them are actually capable of attaining degrees, holding decent jobs, and so forth.  They aren't stupid.  (Most of them.)  And, by my definition, I've known a stupid Apollo supporter or two over the years, the ones who literally are just parroting what they've heard--the ones who claim that you can see the flag with a backyard telescope.  There are points I don't agree with about your laws, too.

Quote
I get your point about "hoaxtards", but I don't necessarily agree with it as I consider wilful ignorance as the most cowardly of intellectual failings. I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.

Willful ignorance is pretty vile.  But for one thing, it isn't the same as stupidity; some quite intelligent people are willfully ignorant in one field or another, often for reasons that have nothing to do with their intelligence level.  For another, if they are genuinely stupid, they aren't willfully ignorant.  They are incapable of losing ignorance, which is sad and not vile.  Either way, insulting them won't change their mind.  But you'll note I, for one, have stopped using "conspiracy theorist" and starting using "conspiracist" instead, in part because of how misused "theory" is in this context.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 12:39:09 PM by gillianren »
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates