ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: apollo16uvc on May 19, 2018, 11:52:15 AM
-
The conspiracy theorists have found new proof for the Apollo hoax, the cue cards and 16mm calibration frames:
-
What they make of the Apollo 12 cuff checklists, I wonder. ;)
-
What they make of the Apollo 12 cuff checklists, I wonder. ;)
Congratulations! You win the Internet.
-
I've seen this bit of stupid before and it's a perfect indicator of just how little effort this idiots put in, and how gullible the people who swallow it are. All debunkable in seconds.
-
Wasn't Jones the guy who took the calibration photos prior to each mission? I saw some bunk some months ago indicating that the calibration photos were taken before the missions started. Well of course they were, when else would NASA want calibration charts from each roll of film?
-
Wasn't Jones the guy who took the calibration photos prior to each mission? I saw some bunk some months ago indicating that the calibration photos were taken before the missions started. Well of course they were, when else would NASA want calibration charts from each roll of film?
It's called calibration. I am certain you know that. I am certain everyone else here knows that. It appears that some are too stupid to know that. What those wingnuts think is that there was no plan at all. Neil should have stepped on the Moon an said "Now what?" As though NOTHING was planned in detail. Were it on a movie set,one would know that in advance.
I note the "C" rock made an appearance
The video is a bucket of LIES. and long sought old talking points.
That video is moronic.
-
Wasn't Jones the guy who took the calibration photos prior to each mission? I saw some bunk some months ago indicating that the calibration photos were taken before the missions started. Well of course they were, when else would NASA want calibration charts from each roll of film?
Jones was also something they passed on EVA 3:
164:30:42 Cernan: I've got to move over here a little.
164:30:44 Schmitt: That must be Jones (Crater).
164:30:45 Cernan: Where are you looking?
164:30:46 Schmitt: Off to the right.
...
164:37:01 Schmitt: I don't like the sound of your bounces. Okay, you've got yourself in some holes here. (Pause) You've never...I've read you all along, though, so there's no problem. Okay, there's a big crater. I haven't recognized Jones yet. (Pause) Looks like you're getting up on the rim of Henry here.
-
This video is just stupidly stupid.
-
This video is just stupidly stupid.
Sure. The video is stupid on many levels, The cranks will, nevertheless, drink that koolaid. ~I~ could, arguendo, assume that mantle if you want to expose how hollow the hoax nonsense is. But it gets real silly real quick.
You could paint yourself into the very same corner as inconceivable, but I have no idea why you might want to do so. That would simply render you Vizzini..
-
This video is just stupidly stupid.
I like the idea that there are various levels of stupidity, one of which is "stupidly stupid" ;D
-
This video is just stupidly stupid.
I like the idea that there are various levels of stupidity, one of which is "stupidly stupid" ;D
I'd say it's when something is incredibly stupid, yet not even in a particularly 'clever' or novel way, like the same, boring litany of hoax claims that get trotted out time and time again.
-
i do always chuckle when i think of all these scientists and experts the world over who have access to all these knowledge bases and somehow its always youtube that seems to provide proof lol
-
Reminds me of two little quotes:
"You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts..."
"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"."
-
I like the idea that there are various levels of stupidity, one of which is "stupidly stupid" ;D
[/quote]
It's like having levels of wrong and wronger.
-
I don't know about stupid, but there are certainly categories of "wrong."
Asimov may have started it with his famous essay "The Relativity of Wrong" where he points out (and, boy do I hate to try to paraphrase Asimov!) that saying the Earth is flat is wrong, but since it is a potato-lumpy oblate spheroid (if you measure close enough) it is also wrong to say it is round; HOWEVER, saying these are both equally wrong statements is much, much wronger than either of them.
The point of the essay being that science generally progresses, and each successive answer is a little more accurate. But anyhow.
That probably led to the formation of "Wronger than Wrong." I myself use "Trivially Wrong," in which there's a specific error but the overall picture ends up essentially the same.
But then you get more interesting nuances like, "Fractally Wrong," in which the wrong conclusion is made from the wrong arguments based on the wrong data; it is wrong at every level you examine it.
And of course there's our friend Pauli with "Not Even Wrong," when whatever it is, is formulated/presented/argued in a fashion so orthogonal to evidence or logic it isn't possible to engage with it in any rational manner.
-
In the videos that I have visited in YT concerning "Flat Earth" I use the term relatively round, to be more precise than round. :)