ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: LunarOrbit on January 22, 2013, 10:13:12 PM

Title: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 22, 2013, 10:13:12 PM
I've got a few simple questions for those of you who consider yourselves "conspiracy theorists", "truthers", or "hoax believers".

Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not? Why do you create multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to give us the impression that people actually agree with you? Why do you take information out of context to make it look like it supports you? Why do you misrepresent images from movies like "Capricorn One" as "real fake" pictures? Why do you keep making the same claims even after they have been debunked?

I guess all of that can be summed up with just one question:

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have the facts on your side you don't need to lie. Something to think about.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on January 22, 2013, 10:43:36 PM
Wow, LunarOrbit...that was cool. :)

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 22, 2013, 10:55:11 PM
Thanks, RAF. :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on January 22, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
You are quite welcome.


Your post is extremely relevant to the hoax believer question...it you've got the truth on your side, why lie in an effort to prove that you have the truth on your side?

Why am I reminded of certain religious leaders and politicians. :)

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: peter eldergill on January 22, 2013, 11:51:19 PM
LO hove you been watchin Rick Mercer or something?

Heh

Was there anything in particular to bring this post on?

Totally agree but Curious

Pete
Title: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 23, 2013, 12:03:54 AM
I think it's mostly just the endless sock puppets that lead to that Mercer-like mini rant. :)

I mean, people like Patrick must realize they are lying when they create multiple identities... so why do they do it? How does it help their cause?
Title: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 23, 2013, 12:06:14 AM
Thanks LO.

Along those lines, I'd like to ask a question that was moved to the Abandon All Hope forum at JREF when I asked it of PK1000:  why are you, the hoax believer, so emotionally invested in proving that we didn't go to the moon?  Why won't you accept reasonable explanations from reasonable people that it happened? 

As I said then, it's OK to disagree with the program, the money and effort spent and so on.  But going to nearly the same effort to fit the Apollo record into a hoax theory as it does to make a geocentric model of the Solar system fit observations just makes no sense...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AtomicDog on January 23, 2013, 01:18:27 AM
I believe that it's Projection.  The HB believes that we are lying,  since it is obvious that going to the moon is impossible. Therefore he feels that he is jusitfied to fight lies with lies.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Count Zero on January 23, 2013, 02:28:33 AM
The question reminds me of a recent article in the British Journal of Social Psychology:

Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x/abstract)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on January 23, 2013, 03:04:26 AM
Another question would be, why, when you seem something that seems wrong to you, do you not consider that maybe the problem is your understanding and not that the world is wrong?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 23, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
My question is:

Why, when you present your argument and someone points out the flaws, do you immediately go into childish, ranting, personal attacks, sarcasm, insults, and then run away? What do you have invested in your own idea of 'being right' that it is so fragile and must be protected at all costs? Why can't you even acknowledge the possibility your understanding may wrong? Why is it the more people try to show you where the information you need is and explain it to you, and the more and more impossible it becomes to honestly maintain your position, the more violently you fight against us? Why is it, when faced with this opportunity to learn more about something you seem to have such a great an interest in, the more stubbornly you refuse to do so?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on January 23, 2013, 04:35:34 AM
My question is:

Why, when I agree with "mainstream" views, do you assume it is because I am brainwashed and stupid?  Why can you not consider the possibility that my education and experience, examined with my critical thinking skills, have led me to conclude that the mainstream view is correct simply because it is?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on January 23, 2013, 05:49:14 AM
Surely "believer" would be a more appropriate word than "theorist"?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on January 23, 2013, 09:10:49 AM
Quote
It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place. ~H. L. Mencken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)

HBs justify lying due to of the belief that all people in power lie, which follows from the knowledge that they, themselves, would be deceitful if they actually had any power.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Chew on January 23, 2013, 10:01:19 AM
The question reminds me of a recent article in the British Journal of Social Psychology:

Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x/abstract)

I was looking for that to post it, too. Thanks.

My question is what would happen if I asked the government, "Do you always lie?" Would the paradox cause time to stop? Would the universe re-collapse on itself?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Bob B. on January 23, 2013, 10:02:38 AM
Quote
It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place. ~H. L. Mencken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)

HBs justify lying due to of the belief that all people in power lie, which follows from the knowledge that they, themselves, would be deceitful if they actually had any power.

Inherent dishonesty, I think, is part of what makes an HB an HB.  If a person is themself dishonest, it's easy for them to believe that others are dishonest as well.  Hence they see conspiracies everywhere.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on January 23, 2013, 10:36:25 AM
It's a vicious little circle. 
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: cjameshuff on January 23, 2013, 08:33:32 PM
I don't recall the details, but I remember once being accused of "not having a sense of fun" for not just accepting some claim without evidence. They seemed to value how spectacular or exciting ideas sounded over how much evidence there was for them...and to not understand why one would do otherwise.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 24, 2013, 02:18:27 AM
Is it just me, or do you seem to never hear from anyone whose belief in a conspiracy theory is confined to a single topic?  That is, if they believe that Apollo was a hoax, it's almost certain that they subscribe to many, if not all, of the popular CTs around.

And a sort-of related question: how much do you ever seem to hear about conspiracies that aren't centered around the government of the USA, or at least directly related, such as the joint US-USSR space travel hoax?

Edit: I have seen that Anders has questioned the investigations of, well, pretty much every maritime disaster of the last hundred years as being a cover-up of some kind, but this is his rice bowl and I don't recall seeing them discussed anywhere else.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on January 24, 2013, 03:19:17 AM
Is it just me, or do you seem to never hear from anyone whose belief in a conspiracy theory is confined to a single topic?  That is, if they believe that Apollo was a hoax, it's almost certain that they subscribe to many, if not all, of the popular CTs around.

Yes, I've noticed that too.


Quote
And a sort-of related question: how much do you ever seem to hear about conspiracies that aren't centered around the government of the USA, or at least directly related, such as the joint US-USSR space travel hoax?

Good point - never, in my experience.  Naturally CTs always assume I am American.


Quote
Edit: I have seen that Anders has questioned the investigations of, well, pretty much every maritime disaster of the last hundred years as being a cover-up of some kind, but this is his rice bowl and I don't recall seeing them discussed anywhere else.

Reminds me of the History Channel's "I don't know, therefore aliens" guy.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on January 24, 2013, 03:58:43 AM
That is, if they believe that Apollo was a hoax, it's almost certain that they subscribe to many, if not all, of the popular CTs around.
Yes, definitely. This phenomenon has been called crank magnetism; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Crank_magnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Crank_magnetism).

I probably would have coined a different term; "crank magnetism" sounds like charismatic cranks attracting a crowd of followers, or maybe cranks seeking each other out.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on January 24, 2013, 07:04:35 AM
Is it just me, or do you seem to never hear from anyone whose belief in a conspiracy theory is confined to a single topic?  That is, if they believe that Apollo was a hoax, it's almost certain that they subscribe to many, if not all, of the popular CTs around.

Someone a while back, perhaps Steven Novella, coined the term "syndromism" to describe this.  The taking of an array of related unsupported beliefs together as a whole in a "I bet you can't swallow just one" manner.  Some of the  commercial hoax promoters may be more restrained in conspiracy beliefs, for instance I don't remember Bill Kaysing caring much about any other conspiracy.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on January 24, 2013, 07:29:19 AM
It can be fun to watch conflicting theorists, for example CT who claim we went, but edited the photos since we found aliens, and those who claim we didn't go at all squabble.
Another example is those who claim even orbiting the Earth is impossible, or that descent from orbit is impossible, and those who claim we faked we faked it in LEO.
In any case, grab the popcorn!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Bob B. on January 24, 2013, 08:37:18 AM
Is it just me, or do you seem to never hear from anyone whose belief in a conspiracy theory is confined to a single topic?  That is, if they believe that Apollo was a hoax, it's almost certain that they subscribe to many, if not all, of the popular CTs around.

Absolutely!  I don't know if I've ever come across a hardcore moon landing HB who didn't also buy into to the other CTs.  There's just something in these people's interior wiring that makes them susceptible to such nonsense.  They're not normal in my opinion.

Quote
And a sort-of related question: how much do you ever seem to hear about conspiracies that aren't centered around the government of the USA, or at least directly related, such as the joint US-USSR space travel hoax?

I remember some hubbub a while back about the Chinese faking their EVA, but agree these CTs usually involve the USA in some way.  I think it's just a matter of the CTs going after the biggest, baddest kid on the playground.  Many of them seem to see the USA as some sort of a bully, and CTs are their way to strike back.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Chew on January 24, 2013, 10:36:05 AM
Is it just me, or do you seem to never hear from anyone whose belief in a conspiracy theory is confined to a single topic?  That is, if they believe that Apollo was a hoax, it's almost certain that they subscribe to many, if not all, of the popular CTs around.

It's called Crank magnetism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Crank_magnetism)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 24, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
Some of the  commercial hoax promoters may be more restrained in conspiracy beliefs, for instance I don't remember Bill Kaysing caring much about any other conspiracy.
True, but I've never been entirely convinced that Kaysing believed the nonsense he was spouting. I'm more inclined toward the notion that he initially wrote it up to be a pain in NASA's behind, then it sort of outgrew him.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on January 24, 2013, 01:03:45 PM
I read a great quote today.

Quote
One is known by the quality of one's enemies.  If good and honorable people hold you in low regard, then it's time for self examination.  But if this group/collective, led about by this small-souled person, hold you in low regard, then please know that it matters little to none.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on January 24, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Some of the  commercial hoax promoters may be more restrained in conspiracy beliefs, for instance I don't remember Bill Kaysing caring much about any other conspiracy.
True, but I've never been entirely convinced that Kaysing believed the nonsense he was spouting. I'm more inclined toward the notion that he initially wrote it up to be a pain in NASA's behind, then it sort of outgrew him.
Let's have no special pleading after the fact now! 8)

In fact, I agree with the main point here.  Kaysing falls into the category of "the exception that proves the rule."  :o But I don't know enough about Benet and Percy to say what else they personally believed in.  Aulis.com is certainly a prime example of syndromism or crank magnetism. 
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on January 24, 2013, 02:08:21 PM
True, but I've never been entirely convinced that Kaysing believed the nonsense he was spouting. I'm more inclined toward the notion that he initially wrote it up to be a pain in NASA's behind, then it sort of outgrew him.

That's almost certainly to be the case.  My producer buddy John scared up video of Kaysing saying pretty much that:  he simply made up that stuff to embarrass the government.  I think it got out of hand because there will always be people to believe that sort of thing and want more of it.

However, Kaysing also wrote on holistic nutritionism and Pearl Harbor conspiracies.  He expressed at least enough interest in other fringe subjects to make (something of) a living as an author on them.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on January 24, 2013, 02:11:28 PM
It can be fun to watch conflicting theorists, for example CT who claim we went, but edited the photos since we found aliens, and those who claim we didn't go at all squabble.
Another example is those who claim even orbiting the Earth is impossible, or that descent from orbit is impossible, and those who claim we faked we faked it in LEO.
In any case, grab the popcorn!

What's odd is how little they fight.*  Like the Monk Plus, they are capable of holding multiple competing beliefs simultaneously.

Which is not that strange, since any singular Apollo Denier has multiple threads to their spiel that are only rarely compatible with each other; heck, this often happens within a single sentence!



*Prime counter-example the Truthers, who spend most of their time calling each other disinfo agents and government plants.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 24, 2013, 03:26:58 PM
True, but I've never been entirely convinced that Kaysing believed the nonsense he was spouting. I'm more inclined toward the notion that he initially wrote it up to be a pain in NASA's behind, then it sort of outgrew him.

That's almost certainly to be the case.  My producer buddy John scared up video of Kaysing saying pretty much that:  he simply made up that stuff to embarrass the government.  I think it got out of hand because there will always be people to believe that sort of thing and want more of it.

However, Kaysing also wrote on holistic nutritionism and Pearl Harbor conspiracies.  He expressed at least enough interest in other fringe subjects to make (something of) a living as an author on them.

As opposed to, say, Ralph Rene.  I don't remember hearing about his opinions on other CT subjects (of course, he was busy refuting modern science one fact at a time), but I can take a purty G.D. good guess; the man was, IMHO, the most extreme example of  Dunning-Kruger ever observed in the wild.

Even our old friend Hunchbacked is branching out. Just lately he's been expounding on some theory about the Kennedy brothers being executed or politically ruined (Teddy) by the ebile CIA because they traitorously conspired with the USSR in faking the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or something.

Didn't mean to go OT - just making the point that, frequently, crazy is just crazy.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on January 24, 2013, 05:21:33 PM
As opposed to, say, Ralph Rene.  I don't remember hearing about his opinions on other CT subjects (of course, he was busy refuting modern science one fact at a time), but I can take a purty G.D. good guess; the man was, IMHO, the most extreme example of  Dunning-Kruger ever observed in the wild.

Ralph Rene had issues that far outstripped mere conspiracism for fun and profit.  Based on the entirety of everything I know about him, I wouldn't have had any problem referring him to a psychiatrist for suspicion of paranoid schizophrenia.  As in, I have evidence he suffered from 7 of the 9 classic symptoms of it.  Keep in mind that I don't make accusations lightly of mental illness.  I generally don't think conspiracy theorists are mentally ill.  Rene was a special case.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 24, 2013, 06:27:26 PM
As opposed to, say, Ralph Rene.  I don't remember hearing about his opinions on other CT subjects (of course, he was busy refuting modern science one fact at a time), but I can take a purty G.D. good guess; the man was, IMHO, the most extreme example of  Dunning-Kruger ever observed in the wild.

Ralph Rene had issues that far outstripped mere conspiracism for fun and profit.  Based on the entirety of everything I know about him, I wouldn't have had any problem referring him to a psychiatrist for suspicion of paranoid schizophrenia.  As in, I have evidence he suffered from 7 of the 9 classic symptoms of it.  Keep in mind that I don't make accusations lightly of mental illness.  I generally don't think conspiracy theorists are mentally ill.  Rene was a special case.
That he was.

My impression always was that Rene actually believed what he was saying. Whether that was delusion or illusion I couldn't say. Psych was probably the sketchiest part of my training, and I wouldn't even attempt to make an assessment on the basis of what little actual information I have about the man - I yield to your undoubtedly greater familiarity.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on January 24, 2013, 10:13:52 PM
With Kaysing, was it the case that he made it up but got to believing his own lie because it suited him? You know one of those types who doesn't quite understand what it means to be truth?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 25, 2013, 11:16:19 AM
With Kaysing, was it the case that he made it up but got to believing his own lie because it suited him? You know one of those types who doesn't quite understand what it means to be truth?
Or, say, a sci-fi author/grifter who expands a story idea into a version of the "long con" and eventually founds a religion?

A pure hypothetical, of course. I mean, who would ever believe such a thing?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
With Kaysing, was it the case that he made it up but got to believing his own lie because it suited him?

I don't know whether he ever really believed it.  I interpret his behavior to indicate that he enjoyed the notoriety his claims brought him, and continued in them simply to perpetuate that attention.  He spent a lot of time trying to attract attention -- writing, speaking, etc.  I think this is just one of several tales he told to hold attention, without serious regard to whether it was true.

Quote
You know one of those types who doesn't quite understand what it means to be truth?

I would have a hard time believing he didn't know the difference between truth and fiction.  I simply think that as a professional storyteller, he didn't consider that distinction important in the face of entertaining people and telling a good yarn.  In this interpretation I find some sympathy in Kaysing's fans and supporters.  My impression is that they think we're all taking this too seriously and we should have lightened up and let an old man tell his stories.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on January 25, 2013, 11:25:36 AM
Or, say, a sci-fi author/grifter who expands a story idea into a version of the "long con" and eventually founds a religion?

A pure hypothetical, of course. I mean, who would ever believe such a thing?

Well played.  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on January 25, 2013, 12:16:11 PM
My impression is that they think we're all taking this too seriously and we should have lightened up and let an old man tell his stories.

You know, I know an old man who tells great stories.  He can recite Beowulf and make it riveting.  He knows all kinds of old folk tales, and he creates different voices for all the characters.  I love listening to him.  And his stories don't defame anyone.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on January 25, 2013, 02:55:34 PM
Well, except this one-handed dude and his mom...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on January 27, 2013, 10:26:26 AM
I have a question about the "multiple light sources" claim.  How do CT-ers square this claim with the very obvious lack of multiple shadows?  Has a CT-er ever explained this?  The mental gymnastics involved would be good for a laugh.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AtomicDog on January 27, 2013, 11:13:10 AM
Handwaving or ignoring.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on January 27, 2013, 11:28:52 AM
Obviously they've never seen a sports field at night. Sometimes there is literally no shadows because of all the lights coming from different directions.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 27, 2013, 11:46:07 AM
I have a question about the "multiple light sources" claim.  How do CT-ers square this claim with the very obvious lack of multiple shadows?  Has a CT-er ever explained this?  The mental gymnastics involved would be good for a laugh.

Years ago I had one HB respond to that by saying NASA used reflectors to eliminate extra shadows, but I don't think that would work for large outdoor sets. I believe that's done more for indoor shoots, but I'm not a lighting expert.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on January 27, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
That's so contorted.

They perfectly eliminate all other shadows while keeping one perfectly dark and yet they don't so anything about the fact that the direction is wrong.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on January 27, 2013, 12:49:11 PM
It's a bane of theater lighting.

The essential idea of most theater lighting is that you are establishing the same lighting angles for every spot on a stage which is both wide and deep.  That is to say, if a man downstage right is lit with warm sunlight over his left shoulder, a woman upstage left should also be lit with warm sunlight over her left shoulder.

The way this is achieved, given the limitations of available lighting angles and the sheer size of lights, is to take dozens of directional lights, spaced by approximately the beam diameter as they hit the stage, and hung down the length of several battens so they all arrive at similar angles.

From the right perspective point, it looks like a whole bunch of overlapping ovals across the entire stage.  Repeat this for every one of the lighting angles of your plot, whether it is a key-base-fill scheme or a "McCandless" 45-degree front, high side and back, or one of many other basic schemes.

(As an aside, when I am designing lights, the first thing that goes down on paper is what I call a rosette; a diagram of an arbitrary spot -- what we call a lighting Area -- with the angles and colors and type of fixtures that will define the look of objects lit within it).

Since the grid or electrics are not at infinity, only at the exact center of each area are lights actually parallel.  Each cone of light expands, and overlaps somewhat.  And even if you could achieve a perfect square edge between adjacent pools (we try, we do...especially when lighting a backdrop) an object anywhere within that shared space would have two shadows pointing in different directions, and they would move visibly as you crossed the field.

So we don't try to match shadows.  We hang multiple lights from multiple directions and cancel the majority of the shadows both in that and with interobject reflection.  By the time 300-odd lights have finished bouncing through a 40x60 foot space, what shadows remain are dim and fragmentary and unless you spend a lot of time looking at feet or the lower margin of set walls you won't be conscious of them.

When we WANT a shadow, we hang a single light.  Full stop.  End of line. 

(Or, in some very specific cases, several lights placed as physically/optically close to each other as can be practically obtained.  And the results thereof are usually not pretty).
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on January 27, 2013, 01:59:03 PM
With Kaysing, was it the case that he made it up but got to believing his own lie because it suited him? You know one of those types who doesn't quite understand what it means to be truth?


More likely it was "the case that he made it up but got to believing his own lie because" it made him a good living!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on January 27, 2013, 09:30:38 PM
More likely it was "the case that he made it up but got to believing his own lie because" it made him a good living!

I disagree.  Kaysing spent most of his post-Apollo life proudly destitute.  While I'm sure he appreciated the money, I doubt there was much of it and that this was his primary motivation.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ineluki on January 28, 2013, 08:31:52 AM
They perfectly eliminate all other shadows while keeping one perfectly dark and yet they don't so anything about the fact that the direction is wrong.

It fits perfectly with the other ideas of the Hoaxer, like building an obviously fake Lunar Module out of cardboard

We don't expect them to use logic and admit reality, do we?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Count Zero on January 29, 2013, 03:09:48 AM
Here's one for the Hoax Believers:

Why is the idea that men have not walked on the Moon more interesting and/or attractive than the idea that men have walked on the Moon?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on January 29, 2013, 01:25:35 PM
Why is the idea that men have not walked on the Moon more interesting and/or attractive than the idea that men have walked on the Moon?

Easy.  The content of the idea is irrelevant.  The number and character of the people who believe it are important.  The idea of hoaxed Moon landings is more attractive because it's the rebellious point of view.  Everyone believes they walked on the Moon.  Those people are the masses, the sheeple.  But only the enlightened few know it was a hoax.  The thrill of secret, insider knowledge is what drives the belief.  It doesn't matter what the belief is about.

This is why conspiracy theories involving recent tragedies such as school and cinema shootings bring such condemnation down upon their proponents.  The conspiracists are utterly oblivious to the moral or emotional implications of expressing their belief.  They are apathetic to the content of their idea.  What is novel to them is that they are the few or sole believers, and every tragedy is simply another opportunity they can grab to style themselves as deep thinkers.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on January 29, 2013, 01:31:45 PM
The irony of ironies is that by blindly following some crank who plays to their psychological needs they are the ones being more the sheeple.

We have looked at this for ourselves and made our own judgement that rain is indeed wet. They just see what pacifies them and submit.

Also, the bigger irony of all the 9/11 conspiracy websites being run by the government as revealed in the South Park episode Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 29, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
Well, yes.  In reality (IMHO) the HBs are the ones who follow something that resembles a religion.  They've been shown a few pictures, listened to some fervent proponents, and accepted something for which there is not a shred of tangible evidence.

Apollo as religion?  I don't know of any religion upon whose precepts we have built actual functioning, practical machines that do exactly what they're designed to do.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on January 29, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
Well, yes.  In reality (IMHO) the HBs are the ones who follow something that resembles a religion.  They've been shown a few pictures, listened to some fervent proponents, and accepted something for which there is not a shred of tangible evidence.

Apollo as religion?  I don't know of any religion upon whose precepts we have built actual functioning, practical machines that do exactly what they're designed to do.

Mmmmm.  I just had a vision of some alternate universe in which Cargo Cult-built airplanes could actually fly...



(Actually... if I am remembering correctly, that's part of the story of Warhammer 40K.  The Orks don't actually know any engineering, but they believe so fervently their ramshackle contraptions could actually work...they do.)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on January 29, 2013, 04:54:52 PM
As a tabletop gamer, I can confirm that is the basic truth of the matter.
It helps that some Orks have a built in instinctual programming of how to bodge things together, whether machines, in the case of Mekboys or other Orks, in the case of Mad Doks.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on January 29, 2013, 08:05:10 PM
that's part of the story of Warhammer 40K.  The Orks don't actually know any engineering, but they believe so fervently their ramshackle contraptions could actually work...they do.)
I think Galaxy Quest had much the same premise. And it was a very clever and funny one, too.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on January 30, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
that's part of the story of Warhammer 40K.  The Orks don't actually know any engineering, but they believe so fervently their ramshackle contraptions could actually work...they do.)
I think Galaxy Quest had much the same premise. And it was a very clever and funny one, too.
Maybe in the novelization, I never read it, but I don't remember it being explained in the film. Which was one of the best Star Trek films out there. ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on January 31, 2013, 06:12:45 AM
I'm referring to the basic plot device of the movie: the Thermians, lacking any notion of lying or of fictional entertainment, see the Galaxy Quest TV episodes, build the depicted technology, and actually make it work.

And yes, it was one of the best Star Trek films. Even if William Shatner says he can't tell who Tim Allen's character was supposed to represent.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Count Zero on January 31, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
In the late '80s Harry Turtledove wrote a story called "Half the Battle".  It follows generations of humans rebuilding civilization after world war whatever.  Archaeologists continually unearthed documentation to show what technology the ancients (us) were capable of.  Since "knowing it can be done is half the battle," engineers create their own machines,  airplanes, etc.  At the end of the story, in a ship based on blueprints they found, they are ready to go to warp speed.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AtomicDog on January 31, 2013, 11:00:16 AM
It has always been an article of faith with me that if we "knew for a fact" that faster than light travel was possible,  that we'd find a way to invent it.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2013, 11:07:47 AM
It has always been an article of faith with me that if we "knew for a fact" that faster than light travel was possible,  that we'd find a way to invent it.

We know for a fact that we can go to the Moon. Yet we haven't been back.....
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on January 31, 2013, 12:05:02 PM
But we have gone.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2013, 12:33:46 PM
And yes, it was one of the best Star Trek films. Even if William Shatner says he can't tell who Tim Allen's character was supposed to represent.

Shatner is . . . special.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on January 31, 2013, 12:43:18 PM
Shatner is . . . special.

Shatner is . . . Shatner.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on January 31, 2013, 05:50:44 PM
Shatner is . . . special.

Shatner is . . . Shatner.
Well, he provides an accurate answer (sort of) to the question: Have we gone to the Moon or not? Gone? Or not gone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrG-uoVJHwk

(Okay, you have to use your imagination with the accent...)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on January 31, 2013, 07:20:17 PM
And yes, it was one of the best Star Trek films. Even if William Shatner says he can't tell who Tim Allen's character was supposed to represent.

Shatner is . . . special.

As in what used to be called "Special Education?"
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on February 07, 2013, 12:14:13 PM
Here's a question for the HBs to ponder:

Let's say that you're a member of the National Guard.  You are called up to active duty and deployed to, say, Afghanistan. Six months later you return home.  One or two of your neighbors, for whatever reason, express doubt that you were in Afghanistan or that you were even called up at all.  They contend that you could have been in another city or, for that matter, holed up in a motel across town. You just claim to have been called up to increase your "heroism" quotient, maybe to impress the ladies a bit.  Photos published in the local newspaper of you deployed with your unit make no impression - they could easily have been faked.

Now here's the question. How seriously are you going to take these people?  Are you going to put a lot of effort into convincing them, or are you basically going to shrug them off as self-deluded?

Do you see the comparison I'm making?  It's easy to say, well, it could have been this, or it could have been that, but speculating about what could possibly maybe perchance theoretically have happened doesn't make it so, or even likely.

Come see us when you have some actual credible evidence that so-and-so happened, not that it might have happened.  If you have something solid, I guarantee you we'll listen.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Rob260259 on April 13, 2013, 06:59:19 AM
Here's a question for the HBs to ponder:

Let's say that you're a member of the National Guard.  You are called up to active duty and deployed to, say, Afghanistan. Six months later you return home.  One or two of your neighbors, for whatever reason, express doubt that you were in Afghanistan or that you were even called up at all.  They contend that you could have been in another city or, for that matter, holed up in a motel across town. You just claim to have been called up to increase your "heroism" quotient, maybe to impress the ladies a bit.  Photos published in the local newspaper of you deployed with your unit make no impression - they could easily have been faked.

Now here's the question. How seriously are you going to take these people?  Are you going to put a lot of effort into convincing them, or are you basically going to shrug them off as self-deluded?

Do you see the comparison I'm making?  It's easy to say, well, it could have been this, or it could have been that, but speculating about what could possibly maybe perchance theoretically have happened doesn't make it so, or even likely.

Come see us when you have some actual credible evidence that so-and-so happened, not that it might have happened.  If you have something solid, I guarantee you we'll listen.

Well said. Good question, too. Imagine you would risk your life as a test pilot, i a tiny capsule mounted on top of a ICBM and some hoaxer like Bart Sibrel came along and said you faked it all. I think I would punch him twice.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 07:18:09 AM
I've got a few simple questions for those of you who consider yourselves "conspiracy theorists", "truthers", or "hoax believers".

Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not? Why do you create multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to give us the impression that people actually agree with you? Why do you take information out of context to make it look like it supports you? Why do you misrepresent images from movies like "Capricorn One" as "real fake" pictures? Why do you keep making the same claims even after they have been debunked?

I guess all of that can be summed up with just one question:

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have the facts on your side you don't need to lie. Something to think about.


Ah, a great question. Glad you ask. I have many answers on your question (and the rest), but the triggering event is your hopefully true interest in the following:

I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie. I may not answer, but I promise you I will not lie.

Now I have a question for you, how can you assume that everybody not believing in the Apollo myth is lying, where does that come from, is that your experience, or are you just poking around to generate some turmoil?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 07:23:34 AM
I may not answer, but I promise you I will not lie.

A lie of omission is still a lie. Avoiding answering a question is still dishonest.

Quote
Now I have a question for you, how can you assume that everybody not believing in the Apollo myth is lying, where does that come from, is that your experience, or are you just poking around to generate some turmoil?

I've been contributing to this forum and its predecessor for over a decade now. I can assure you, this question about dishonesty arises out of experience. Do they all lie? No. Do most of them lie, dissemble, obfuscate? Yes, most defintely. Just read some of the longest threads on this forum for examples.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 07:28:25 AM
Thanks LO.

Along those lines, I'd like to ask a question that was moved to the Abandon All Hope forum at JREF when I asked it of PK1000:  why are you, the hoax believer, so emotionally invested in proving that we didn't go to the moon?  Why won't you accept reasonable explanations from reasonable people that it happened? 

As I said then, it's OK to disagree with the program, the money and effort spent and so on.  But going to nearly the same effort to fit the Apollo record into a hoax theory as it does to make a geocentric model of the Solar system fit observations just makes no sense...

Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

I like to look at the subject as a historical and cultural exponent of totalitary imperialism at its best. How do States get people to believe and see what the State wants them to believe. How do you get people to abondon reasonable thinking, how do you control the information they get, how do you brainwash the small amount of people you need to manipulate the rest.

And endless source of interest I may say, where I look at a couple of times a year.

But how do you do to manage to not see this, right before your eyes, maybe participating in it, how do you manage to explain this to yourself?

I wonder, I really wonder...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 07:38:37 AM
Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc.

Because we find the Apollo missions interesting and amazing and like talking about them.  If discussing the historical facts and examining the engineering technology is "attacking" in your world, then I don't know what to tell you.  We do not attack - we defend against libellous and slanderous claims, we point out the errors and deliberate misinformation.


Quote
I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

What you can or cannot imagine has no bearing on fact.  By your logic, no-one would ever have a hobby because they weren't being paid for it.  Learning about Apollo is one of my hobbies.



Quote
I like to look at the subject as a historical and cultural exponent of totalitary imperialism at its best. How do States get people to believe and see what the State wants them to believe. How do you get people to abondon reasonable thinking, how do you control the information they get, how do you brainwash the small amount of people you need to manipulate the rest.

But how do you do to manage to not see this, right before your eyes, maybe participating in it, how do you manage to explain this to yourself?

I wonder, I really wonder...

I am not paranoid, I do not see the "brainwashing" etc that you claim simply because it isn't there.  I have plenty of scientific and historical knowledge, as well as logic and critical thinking skills, to examine the evidence and conclude that Apollo happened as presented in the historical record.

I note that you have presented no evidence, nor shown how you have drawn your "conclusions".  All you have done is launch insults.


Quote
And endless source of interest I may say, where I look at a couple of times a year.

Using your worldview as discussed above, I could claim that you are being paid to spread such claims...  ;)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 08:06:56 AM
Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc.

It is not attacking disbelievers to point out where their logic is flawed; where they clearly have not understood the technical details correctly; or where they are simply lying or defaming people without justification. We make these sites because Apollo is not an intuitive subject. The details are not well known or well understood, and it is easy for people with ulterior motives (and yes, many of the more well-known hoax believers DO have ulterior motives) to hoodwink others by making it appear they know what they are talking about when in fact they do not or are simply lying. We make these sites because the only way to stop the spread of this level of ignorance is to do so. All that is required for people like Bart Sibrel to spread their crap far and wide uncritically and have it accepted by all who read it is to remain silent and let it go unchallenged. i will not do that.

Quote
I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

Well that's a failure of your imagination, not our problem.

Quote
I like to look at the subject as a historical and cultural exponent of totalitary imperialism at its best.

Again, your problem. First and foremost it is a matter of technical and historical record.

Quote
How do States get people to believe and see what the State wants them to believe. How do you get people to abondon reasonable thinking, how do you control the information they get, how do you brainwash the small amount of people you need to manipulate the rest.

And before doing any of that it is prudent to find out IF they are doing it. What you are suggesting is like trying to discuss the motive and method of a murder case without actually checking to see if the supposed victim was actually dead.

Quote
But how do you do to manage to not see this, right before your eyes, maybe participating in it, how do you manage to explain this to yourself?

By making sense of the technical aspects of it and realising that not one hoax believer in four decades or more has been able to come up with any remotely consistent scenario for how it was faked. Certainly nothing that undermines the sheer scale of the evidence that Apollo actually happened.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on April 14, 2013, 08:36:37 AM
Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.
Wow.  Didn't take you long to pull the shill card.  How very sad for you.   

How dare people post about what they are interested in and try to fight the ignorance that others spread.  The Monsters!!    ::)

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on April 14, 2013, 08:45:53 AM
Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

A lack of imagination and creative thought is the most common failing of hoax believers.  You should consider spending the time to do something about that. 
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 08:52:30 AM
Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

Oh the irony of that statement. The ones making money on this subject are those that have nonsense books, films, blogs with adverts on and sites with paypal donations to "help with research".

Meh!

Quote
I wonder, I really wonder...

So do I. How in heavens name can anybody persist with this gibberish when every single claim has been shot down in flames a hundred times.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 08:58:07 AM

Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.


So by balancing logic that means you are paid to perpetuate the hoax theory? may I ask how much? because I need a new extension built and NASA aren't paying me enough to debunk hoax theories!


I like to look at the subject as a historical and cultural exponent of totalitary imperialism at its best. How do States get people to believe and see what the State wants them to believe. How do you get people to abondon reasonable thinking, how do you control the information they get, how do you brainwash the small amount of people you need to manipulate the rest.

So you are convinced that 'the State' has brainwashed thousands (if not millions) of people? that every single person, every last one, involved with the Apollo project are liars... every one! They lied to their wives and children, their mothers and fathers, their friends and themselves? They lied to the world for over fourty years and are continuing to lie...every single person! maybe they are all lying because of NASA/CIA death squads willing to extinguish their lives at the drop of a hat....You call that reasonable thinking?  I call that anything but reasonable I call it paranoia.

If you think everyone, absolutely everyone is willing to lie to such a depth how can you believe that not a single Hoax believer has made a single lie in their theories? Do Hoax believers haver a higher level of integrity than every single person who knows Apollo happened? Because if you believe that you do, then I believe you have not the slightest shred of honour in your body!

And endless source of interest I may say, where I look at a couple of times a year.

But how do you do to manage to not see this right before your eyes, maybe participating in it, how do you manage to explain this to yourself?

I wonder, I really wonder...

We don't see it (edited to add... this whole brainwashing mumbo jumbo) because it isn't happening and never did, we explain this to ourselves with learning, with discussion, with observing the REAL world...how do you explain yourself?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AtomicDog on April 14, 2013, 09:31:53 AM
Wow. Playing the "paid shill" card before presenting a single piece of evidence.  That's bold.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 09:48:32 AM
and to take it further... if NASA/CIA has successfully over 40 odd years kept a lid on this great 'Hoax' how have they done it? there were approx. 400,000 people involved with Apollo, say just 5% knew that it was a scam...5% is 20,000 people.

So NASA/CIA have managed to place surveillance on 20,000 people for 40 years to stop them from talking? of course out of those 20,000 people some will have died of natural causes, but some will have at least told their wives, so we can still assume around 20,000 people who need to be kept silent.

How many people do you think it takes to place physical surveillance on someone, let alone electronic surveillance? how about a minimum (absolute barest minimum) of ten people working in shifts 24 hours for 40 years? seem feasible to you Believer?

As I said that doesn't include electronic surveillance, I have no experience of that! so ten people for each 20,000 means you need 200,000 NASA/CIA operatives (at a minimum)to have kept the lid on things....for 40 years!

So they can successfully keep the NASA/Grumman/Boeing employees of the Apollo Project silent presumably with threats of assassination...but cant silence the 'Truth discoverers' such as Bart Sibrel, Jarrah White etc...... still seem feasible to you Believer?
Title: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Sus_pilot on April 14, 2013, 10:25:31 AM
Thanks LO.

Along those lines, I'd like to ask a question that was moved to the Abandon All Hope forum at JREF when I asked it of PK1000:  why are you, the hoax believer, so emotionally invested in proving that we didn't go to the moon?  Why won't you accept reasonable explanations from reasonable people that it happened? 

As I said then, it's OK to disagree with the program, the money and effort spent and so on.  But going to nearly the same effort to fit the Apollo record into a hoax theory as it does to make a geocentric model of the Solar system fit observations just makes no sense...

Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

I like to look at the subject as a historical and cultural exponent of totalitary imperialism at its best. How do States get people to believe and see what the State wants them to believe. How do you get people to abondon reasonable thinking, how do you control the information they get, how do you brainwash the small amount of people you need to manipulate the rest.

And endless source of interest I may say, where I look at a couple of times a year.

But how do you do to manage to not see this, right before your eyes, maybe participating in it, how do you manage to explain this to yourself?

I wonder, I really wonder...

Although she doesn't realize it, Andromeda answered very well on my behalf.  Other then the fact that I was alive during that time-period and witnessed, albeit via the media, the events as they happened, the simplest, most logical way to fit the record together is that it all happened as documented.

Now, Believer, you still haven't answered my question to you and your ilk:  why is it so important to prove us wrong?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Laurel on April 14, 2013, 10:55:34 AM
and to take it further... if NASA/CIA has successfully over 40 odd years kept a lid on this great 'Hoax' how have they done it? there were approx. 400,000 people involved with Apollo, say just 5% knew that it was a scam...5% is 20,000 people.

So NASA/CIA have managed to place surveillance on 20,000 people for 40 years to stop them from talking? of course out of those 20,000 people some will have died of natural causes, but some will have at least told their wives, so we can still assume around 20,000 people who need to be kept silent.

How many people do you think it takes to place physical surveillance on someone, let alone electronic surveillance? how about a minimum (absolute barest minimum) of ten people working in shifts 24 hours for 40 years? seem feasible to you Believer?

As I said that doesn't include electronic surveillance, I have no experience of that! so ten people for each 20,000 means you need 200,000 NASA/CIA operatives (at a minimum)to have kept the lid on things....for 40 years!

So they can successfully keep the NASA/Grumman/Boeing employees of the Apollo Project silent presumably with threats of assassination...but cant silence the 'Truth discoverers' such as Bart Sibrel, Jarrah White etc...... still seem feasible to you Believer?
Remember the old saying: they're NASA, they can do anything, except actually fly to the Moon. ;)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 11:13:57 AM
Because we find the Apollo missions interesting and amazing and like talking about them.

Me too, but I wondered not about that, I wonder about the energy put in the debunking.

Quote
If discussing the historical facts and examining the engineering technology is "attacking" in your world, then I don't know what to tell you. 

I wonder how you manage to get this confused with debunking. I see the debunking, and it is totally something else then discussing the historical facts and examining the engineering technology.

So please answer the question of the why of debunking itself, what is in it for you?

Quote
We do not attack - we defend against libellous and slanderous claims, we point out the errors and deliberate misinformation.

OK, but why would individuals have to do that, could NASA not do that? You would have more time for your hobby of Apollo itself?

Quote
Quote
I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.
What you can or cannot imagine has no bearing on fact. 
Quote
By your logic, no-one would ever have a hobby because they weren't being paid for it.  Learning about Apollo is one of my hobbies.

The separation of the hobby and the debunking should make you see the logic, and raise the question anew

Quote
I am not paranoid, I do not see the "brainwashing" etc that you claim simply because it isn't there.  I have plenty of scientific and historical knowledge, as well as logic and critical thinking skills, to examine the evidence and conclude that Apollo happened as presented in the historical record.

Well, that is what I would like to challenge, I hope your thinking capabilities will prevent you from bashing and enter the questions and answers I have.

For a starter: To not see the brainwashing I claim there is, 'because it is not there', is not the convincing argument for me. I hope you can see that in logic 'it is not because it is not' cannot be.

Then, I think there is an analogy between the former Nazi doctrines and the US doctrines of this moment. There were intelligent people there, they succeeded in forming a logical system, the 'truth' according to their believe sytem. In the US is the 'homeland security' doctrine the same, and I think in the Apollo era a similar doctrine was happening in the Nasa circles. That should give some clues about the historical perspective, maybe it rings some bells?

Quote
I note that you have presented no evidence, nor shown how you have drawn your "conclusions".  All you have done is launch insults.

I am really sorry that you could see insults in my post, I really don't do this. See, that is why I suspect some Nasa officials behind your identities, it is simply too strange what you say.

Why would you want to see insults in it??

Quote
Using your worldview as discussed above, I could claim that you are being paid to spread such claims...  ;)

I challenge you to find out, I told I would not lie, so you could use that to see what it is all about.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 11:21:18 AM
Now, Believer, you still haven't answered my question to you and your ilk:  why is it so important to prove us wrong?

Well your question was as I believe: 'Why do you all lie',

I answered that with 'I don't lie'.  And I challenge you that test that....

But I will answer your second question. I it important to establish some kind of truth for humanity as a whole. It it important to struggle forwar as nations and peoples to some kind of world peace. You see my hopes are moderate.

A free press, freedom of speach are very important to this goal of some more truth and peace.

And the debunking is just countering that with the evil face of repression and totalitarianism.

So in my modest way I try to see if you are genuine, and might be wanting to argue with reason. The first post indicated some emotion so I would not expect that from some cool Nasa operator.

But I wonder.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Donnie B. on April 14, 2013, 11:22:20 AM
Believer, regarding your question as to why people here debunk the Apollo hoax nonsense:

Besides the fact that answering the (occasional new) hoax claims allows us to dig deeper into the Apollo record and learn new things about the missions and technology, there is this:

http://xkcd.com/386/
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
Because we find the Apollo missions interesting and amazing and like talking about them.

Me too, but I wondered not about that, I wonder about the energy put in the debunking.

I enjoy it, and see it as my role as a physicist and teacher to correct misinformation.


Quote
Quote
If discussing the historical facts and examining the engineering technology is "attacking" in your world, then I don't know what to tell you. 

I wonder how you manage to get this confused with debunking. I see the debunking, and it is totally something else then discussing the historical facts and examining the engineering technology.

So please answer the question of the why of debunking itself, what is in it for you?

I enjoy it.


Quote
Quote
We do not attack - we defend against libellous and slanderous claims, we point out the errors and deliberate misinformation.

OK, but why would individuals have to do that, could NASA not do that? You would have more time for your hobby of Apollo itself?

It isn't NASA's job.  They provide all the relevant technical information if you could be bothered to read it.  Do you honestly think US tax money should be spent on debunking woo woo?


Quote
Quote
Quote
I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.
What you can or cannot imagine has no bearing on fact. 
Quote
By your logic, no-one would ever have a hobby because they weren't being paid for it.  Learning about Apollo is one of my hobbies.

The separation of the hobby and the debunking should make you see the logic, and raise the question anew

Debunking HB nonsense is my hobby.  How many times do I have to tell you that?


Quote
I am not paranoid, I do not see the "brainwashing" etc that you claim simply because it isn't there.  I have plenty of scientific and historical knowledge, as well as logic and critical thinking skills, to examine the evidence and conclude that Apollo happened as presented in the historical record.
Quote
Well, that is what I would like to challenge, I hope your thinking capabilities will prevent you from bashing and enter the questions and answers I have.

For a starter: To not see the brainwashing I claim there is, 'because it is not there', is not the convincing argument for me. I hope you can see that in logic 'it is not because it is not' cannot be.

Then, I think there is an analogy between the former Nazi doctrines and the US doctrines of this moment. There were intelligent people there, they succeeded in forming a logical system, the 'truth' according to their believe sytem. In the US is the 'homeland security' doctrine the same, and I think in the Apollo era a similar doctrine was happening in the Nasa circles. That should give some clues about the historical perspective, maybe it rings some bells?

You are the one making the claim, the burden of proof rests with you and you have provided no proof.


Quote
Quote
I note that you have presented no evidence, nor shown how you have drawn your "conclusions".  All you have done is launch insults.

I am really sorry that you could see insults in my post, I really don't do this. See, that is why I suspect some Nasa officials behind your identities, it is simply too strange what you say.

Why would you want to see insults in it??

I don't "want" to see insults, but when someone accuses me of being part of a widespread conspiracy that damages the world, yes I am insulted.  Accusations of being a liar, and a paid shill, are also insults.  I also find nonpologies insulting.


Quote
Quote
Using your worldview as discussed above, I could claim that you are being paid to spread such claims...  ;)

I challenge you to find out, I told I would not lie, so you could use that to see what it is all about.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  I suspect you don't either.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 11:26:36 AM


I will be happy to react to your post if you react on whay I say, you induce several issues, and then react to them. So please simplify your points
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 11:27:50 AM
Now, Believer, you still haven't answered my question to you and your ilk:  why is it so important to prove us wrong?

Well your question was as I believe: 'Why do you all lie',

I answered that with 'I don't lie'.  And I challenge you that test that....

But I will answer your second question. I it important to establish some kind of truth for humanity as a whole. It it important to struggle forwar as nations and peoples to some kind of world peace. You see my hopes are moderate.

A free press, freedom of speach are very important to this goal of some more truth and peace.

And the debunking is just countering that with the evil face of repression and totalitarianism.

So in my modest way I try to see if you are genuine, and might be wanting to argue with reason. The first post indicated some emotion so I would not expect that from some cool Nasa operator.

But I wonder.

Oh right, yeah, we are all a part of "teh ebil gub'mint conspiracy!"

 ::)

FFS no one here works for NASA.  Why are you people so insistent that we do?  Does it not occur to you that there are physicists and engineers all over the world, unconnected with the US Government, who are interested in the science that occured simply because it is what we do?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2013, 11:28:58 AM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie. I may not answer, but I promise you I will not lie.

Why avoid answering questions? If you have the truth on your side you have nothing to hide. Not answering questions can itself be considered deception.

Quote
Now I have a question for you, how can you assume that everybody not believing in the Apollo myth is lying

I don't assume any such thing. I made it perfectly clear who I'm talking about: the conspiracy theorists who claim to be doctors/scientists/engineers but really aren't. I'm talking about the people who create multiple accounts to create a false impression that they have supporters, or take information out of context to make it appear to support their arguments. Those people are liars, and it just makes me wonder why they need to lie if the truth is on their side.

There are people who are victims of the liars and con artists who spread the hoax theory, but they aren't the ones using the deceptive tactics I mentioned above. They just have questions and will typically admit they are wrong once given the proper facts. But honestly, these people tend to be quiet and lurk, we don't see a lot of them here.

Quote
where does that come from, is that your experience, or are you just poking around to generate some turmoil?

It comes from over 12 years of dealing with conspiracy theorists. I decided to ask the questions because I'm not sure conspiracy theorists see the dishonesty in their behaviour.

There is plenty of turmoil already, I don't need to generate any.

Quote
Well, interesting, I would ask the same from the debunkers, why do all this effort in making sites, attacking the disbelievers etc. etc. I really cannot imagine people doing that, other than those paid to do it.

Do you get paid to spread lies about Apollo? No? Then why do you do it? Why is it so important to you if you aren't being paid?

I can't speak for everyone, but I find Apollo (and pretty much any other space program) fascinating. I would talk about it even without the hoax theory being involved. But I guess it annoys me to see people lie about historic events and defame the people involved without being challenged on it. If someone wants to say going to the Moon is impossible because of X then I will demand that they prove it.

And for the record, I haven't made a penny from this. In fact it has cost me money. Let's see... $150/year for web hosting over the last 8 years... that's $1200. Not a lot of money, and I'm certainly not complaining. Some people have more expensive hobbies.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Laurel on April 14, 2013, 11:30:20 AM
It isn't NASA's job.  They provide all the relevant technical information if you could be bothered to read it.  Do you honestly think US tax money should be spent on debunking woo woo?
Just to add something here, NASA was planning to commission a book about the Moon hoax claims once, and there was a public outcry about spending tax money on it, so they abandoned the idea.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 11:46:01 AM
Me too, but I wondered not about that, I wonder about the energy put in the debunking.

The energy is put in because it's a hobby. Why do i put energy into building model rockets, or into amateur dramatics? What's the difference?

But there is an extra element to the debunking: the conspiracy theories are wrong, and people are being hoodwinked. I will put extra energy into stopping people being deceived.

Quote
I see the debunking, and it is totally something else then discussing the historical facts and examining the engineering technology.

Such as what?
 
Quote
OK, but why would individuals have to do that, could NASA not do that?

Do you really not see the contradiction in asking why NASA can't do the debunking and accusing us of being NASA shills?

If you have already decided that NASA is lying, what value will you place on their word, or their evidence? They have presented ample evidence of their achievements. They have better things to do than argue with people with the stated aim of proving they are liars.

Quote
The separation of the hobby and the debunking should make you see the logic, and raise the question anew

There is no separation.

Quote
For a starter: To not see the brainwashing I claim there is, 'because it is not there', is not the convincing argument for me. I hope you can see that in logic 'it is not because it is not' cannot be.

And your assertion that 'it is because it is' is equally baseless. Provide your evidence for such brainwashing. Our conclusion that it is not there is based on quite some time observing and understanding the way reality works. Where is your evidence that brainwashing is taking place?

Quote
Then, I think there is an analogy between the former Nazi doctrines and the US doctrines of this moment. There were intelligent people there, they succeeded in forming a logical system, the 'truth' according to their believe sytem. In the US is the 'homeland security' doctrine the same, and I think in the Apollo era a similar doctrine was happening in the Nasa circles. That should give some clues about the historical perspective, maybe it rings some bells?

Historical perspective is irrelevant. provide evidence.

Quote
I am really sorry that you could see insults in my post, I really don't do this.

So accusing us of being NASA shills perpetuating lies is not an insult? What kind of world do you live in?

Quote
See, that is why I suspect some Nasa officials behind your identities, it is simply too strange what you say.

And there you go again.

Quote
I told I would not lie

And if you lied about that how would we know?

Stop dissembling and present your evidence if you have any. Just leave out the 'historical perspective' junk and the accusations of being paid NASA shills. Before any of that is even remotely relevant you have to show that Apollo was in fact faked. Can you do that?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2013, 12:13:12 PM
I debunk because I believe in the importance of education.  I debunk because I think it is shameful that some take the accomplishments of brave and intelligent people and claim they never happened without even taking the time to understand what they're talking about.  I debunk because I believe that history matters.  I debunk because if we don't, why would anyone be willing to pay for a space program?  I debunk because, in my faith, fighting ignorance is a holy cause and lying about the past is a sin. 

I do not call all hoax believers liars.  Some are ignorant.  Some are misguided.  Some are more interested in an ideology than in the facts.  Some, sadly, are mentally ill.  The important similarity they share is that they are all wrong.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Laurel on April 14, 2013, 12:15:11 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 12:29:05 PM
It isn't NASA's job.  They provide all the relevant technical information if you could be bothered to read it.  Do you honestly think US tax money should be spent on debunking woo woo?
Just to add something here, NASA was planning to commission a book about the Moon hoax claims once, and there was a public outcry about spending tax money on it, so they abandoned the idea.

I think the problem was that the author was sincere, and would interview independent scientists....

That would get him some serious doubts, and they realised they made a mistake. Then these people knew why NASA kept the lid on it all for so many years.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 12:30:45 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 12:32:51 PM
I debunk because I believe in the importance of education.  I debunk because I think it is shameful that some take the accomplishments of brave and intelligent people and claim they never happened without even taking the time to understand what they're talking about.  I debunk because I believe that history matters.  I debunk because if we don't, why would anyone be willing to pay for a space program?  I debunk because, in my faith, fighting ignorance is a holy cause and lying about the past is a sin. 

I do not call all hoax believers liars.  Some are ignorant.  Some are misguided.  Some are more interested in an ideology than in the facts.  Some, sadly, are mentally ill.  The important similarity they share is that they are all wrong.

OK, I see the use of it and respect that.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2013, 12:33:59 PM
OK, I see the use of it and respect that.

So are you willing to participate in the holy cause of fighting your own ignorance?  Because you've shown quite a lot of it.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 12:35:05 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Hello, Heiwa.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 12:39:05 PM
I think the problem was that the author was sincere, and would interview independent scientists....

One thing about forums like this is that it gives you the ability to contact a lot of people. I've spoken to the author via discussion boards like this. He has spoken to independent scientists anyway. He still does. He had already done quite a bit of that when he proposed to NASA publishing the book.

In all that time he has never had any doubts.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
And does the umbrella phrase 'independent scientists' include the hundreds or thousands of geologists worldwide over the last few decades who have studied the Apollo samples and published papers about them?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 12:53:59 PM


I will be happy to react to your post if you react on whay I say, you induce several issues, and then react to them. So please simplify your points

That was a very cowardly dodge to my points....or do you find them too difficult to understand?

Ok I will simplify it with one question. How did NASA ensure that 400,000 people (or a fraction thereof) have never ever uttered a word of 'the truth' if they 'knew it was a hoax'? what actual means or mechanisms has NASA used to do this?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 12:55:07 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Do you really honestly 100% believe that?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AtomicDog on April 14, 2013, 01:09:03 PM
I also consider sockpuppetry as a form of lying.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2013, 01:11:19 PM
Oh, it quite obviously is.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Not Myself on April 14, 2013, 01:15:05 PM
Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

The existence of the sixties is well supported by historical records and eyewitness accounts.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
OK, I see the use of it and respect that.

So are you willing to participate in the holy cause of fighting your own ignorance?  Because you've shown quite a lot of it.

....tired.....you want to pick a fight....I refuse....
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 01:24:23 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Do you really honestly 100% believe that?


Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 01:27:00 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Do you really honestly 100% believe that?


Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.

That is so obviously untrue that I cannot believe you are serious.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 01:28:07 PM
OK, I see the use of it and respect that.

So are you willing to participate in the holy cause of fighting your own ignorance?  Because you've shown quite a lot of it.

....tired.....you want to pick a fight....I refuse....

You came on here and insulted us all - now we have called you on it, that is "picking a fight"?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 01:34:40 PM
And does the umbrella phrase 'independent scientists' include the hundreds or thousands of geologists worldwide over the last few decades who have studied the Apollo samples and published papers about them?

I did look into this, as said above, about doing research, do your research, and you will find there are no Apollo samples. There is just a couple of milligram of moondust, which could very well have been collected by a robotlander.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 01:35:54 PM
And does the umbrella phrase 'independent scientists' include the hundreds or thousands of geologists worldwide over the last few decades who have studied the Apollo samples and published papers about them?

I did look into this, as said above, about doing research, do your research, and you will find there are no Apollo samples. There is just a couple of milligram of moondust, which could very well have been collected by a robotlander.

He has done his research.

"A couple of milligrams"?  I think you mistyped "842 pounds".
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 01:36:54 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Do you really honestly 100% believe that?


Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.

Aha...ok.....well yes quite! mmmm please tell me do you think Nuclear weapons are real? or do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 01:37:42 PM
I did look into this, as said above, about doing research, do your research

I have. It included looking up who wrote what papers.

Quote
and you will find there are no Apollo samples. There is just a couple of milligram of moondust, which could very well have been collected by a robotlander.

Your source for this claim is what, exactly? Even the Russians managed to collect orders of magnitude more than a few milligrams with their robot landers. Explain the hundreds of pounds of rock, soil and core tube samples from Apollo.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 01:43:54 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Do you really honestly 100% believe that?


Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.

Aha...ok.....well yes quite! mmmm please tell me do you think Nuclear weapons are real? or do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

Yes they are real, and yes 9/11 was an inside job.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 01:47:30 PM
I did look into this, as said above, about doing research, do your research

I have. It included looking up who wrote what papers.

Quote
and you will find there are no Apollo samples. There is just a couple of milligram of moondust, which could very well have been collected by a robotlander.

Your source for this claim is what, exactly? Even the Russians managed to collect orders of magnitude more than a few milligrams with their robot landers. Explain the hundreds of pounds of rock, soil and core tube samples from Apollo.

These supposed kg's are safely kept by someone who does not give away anything. If you would want to investigate you have to fill in lots of forms, and then, if they like you, you get some mg of moonrock. That could be real moonrock, or some prepared rocks like meteorite parts.

There are no big discoveries done by anyone with the moonrocks. Every claim about that reverses to that same person who holds the supposed moonrocks from Apollo.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
Errrrrrr....don't feed the troll?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Hello, Heiwa.

I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Not Myself on April 14, 2013, 01:50:32 PM
I think you mistyped "842 pounds".

They didn't weight that much until they were brought to earth  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 01:51:40 PM
These supposed kg's are safely kept by someone who does not give away anything.

Of course they don't just give them away. They came from the Moon and we don't have any more coming in any time soon to replace them. Therefore you have to justify your requirement to use them for your research. That is standard practice.

Quote
If you would want to investigate you have to fill in lots of forms, and then, if they like you, you get some mg of moonrock.

You can get grams of rock or soil.

Quote
That could be real moonrock, or some prepared rocks like meteorite parts.

Ah, the usual 'geologists wouldn't know a real rock from a fake one' garbage. Do feel free to dismiss an entire branch of science in one fell swoop...

Quote
There are no big discoveries done by anyone with the moonrocks. Every claim about that reverses to that same person who holds the supposed moonrocks from Apollo.

Evidence for that claim please?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 01:51:55 PM
I think you mistyped "842 pounds".

They didn't weight that much until they were brought to earth  ;D

No, but they never weighed just "a couple of milligrams".
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 01:53:24 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.

And by presenting yourself as an admirer of Heiwa you lose credibility very rapidly. Tell me, what did you think of his shifting of goalposts, quietly altering his site, refusing to provide his sources, and dismissing all who disagreed with him as fools best ignored, thus invalidating his entire reward offer?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 14, 2013, 01:55:16 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Do you really honestly 100% believe that?


Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY2b2APouQA Watch particularly from the 11 minute 30 second mark. Or are you saying only women travel in space?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 14, 2013, 01:58:03 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.
I'm confused. Heiwa believes no human has been into space. You think it at least happened in the sixties? Am I right?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 02:00:54 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.

And by presenting yourself as an admirer of Heiwa you lose credibility very rapidly. Tell me, what did you think of his shifting of goalposts, quietly altering his site, refusing to provide his sources, and dismissing all who disagreed with him as fools best ignored, thus invalidating his entire reward offer?

I read about he kept his cool, just as I try to do, while under attack of an abundance of irrelevant issues, false statements, personal attacks, as much as possible to avoid the real issue he places for you.

It brings me to the point of getting a book on the fuel issue to see if it really is that simple. Which it looks like. I could earn a million if he is wrong!!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 02:04:17 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.
I'm confused. Heiwa believes no human has been into space. You think it at least happened in the sixties? Am I right?

Yes I believe astronauts did and still do go up in 'space', but this 'space' is the point. 400 or km up away from the earth surface is not really space.

And they do not 'travel'. So that's why I say spacetravel does not exist. Now going to the moon would be real spacetravel. But to leave earth into space, the same way as I put one (one!) step out of my front door and call that going on vacation...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on April 14, 2013, 02:05:32 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

Obviously it is! Do some research why space travel does not exist and you will get some doubts about why it in the sixties did exist.

Hello, Heiwa.

I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.

You liked how he proved himself ignorant of the topics he tried to discuss and proved that IF he was an engineer he was at best an extremely incompetent one?  Odd.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 14, 2013, 02:06:34 PM
I read about he kept his cool, just as I try to do, while under attack of an abundance of irrelevant issues, false statements, personal attacks, as much as possible to avoid the real issue he places for you.

Avoiding the issues? We dealt with his claims. He avoided them. At least the ones he didn't quietly add to his own site. And that was no matter how many sources and supporting pieces of evidence we put before him. A man who thinks the Tsiolkovsky equation has nothing to do with space rocketry really doesn't deserve much admiration.

Quote
It brings me to the point of getting a book on the fuel issue to see if it really is that simple. Which it looks like. I could earn a million if he is wrong!!

You read his threads and you still seriously think he would be willing to pay you even if you did prove him wrong? I don't believe you. Either you are a troll or a sock-puppet or both.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 02:07:29 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.
I'm confused. Heiwa believes no human has been into space. You think it at least happened in the sixties? Am I right?

Yes I believe astronauts did and still do go up in 'space', but this 'space' is the point. 400 or km up away from the earth surface is not really space.

And they do not 'travel'. So that's why I say spacetravel does not exist. Now going to the moon would be real spacetravel. But to leave earth into space, the same way as I put one (one!) step out of my front door and call that going on vacation...

International Space law defines "space" as beginning 100km up, at the Kármán line.

Orbiting the Earth, and going round the Moon, are both "travel" by any reasonable definition.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on April 14, 2013, 02:07:43 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.

And by presenting yourself as an admirer of Heiwa you lose credibility very rapidly. Tell me, what did you think of his shifting of goalposts, quietly altering his site, refusing to provide his sources, and dismissing all who disagreed with him as fools best ignored, thus invalidating his entire reward offer?

I read about he kept his cool, just as I try to do, while under attack of an abundance of irrelevant issues, false statements, personal attacks, as much as possible to avoid the real issue he places for you.

It brings me to the point of getting a book on the fuel issue to see if it really is that simple. Which it looks like. I could earn a million if he is wrong!!

He is wrong and was proven so multiple times on this site.  You would only get the million if he had it to give away (likely does not) and if he was man enough to admit when he was wrong (he is not).
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 02:08:33 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 02:08:40 PM
Either you are a troll or a sock-puppet or both.

I smell socks.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.

It doesn't work that way here, YOU have to present evidence of why YOU believe the moon landings to be fake, not tell others to search online for this and that!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 02:12:56 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.

And by presenting yourself as an admirer of Heiwa you lose credibility very rapidly. Tell me, what did you think of his shifting of goalposts, quietly altering his site, refusing to provide his sources, and dismissing all who disagreed with him as fools best ignored, thus invalidating his entire reward offer?

I read about he kept his cool, just as I try to do, while under attack of an abundance of irrelevant issues, false statements, personal attacks, as much as possible to avoid the real issue he places for you.

It brings me to the point of getting a book on the fuel issue to see if it really is that simple. Which it looks like. I could earn a million if he is wrong!!

He is wrong and was proven so multiple times on this site.  You would only get the million if he had it to give away (likely does not) and if he was man enough to admit when he was wrong (he is not).

Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 02:13:41 PM
Either you are a troll or a sock-puppet or both.

I smell socks.

I smell a ban. There seems to be a never ending supply of trolls who come along regurgitating the same ignorance.....devoid of any ability or inclination to verify the thousand debunks on the internet for every single claim.

<shakes head at the white noise on the internet>
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 02:15:03 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.

It doesn't work that way here, YOU have to present evidence of why YOU believe the moon landings to be fake, not tell others to search online for this and that!

No, I don't. The one making the claim is NASA, and you all. So you provide evidence, and I comment on it. But this thread was not about that subject. It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie.

Let's test that, shall we?

Are you Heiwa? Yes or no?

(Hint: I know the answer.)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 02:21:33 PM
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.

It doesn't work that way here, YOU have to present evidence of why YOU believe the moon landings to be fake, not tell others to search online for this and that!

No, I don't. The one making the claim is NASA, and you all. So you provide evidence, and I comment on it. But this thread was not about that subject. It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

yes you do matey.... read here.... http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.0

WE believe Apollo happened. WE don't need evidence. YOU don't believe Apollo happened and YOU presumably want to teach us the error of our ways and believe that it didn't happen.  So you, as per the forum rules, are required to give us YOUR proof.

And calling us a 'lying bunch' doesn't do your claims any good at all!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 02:26:51 PM
So you provide evidence, and I comment on it.

Oh, I doubt that....but what the heck. Eat this one. A while ago I came across a piece of footage that shows the astronauts digging out some regolith. Somebody speeded the video up....so that the stuff falls at Earth gravitational speed, unfortunately the astronauts didn't take too kindly to the same speed and now look just a little on the odd side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-7JgdgJls

Plus a supplemental video from one of the members here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU

I keenly await your informed response as to how this was faked.


Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 02:27:07 PM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie.

Let's test that, shall we?

Are you Heiwa? Yes or no?

(Hint: I know the answer.)

You can see his IP address cant you you old dawg?  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 02:29:18 PM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie.

Let's test that, shall we?

Are you Heiwa? Yes or no?

(Hint: I know the answer.)

You can see his IP address cant you you old dawg?  ;D

Not conclusive, as anybody can route their connection through a proxy server, and thereby 'appear' all over the world.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2013, 02:31:31 PM
Not conclusive, as anybody can route their connection through a proxy server, and thereby 'appear' all over the world.

Pretty conclusive in this case seeing that it's not a proxy server.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 02:33:57 PM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie.

Let's test that, shall we?

Are you Heiwa? Yes or no?

(Hint: I know the answer.)

You can see his IP address cant you you old dawg?  ;D

Not conclusive, as anybody can route their connection through a proxy server, and thereby 'appear' all over the world.

Fair enough but say Heiwa's old posts have an IP address annotated which LO can see and 'believer' has the same IP address, what is the chance of a proxy server choosing that IP address?  can you specify an IP address through a proxy?

edited to add.....well LO answered the question :D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2013, 02:37:22 PM
If he was using a proxy server, wouldn't that technically mean he was lying? There are legitimate reasons to use a proxy, sure, but isn't it still technically lying to mask your true IP?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 02:38:00 PM
Not conclusive, as anybody can route their connection through a proxy server, and thereby 'appear' all over the world.

Pretty conclusive in this case seeing that it's not a proxy server.

He could be a lodger living in Heiwa's house  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 02:39:20 PM
I only know some people use proxy servers to hide their real identity on various boards, where their real IP has been banned. I haven't really NEEDED the information, but I'm aware it's possible. And I'm sure, after having read a lot of the old threads over the last few days, that some banned users pop right back in, just under a new name, and most likely another IP address.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 02:41:05 PM
It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

Oh the irony never stops. Coming from the deluded 'engineer' who has trouble with physics, proving his claim for 'da big reward' and who alters his webpage when corrected by people who know what they are talking about......that is real funny.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2013, 02:43:08 PM


No, I don't. The one making the claim is NASA, and you all. So you provide evidence, and I comment on it. But this thread was not about that subject. It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

I have provided lots of evidence. You can read it all in the link in my sig. Until you have, you have no business calling me a liar. When you've read it, you'll have no business calling me a liar, because everything on there is true.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: darren r on April 14, 2013, 02:44:38 PM
There's a chant sung by English football fans when the previously noisy opposition crowd is silenced by their team conceding a goal :

Oh, it's all gone quiet over there!

(to the tune of "She'll be coming round the mountain")
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 02:46:57 PM
It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

Oh the irony never stops. Coming from the deluded 'engineer' who has trouble with physics, proving his claim for 'da big reward' and who alters his webpage when corrected by people who know what they are talking about......that is real funny.

Its not Irony, its downright dishonesty. A Liar calling honest people liars... fills me with disgust!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 02:47:48 PM
It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

Oh the irony never stops. Coming from the deluded 'engineer' who has trouble with physics, proving his claim for 'da big reward' and who alters his webpage when corrected by people who know what they are talking about......that is real funny.

Its not Irony, its downright dishonesty. A Liar calling honest people liars... fills me with disgust!

But it is consistent.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on April 14, 2013, 02:49:01 PM
I am not Heiwa, but I read about his reward for a couple of subjects. I must say I like very much his way of thinking and putting forward some questions for the real 'believers'.

And by presenting yourself as an admirer of Heiwa you lose credibility very rapidly. Tell me, what did you think of his shifting of goalposts, quietly altering his site, refusing to provide his sources, and dismissing all who disagreed with him as fools best ignored, thus invalidating his entire reward offer?

I read about he kept his cool, just as I try to do, while under attack of an abundance of irrelevant issues, false statements, personal attacks, as much as possible to avoid the real issue he places for you.

It brings me to the point of getting a book on the fuel issue to see if it really is that simple. Which it looks like. I could earn a million if he is wrong!!

He is wrong and was proven so multiple times on this site.  You would only get the million if he had it to give away (likely does not) and if he was man enough to admit when he was wrong (he is not).

Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Clearly it WAS proven.  He avoided the proof multiple times.  You didn't actually read the thread in question did you?  Or are you Heiwa ignoring the proof YET AGAIN?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 14, 2013, 03:13:04 PM
NASA can do anything... Except of course land of the Moon.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where it would actually be more coherent to say that it was faked for a bet.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 03:13:33 PM
There's a chant sung by English football fans when the previously noisy opposition crowd is silenced by their team conceding a goal :

Oh, it's all gone quiet over there!

(to the tune of "She'll be coming round the mountain")

You're not trolling anymore.........you're not trolling anymore
Banned in a minute......you're getting banned in a minute
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 03:27:48 PM
So Heiwa/Believer care to explain your dishonesty? and maybe apologise for calling us Liars!
Title: Re: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 14, 2013, 03:29:54 PM
NASA can do anything... Except of course land of the Moon.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where it would actually be more coherent to say that it was faked for a bet.

I typed that in London, but the post only happened in Edinburgh when I got data back. It looks a little out of context now.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 03:46:03 PM
So Heiwa/Believer care to explain your dishonesty? and maybe apologise for calling us Liars!

Sadly....this kind of behaviour is rife amongst the clan of hoax believers. It's like a badge of honour to troll, because these people have either no concept of how wrong they are or just don't care.

This Heiwa bloke is just another fruitloop attention whore with a website....it doesn't matter to him if he's right, just that his 'peers' agree with him.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 03:47:16 PM
What is he selling?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 14, 2013, 03:54:08 PM
What is he selling?

Well if you look at his website he says he is a Maritime safety Engineer. However If I was looking for a Maritime safety Engineer and visited various websites, the ones with no recent CV of Maritime Safety contracts; but plenty of references to 9/11 being a hoax, The moon landings being a hoax, and why Atoms bombs don't work.. I would be skipping that company and looking for other Maritime safety Engineers rather rapidly!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 04:11:58 PM
Yes, I read the thread. I don't think he could sell "maritime safety" on the planet Bizzaro. I was wondering if he was selling DVD's of his ideas or something like that and was trying to find buyers.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2013, 04:30:07 PM
He
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.

Hello, Herr Poop Doctor.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 04:39:16 PM
Oh, isn't that another fascination by one of the usual suspects? Fecal disposal?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 04:46:12 PM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie.

Let's test that, shall we?

Are you Heiwa? Yes or no?

(Hint: I know the answer.)

No. If I were a technical specialist like he I would not need to use other argements, would I.

I don't understand why you would go this road. Is it a wonder that one gets suspicious who is behind you all? It is hard not to refrain to what would be called insulting if one gets these kind of reactions. But OK, I will be the one that stays polite...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 04:47:24 PM
He
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.

Hello, Herr Poop Doctor.

Thanx for showing the verbal equivalent of your IQ...gd.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 14, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
Well...the poop level has won again. I can't believe you are real people. It's a sad, sad reality you live in.

Some one under you 'believers' must see the grotesqueness of these reactions I would think. The below all measures kind of reactions should demonstrate to the observer why this Apollo myth is what it is: a myth.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 14, 2013, 04:59:28 PM
So you provide evidence, and I comment on it.

Oh, I doubt that....but what the heck. Eat this one. A while ago I came across a piece of footage that shows the astronauts digging out some regolith. Somebody speeded the video up....so that the stuff falls at Earth gravitational speed, unfortunately the astronauts didn't take too kindly to the same speed and now look just a little on the odd side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-7JgdgJls

Plus a supplemental video from one of the members here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU

I keenly await your informed response as to how this was faked.

Still waiting!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2013, 04:59:54 PM
Believer: If you're so sure, why don't you hire an attorney, and present your case in court? A lawsuit againt the US government would  give you instant fame and all the small young hoaxers would flock to sit at your feet and listen to your wisdom. Present your proof, please.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Grashtel on April 14, 2013, 05:01:06 PM
Well...the poop level has won again. I can't believe you are real people. It's a sad, sad reality you live in.

Some one under you 'believers' must see the grotesqueness of these reactions I would think. The below all measures kind of reactions should demonstrate to the observer why this Apollo myth is what it is: a myth.
So this is the point where you declare victory and then flounce off right?  Or are you going to present some arguments against Apollo that aren't either long debunked or show a serious lack of knowledge in the appropriate fields?  Or perhaps just keep running around in circles until you have a meltdown/get banned?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2013, 05:04:23 PM
I am a believer in the Hoax theorie, and I will not lie.

Let's test that, shall we?

Are you Heiwa? Yes or no?

(Hint: I know the answer.)

No. If I were a technical specialist like he I would not need to use other argements, would I.

I don't understand why you would go this road. Is it a wonder that one gets suspicious who is behind you all? It is hard not to refrain to what would be called insulting if one gets these kind of reactions. But OK, I will be the one that stays polite...
You forget a few things:
1. There are technical specialists right here.
2. Your palaver is old hat to us.
3. You have nothing new to add.

Old mil'try saying. "Tough luck for you".
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2013, 05:06:36 PM
He
I debunk because hoax believers make really blatant errors in their claims and it just bugs me. Is it so hard to do basic research?

I like to ask you to do some research, and compare the information available on the moon lander and how it was to be used in respect to the waste deposal, and the same info on the Russian moonlander. You will be surprised if you would look into this. This alone should be enough.

Hello, Herr Poop Doctor.

Thanx for showing the verbal equivalent of your IQ...gd.
Thanks for showing the quality of the evidence for your claims. Oh wait,...you had no evidence.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on April 14, 2013, 05:12:09 PM
I can't believe you are real people. It's a sad, sad reality you live in.
The feeling is mutual.  We're pretty sure you're a troll and a sock puppet.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2013, 05:25:18 PM
Well...the poop level has won again.
Nobody else here descends to your level.

I can't believe you are real people. It's a sad, sad reality you live in.
Tough luck for you. Many here have credentials and are unafraid to display them. Of course, you know this, but continue to hide under anonymity, like the hypocrite you are. Plenty of folks here have happily stated who they are, with credentials, and the means to verify them. You, on the other hand, choose to remain an "anonymous coward", as GLP would put it.

Some one under you 'believers' must see the grotesqueness of these reactions I would think. The below all measures kind of reactions should demonstrate to the observer why this Apollo myth is what it is: a myth.
Yup, we see your grotesque malarkey. And?
Title: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Sus_pilot on April 14, 2013, 05:58:21 PM


Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Did you just:

Imply that I'm a liar because I'm some sort of "paid student"? and

That I behave like a Nazi (or worse yet am a Nazi)?

If that's the case, I want an apology right now.  Whether you believe we went to the moon or not, I am someone who sincerely believes (well, knows) we did, based on what I observed and the historical record.  You have no right to label me the way you did.  Period.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 14, 2013, 06:02:09 PM


Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Did you just:

Imply that I'm a liar because I'm some sort of "paid student"? and

That I behave like a Nazi (or worse yet am a Nazi)?

If that's the case, I want an apology right now.  Whether you believe we went to the moon or not, I am someone who sincerely believes (well, knows) we did, based on what I observed and the historical record.  You have no right to label me the way you did.  Period.

I agree.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on April 14, 2013, 06:12:08 PM


Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Did you just:

Imply that I'm a liar because I'm some sort of "paid student"? and

That I behave like a Nazi (or worse yet am a Nazi)?

If that's the case, I want an apology right now.  Whether you believe we went to the moon or not, I am someone who sincerely believes (well, knows) we did, based on what I observed and the historical record.  You have no right to label me the way you did.  Period.
He thinks we are all American paid shills. How bonkers is that?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 14, 2013, 06:57:16 PM
Well...the poop level has won again. I can't believe you are real people. It's a sad, sad reality you live in.

Some one under you 'believers' must see the grotesqueness of these reactions I would think. The below all measures kind of reactions should demonstrate to the observer why this Apollo myth is what it is: a myth.

What is "grotesque" about asking someone to prove what they assert?

Apollo is a matter of public record, huge public record; journals, plans, design schematics, video footage, photographs etc, comprising many tens of millions of pages of documentation. Behind it there hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, operators and observers from many different countries all over the world.

If you want to assert that the whole thing was faked, then the onus is upon YOU to prove that it was faked. Simply saying it don't make it so.

You need to show how it was faked... not just a few minutes of footage, but hour after hour of continuous (uninterrupted), live video. You have to show a complete plan for faking the design building and construction of all the components, and you have to prove that all those astronauts involved in the six successful moon landing missions ALL lied about it.

So far, in over 45 years, NOT ONE PERSON out of the over 400,000 who were directly involved in Apollo have ever blown the whistle. So far in over 30 years of assertion that the Apollo missions were faked, not one person, including Bart Sibrel, Jack White, Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing or any other the other self-appointed so-called experts on Apollo fakery), have ever been able to come up with a plan to fake the Apollo from start to finish, and the keep everyone involved quite about it.

Put up or shut up!!

EDIT: Fixed mistake - thanks darrenr
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: darren r on April 14, 2013, 07:16:06 PM


 you have to prove that the six men who walked on the moon ALL lied about it.



Ahh, I hate to be that guy, but it was twelve men.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 14, 2013, 07:32:03 PM


 you have to prove that the six men who walked on the moon ALL lied about it.



Ahh, I hate to be that guy, but it was twelve men.

Ah yes, six successful missions, twelve men
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on April 14, 2013, 07:47:14 PM


 you have to prove that the six men who walked on the moon ALL lied about it.



Ahh, I hate to be that guy, but it was twelve men.

Ah yes, six successful missions, twelve men
Don't you hate it when you're just getting up a good head of righteous indignation and your brain-light flickers for an instant?

Believer:
Quote
No, I don't. The one making the claim is NASA, and you all. So you provide evidence, and I comment on it. But this thread was not about that subject. It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

Um... no.  If you'll trouble yourself to check, this thread is about the dishonesty of conspiracy theorists.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 14, 2013, 07:54:04 PM
Don't you hate it when you're just getting up a good head of righteous indignation and your brain-light flickers for an instant?

I was thinking six missions then typed six men.

I'll hide behind age. I was 14 when Armstrong walked at Tranquillity Base; you do the math!



Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 14, 2013, 08:10:50 PM
No, I don't. The one making the claim is NASA, and you all. So you provide evidence, and I comment on it.

NASA has supported their claims with evidence. You accuse them of lying, a new claim which has it's own burden of proof. You make a claim, you prove it. Get it?


Quote
But this thread was not about that subject. It was about integrity, why the 'believers' are such a lying bunch.

Hmm. It kind of sounds like you're telling us that we're being off topic in a thread you did not start. Very familiar behaviour... who does it remind me of, I wonder?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
I'll hide behind age. I was 14 when Armstrong walked at Tranquillity Base; you do the math!

I was -7, which leads to the interesting contradiction that I must be more likely to believe in the hoax, because All You Whippersnappers Are Hoax Believers, and less likely to believe in the hoax, because You've All Been Brainwashed All Your Lives.  This one has always amused me.  Or anyway sometimes; sometimes, I just get annoyed.

If we know that this guy is a sock, why is he still here?  Especially since--correct me if I'm wrong--the person he is apparently a sock of isn't actually banned?  Too much rope.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Philthy on April 14, 2013, 09:34:06 PM
I'll hide behind age. I was 14 when Armstrong walked at Tranquillity Base; you do the math!

And I was 15, and in another 33 days after that......I was 16.

To tell the truth, I'm not an Apollo "believer," I know beyond a shadow of a doubt the Apollo landings happened.

How anyone without a single clue about what they may claim as a "smoking gun," without doing tiny bit of research is beyond me.

Here's a few sites to get anyone that mistakenly thinks the landings didn't happen:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
http://www.meteoris.de/luna/list.html     (This is a list of ALL the KNOWN lunar meteorites ever collected on the earth. No where close to 840 pounds.)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html
http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/apollo.html

There you go, while this is by no means ALL of the proof/evidence.
Read it, you just might maybe learn something. Maybe.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 15, 2013, 12:18:59 AM


Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Did you just:

Imply that I'm a liar because I'm some sort of "paid student"? and

That I behave like a Nazi (or worse yet am a Nazi)?

If that's the case, I want an apology right now.  Whether you believe we went to the moon or not, I am someone who sincerely believes (well, knows) we did, based on what I observed and the historical record.  You have no right to label me the way you did.  Period.

Yes I do. That is not what I hoped for, I hoped that the first question, 'why do you all lie' would the subject of discussion.  With me as your specimen to examen. Because I don't lie.

Seen the reactions, especially the way of reacting, the moral level of it all, the evidence is clear to any observer. You don't want to have a discussion of what sort ever. You only want to bash, overwhelm, destroy. The truth is far from you.

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 15, 2013, 12:23:29 AM
Believer: If you're so sure, why don't you hire an attorney, and present your case in court? A lawsuit againt the US government would  give you instant fame and all the small young hoaxers would flock to sit at your feet and listen to your wisdom. Present your proof, please.

This is not about proof but about reasoning. Are you telling the truth (as you see it) or are you lying, as the OP stated. I tell the truth, and I think the way there is reacted to a sincere poster like me is beyond all reason. I think, that is very sad, unless this is a bunch of teenagers there is no way these are educated people of good will. Sorry.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 15, 2013, 12:33:26 AM
Well...the poop level has won again. I can't believe you are real people. It's a sad, sad reality you live in.

Some one under you 'believers' must see the grotesqueness of these reactions I would think. The below all measures kind of reactions should demonstrate to the observer why this Apollo myth is what it is: a myth.
So this is the point where you declare victory and then flounce off right?  Or are you going to present some arguments against Apollo that aren't either long debunked or show a serious lack of knowledge in the appropriate fields?  Or perhaps just keep running around in circles until you have a meltdown/get banned?

It is really beyond all measure that people reacting in these insulting ways should not get banned.

I don't flee, since I challenge you to ask me and I will not lie to you, I try to answer.

Just this process is getting frustrated by the hammering of these 'believers', that's why I doubt they even believe in Apollo. If they did, if it was their hobby, they would be arguing with reason and logic.

I will not present proof because I have seen this exchange of fire about proof many times. It always ends up the same way. I can write your side of the story with ease also. No one will be convinced because of these stories.

I think filosophy and logic thinking can bring the answer to who wants to know. Only this Heiwa seems to have an undefeatable question about the fuel. So that should be an eye opener to the engineering people, if it is true what he says. Because the way he was attacked, and his argument not answered, I think he is right.

In history the wrong side has never had an interest in open discussion. They would lose that. Instead of that the wrong side alway oppresses free press and freedom of speech. That is what you see here right before your eyes.

No one with any amount of integrity can deny I try to formulate and argue sincerely and that the bunch of 'believers' here resort to malicious arguments, insults and falsifications.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2013, 12:40:47 AM
I will not present proof . . . .

Then why should anyone care what you have to say?  We will present evidence; who's having the open discussion here?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Believer on April 15, 2013, 12:44:30 AM
I will not present proof . . . .

Then why should anyone care what you have to say?  We will present evidence; who's having the open discussion here?

I made myself available to the original question, in case there are real people with some sort of education here present, who really are interested in 'the mind of the conspiracy theorist'.

If that was the case I could enlighten them a bit about logic and reasoning. And history, and statistics etc. etc. etc.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 15, 2013, 12:54:53 AM
It is really beyond all measure that people reacting in these insulting ways should not get banned.

I don't flee, since I challenge you to ask me and I will not lie to you, I try to answer.

When do you intend to start answering? We have asked, but you seem to have just turned up to abuse people.

Quote
Just this process is getting frustrated by the hammering of these 'believers', that's why I doubt they even believe in Apollo. If they did, if it was their hobby, they would be arguing with reason and logic.

You can doubt all you like. you are wrong. I won't speak for others, but I will tell you now and repeat it with my hand on a bible that I believe Apollo to have happened as described. It is a hobby of mine, and if you read anything on my website you would know that I have argued with reason and logic for many thousands of words.

Quote
I will not present proof because I have seen this exchange of fire about proof many times. It always ends up the same way. I can write your side of the story with ease also. No one will be convinced because of these stories.

Then why should we discuss anything with you? You are challenging our beliefs without feeling you are required to say why? Who do you think you are? If you've seen this exchange of fire here before you should know the rules. If you want to play by different ones, set up your own site.

Quote
I think filosophy and logic thinking can bring the answer to who wants to know. Only this Heiwa seems to have an undefeatable question about the fuel. So that should be an eye opener to the engineering people, if it is true what he says. Because the way he was attacked, and his argument not answered, I think he is right.

Heiwa is incompetent. I would not sail on any boat he had been anywhere near. His argument was answered, he ignored the answers.

Quote
In history the wrong side has never had an interest in open discussion. They would lose that. Instead of that the wrong side alway oppresses free press and freedom of speech. That is what you see here right before your eyes.

No one with any amount of integrity can deny I try to formulate and argue sincerely and that the bunch of 'believers' here resort to malicious arguments, insults and falsifications.

You called people here liars and nazis. You've said you are not going to bother presenting reasons for doing so. Who's insulting whom? You don't think people who wander in here and start throwing abuse around deserve all they get? It's like the child teasing the cat who cries when it gets scratched.

For the record, 5 years old when Armstrong walked on the surface. My student days are long behind me, and NASA has never paid me a penny for the hours of work I've put in defending what they do.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 15, 2013, 02:41:38 AM
Only this Heiwa seems to have an undefeatable question about the fuel. So that should be an eye opener to the engineering people, if it is true what he says. Because the way he was attacked, and his argument not answered, I think he is right.

Only one person ever considered Heiwa to have 'undefeatable questions'. That plus the familiar posting style... you're just not even trying to cover your tracks, are you?

Sock puppetry is pathetic. Give it up.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 15, 2013, 02:44:44 AM
Heiwa was hardly undefeatable. He needed us to explain to him the very basics of the missing architecture. And he also couldn't do an energy balance calculation to save his life.
Title: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Sus_pilot on April 15, 2013, 03:15:12 AM


Yes I do. That is not what I hoped for, I hoped that the first question, 'why do you all lie' would the subject of discussion.  With me as your specimen to examen. Because I don't lie.

Seen the reactions, especially the way of reacting, the moral level of it all, the evidence is clear to any observer. You don't want to have a discussion of what sort ever. You only want to bash, overwhelm, destroy. The truth is far from you.

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

We do want to have a discussion, but all you offer are unsubstantiated claims.

I am not a liar.  I have my own integrity and self-worth to consider, not to mention my professional standing in two fields.  I will also swear on a stack of Bibles that I am convinced by the record that we went to the moon.

As for the term "Nazi", I am here and now demanding a public apology.  As a first-generation American, I have very strong feelings about the use of that term. 

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on April 15, 2013, 04:37:11 AM
I love how hoax believers are so sure that everyone that doesn't sign onto their crackpot ideas is a paid gubernmint shill, without knowing anything about the person. Why are they so keen to believe this? Is it because they can then pigeon-hole anything said, without affording them a modicum of respect?

Heiwa said that I was ex-NASA and on the payroll without knowing a darned thing about me (in fact, I know a LOT more about him after 20 minutes Googling). For the record, I was born in England, grew up in Ireland and didn't stand on American soil until I was about 38 years old. yet because I asked questions of him that he could not answer, and showed him a number of errors in his "thinking" then it was deemed that I was on the payroll. Very strange behaviour and if you met someone face-to-face that expressed such nonsense then you would rightly think that they need to see a psychiatrist.

And of course Believer is going down the same paranoid route, talking about totalitarian states and the Nazis (ever heard of Godwins Law?). Using weasel words like "And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord [sic] Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it" which are not only deeply offensive, but also show an unbelievable naivety. Just because something "could" happen does not mean that it did.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 15, 2013, 04:51:31 AM
This is not about proof but about reasoning.

No, it is ALL about proof, and has nothing whatever to do with reasoning,. In fact, many scientific truths, especially those involving quantum physics, are totally unreasonable and counter-intuitive.

NASA does not need to prove that they landed men on the surface of the moon between 1969 and 1972, because the evidence proves overwhelmingly that they did. For this reason, I don't just believe NASA landed men on the moon, I know that they did.

If you want to state that the whole thing was faked, but don't feel you need to prove it, and instead, try to use some kind of "appeal to reason", then this is NOT the place you should be posting. You should perhaps go join all the Conspiracy Nutbars at Godlike Productions, where you can say what you like and not be called out on it.

Here, when you discuss the Apollo programme, you will be held to a standard of proof that is far more rigorous than most other places anywhere else on the net. The entire Apollo Programme is documented with many millions of verifiable documents, including detailed mission logs and journals, detailed schematic plans and diagrams, rigorous testing regimes for components, many hours of uninterrupted video, and many thousands of photographs.

In order to prove any claim of fakery, the claimant will be expected to show....

1. How the entire Apollo Programme was faked, from start to finish, with details.

2. How the documentation was faked, and by whom.

3. How the moonwalk video was faked, in particular, how the 1/6th G vacuum environment was faked (given that it is near impossible even now without the use of CGI which did not exist in 1969.

4. How, in over 45 years, all of the over 400,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, operators and observers who were directly involved in the claimant's conspiracy, were kept from blowing the whistle.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 15, 2013, 05:10:46 AM

Yes I do. That is not what I hoped for, I hoped that the first question, 'why do you all lie' would the subject of discussion.  With me as your specimen to examen. Because I don't lie.



I think you do lie big style Heiwa! and not just to us, I think you lie to yourself. You come across as being somewhat deluded indeed!



Seen the reactions, especially the way of reacting, the moral level of it all, the evidence is clear to any observer. You don't want to have a discussion of what sort ever. You only want to bash, overwhelm, destroy. The truth is far from you.

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

You obviously have absolutely not the tiniest shred of understanding about how Totalitarian regimes keep people under control. Your comparison is pathetic and laughable. You really need to use your computer to learn about the world you live in and its recent history, it might get you out of the lala land you live in and see real life, instead of spouting the utter bollocks that you do.

Quick Political history lesson for you fella, and I am not a political being or a historian, but even a decently tutored high school student can shoot your comparison down in flames without breaking into a sweat.

How did Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung and his offspring, the East German Government all control their people like you believe NASA controls the world?

With Fear! with the knowledge that 'jackboots' may come crashing through your door as they frequently did, with the knowledge that not just you but your entire family faced true mortal danger.

With the knowledge that there is a Dachau or a Gulag in Siberia or an 'education camp' somewhere where there is a place available for your backside to sit.

And that information is widely known to the whole population, if it isn't then how do you control people? how do you keep people in line and in fear if they don't know what to fear? Where is that fear in the US?

Where are the secret NASA gulags? the NASA education camps? Where are the list of names of those who NASA have made 'disappear' to keep the population 'believing'?

The ONLY times in recent US history where anything like this took place, and even then it was a whole world away from the extremes of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, were the relocation of Japanese born citizens to camps during WW2 and the McCarthy anti communist witch-hunts! And even as shameful as these occurrences were to modern day man, there were no torture chambers, firing squads,  and work-till-you-drop-dead-camps!

Your comparison of modern day America with Nazi Germany is utterly pathetic and distasteful and you should be totally ashamed of your lack of basic knowledge when you compare people here to Nazis!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 15, 2013, 05:24:41 AM
And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

So, why are you still alive?

Why has Jarrah White not been dragged off to a NASA Concentration Camp?

Why has Bart Sibrel not been assassinated?

(Not to worry about Jack White. He made such a complete jackass of himself in front of the Warren Commission, that no-one took him seriously anyway)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 15, 2013, 05:31:27 AM

Why has Jarrah White not been dragged off to a NASA Concentration Camp?


It was the Twanging Nasal Whine that prevented that, they couldn't get near him through his own personal acoustic 'exclusion zone'!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2013, 05:32:47 AM
Me too, but I wondered not about that, I wonder about the energy put in the debunking.
I think you'll find nearly all of us agree on two reasons why we put our energy into debunking:

1. We are all interested in space exploration, particularly but not limited to the Apollo program. Some of us are professionals in aerospace. Some of us, like me, are professionals in related fields of engineering and science. And some of us have other vocations but are simply interested on a personal level. Some, but by no means all of us are old enough to have been personally inspired by the Apollo program as kids. All of us have learned a great deal about Apollo and space in the process of debunking false claims about them, and we find learning to be intrinsically rewarding.

2. We are justifiably proud of "our" positive accomplishments, where "our" goes beyond personal activities to those of other members of our professions, our countries and our species. The people who accomplished the feat of putting humans on the moon deserve to be honored -- not falsely accused of fraud, idiocy or worse. And we feel compelled and perfectly justified in saying so.

If you find it difficult to understand why others enjoy learning so much, or why others can be so offended by misinformation and false claims about people other than themselves that they're willing to spend their own time gratis to rebut them, perhaps that says more about you than anyone else.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on April 15, 2013, 05:33:14 AM
And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

So, why are you still alive?

Why has Jarrah White not been dragged off to a NASA Concentration Camp?

Why has Bart Sibrel not been assassinated?

(Not to worry about Jack White. He made such a complete jackass of himself in front of the Warren Commission, that no-one took him seriously anyway)

Maybe we need to start saying that "NASA can do anything except land men on the moon and shut a few Internet kooks up"
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on April 15, 2013, 05:46:49 AM
I will not present proof . . . .

Refusing to give proof because it's obvious. That's a new one. You are a troll as no one is that stupid.....
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2013, 05:49:19 AM
And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.
Really? Let's assume that the North Korean regime is the worst ever to inhabit the modern earth (this seems to be a popular meme lately). There's certainly no question that they try very hard to hide what they do behind a rigorously controlled media, mined and armed borders, limited and tightly controlled tourism, extreme militarism, a cult of personality around their leaders, totalitarian control of their people, gulags, etc, etc.

Yet we still have no trouble seeing right through that state's ludicrous propaganda. Not only is it absurd on its face, but we know an awful lot about what really goes on there from the defectors who risked their lives to escape and tell us about it.

So where are the "defectors" telling us about the horrors of NASA operating in a country with an open press, open travel, open communications, open employment and a substantial tourism industry?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 15, 2013, 05:50:12 AM
Me too, but I wondered not about that, I wonder about the energy put in the debunking.
I think you'll find nearly all of us agree on two reasons why we put our energy into debunking:

1. We are all interested in space exploration, particularly but not limited to the Apollo program. Some of us are professionals in aerospace. Some of us, like me, are professionals in related fields of engineering and science. And some of us have other vocations but are simply interested on a personal level. Some, but by no means all of us are old enough to have been personally inspired by the Apollo program as kids. All of us have learned a great deal about Apollo and space in the process of debunking false claims about them, and we find learning to be intrinsically rewarding.

2. We are justifiably proud of "our" positive accomplishments, where "our" goes beyond personal activities to those of other members of our professions, our countries and our species. The people who accomplished the feat of putting humans on the moon deserve to be honored -- not falsely accused of fraud, idiocy or worse. And we feel compelled and perfectly justified in saying so.

If you find it difficult to understand why others enjoy learning so much, or why others can be so offended by misinformation and false claims about people other than themselves that they're willing to spend their own time gratis to rebut them, perhaps that says more about you than anyone else.


^^This. Completely this. I firmly believe you can't say "I told you so" if you haven't.

How is it OK for conspiracy theorists and anti-science dullards to invest hours of their personal time in trying to disprove something, but somehow suspicious for people to devote their time (and money) defending it? Other than plain old fashioned hypocrisy that is.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: darren r on April 15, 2013, 07:14:14 AM
Believer asks why people would defend Apollo if they weren't being paid for it. These are my reasons.

I trained as a journalist, a profession which has, quite rightly, come under attack recently. But I have never considered myself as a 'print the legend' writer. I could never work for any organisation that was more interested in sales figures than the truth. I would never willingly go along with a lie or a distortion.

I love history. Real history. I like nothing better than finding out that some historical event either never happened or happened very differently from how it is commonly perceived. I love having my preconceptions shaken up. The truth, to me, is far more compelling than made up stories. If I had discovered that was the case for Apollo, I'd be yelling it from the rooftops, but I've never encountered anything to make me doubt its veracity for very long.

I'm not an engineer or a physicist. Being an art-y type, I was never very good with numbers. But I can see that the vast majority of people in those fields believe in the truth of Apollo. Those that don't? Well, their qualifications usually don't bear close examination. However, I do understand some of the fundamentals of those areas and it amazes me that people who don't even have that level of understanding feel able to denounce people who are qualified professionals.

I defend Apollo because I resent being called a shill or a sheep by those who believe that, for instance, a day on the Moon lasts 24 hours, that shadows in photos must always be parallel regardless of angle, perspective or terrain, that the Van Allen Belts are some sort of impenetrable forcefield or that the ascent stage couldn't have achieved Lunar orbit because it wasn't travelling fast enough on takeoff. All things I have argued against on other forums.

On a more personal level, I defend Apollo because I regard the astronauts as true heroes. Unassuming, intelligent, incredibly brave men who represent everything that humanity is truly capable of and I despise those who, based on nothing but untruths, distortions and ignorance, would tarnish their characters and achievements by calling them liars and cowards and criminals.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2013, 07:36:15 AM
Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.
Really? I have personally met and spoken with...let's see... eight people who have done exactly that. I've exchanged email with several more. And I've personally seen and listened to (but not spoken with) maybe another dozen.

So you still maintain this claim....?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2013, 07:53:16 AM
Yes I believe astronauts did and still do go up in 'space', but this 'space' is the point. 400 or km up away from the earth surface is not really space.
Why not? Can you survive without a pressure suit at 400 km? Can you not orbit the earth at that altitude?

As Andromeda mentioned, 'space' is widely considered to begin at an altitude of 100 km, including by several international organizations, though I don't think it's actually a de-jure legal boundary.  It's interesting to consider Kármán's reasoning behind his choice of that figure: at that altitude, an airplane wing would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to generate enough lift to support its weight. Evidently Kármán considered orbiting the earth to be space travel, as does everyone who uses the line he defined. Only the USA doesn't, or at least didn't when they used a lower boundary of 50 nautical miles (~80 km) to award astronaut wings. (I'm not sure of the current US position on this.)

Do I sense some goalpost-shifting here?

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 15, 2013, 08:03:44 AM
It is really beyond all measure that people reacting in these insulting ways should not get banned.

Trying to be the moderator again, Heiwa?

Don't worry, someone is about to be banned. You won't have to worry about the insults coming your way any longer.

Quote
I don't flee, since I challenge you to ask me and I will not lie to you, I try to answer.

Thank you for confirming my belief that die hard conspiracy theorists are dishonest.

Quote
I will not present proof

Then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Bye bye!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 15, 2013, 08:18:54 AM
Yes I believe astronauts did and still do go up in 'space', but this 'space' is the point. 400 or km up away from the earth surface is not really space.
Why not? Can you survive without a pressure suit at 400 km? Can you not orbit the earth at that altitude?

As Andromeda mentioned, 'space' is widely considered to begin at an altitude of 100 km, including by several international organizations, though I don't think it's actually a de-jure legal boundary.  It's interesting to consider Kármán's reasoning behind his choice of that figure: at that altitude, an airplane wing would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to generate enough lift to support its weight. Evidently Kármán considered orbiting the earth to be space travel, as does everyone who uses the line he defined. Only the USA doesn't, or at least didn't when they used a lower boundary of 50 nautical miles (~80 km) to award astronaut wings. (I'm not sure of the current US position on this.)

Do I sense some goalpost-shifting here?
This line of argument reminds me of someone who posted I think on what's now Cosmoquest. That poster's claim was something along the lines of the fact that as there was still the faintest vestige of atmosphere at 400 km altitude, then it wasn't "space" as popularly defined. On top of that, as that was the sort of altitude the Space Shuttle operated at, that spacecraft was also incorrectly named - after all, it wasn't in "space".

Anyone else remember that person?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Not Myself on April 15, 2013, 08:27:52 AM
That poster's claim was something along the lines of the fact that as there was still the faintest vestige of atmosphere at 400 km altitude, then it wasn't "space" as popularly defined. On top of that, as that was the sort of altitude the Space Shuttle operated at, that spacecraft was also incorrectly named - after all, it wasn't in "space".

If we do it that way, since there's at least a little bit of matter just about everywhere, there is no space.

Anyone else remember that person?

Moon man was the where does this alleged vacuum begin person, right?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 15, 2013, 08:32:25 AM
Anyone else remember that person?

Was it five letters beginning with "H"?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on April 15, 2013, 08:34:06 AM


Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Did you just:

Imply that I'm a liar because I'm some sort of "paid student"? and

That I behave like a Nazi (or worse yet am a Nazi)?

If that's the case, I want an apology right now.  Whether you believe we went to the moon or not, I am someone who sincerely believes (well, knows) we did, based on what I observed and the historical record.  You have no right to label me the way you did.  Period.

Yes I do. That is not what I hoped for, I hoped that the first question, 'why do you all lie' would the subject of discussion.  With me as your specimen to examen. Because I don't lie.

Seen the reactions, especially the way of reacting, the moral level of it all, the evidence is clear to any observer. You don't want to have a discussion of what sort ever. You only want to bash, overwhelm, destroy. The truth is far from you.

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

Your comments lead me to believe that you have not spent any time in the USA.

The earmarks of a totalitarian regime simply do not exist. We are free to travel about as we wish. We are free to speak publicly against any of our leaders, short of actual threats.  Although children are require to receive a basic education, we do not have to send them to state schools - they may be schooled at home or in church schools, so long as certain subjects are covered.

As for the "government controlled" media - I would be willing to wager any amount of money that if any piece of convincing evidence of a hoax ever came to light, the media would trample any number of "guvmint agents" you care to name to get to the story.  Any member of the American media would laugh in your face at the suggestion that the government controls what they publish.

Quote
I think filosophy and logic thinking can bring the answer to who wants to know. Only this Heiwa seems to have an undefeatable question about the fuel. So that should be an eye opener to the engineering people, if it is true what he says. Because the way he was attacked, and his argument not answered, I think he is right.

In history the wrong side has never had an interest in open discussion. They would lose that. Instead of that the wrong side alway oppresses free press and freedom of speech. That is what you see here right before your eyes.

Nonsense. Baloney, poppycock, amphigory, whatever term you prefer.  Heiwa questioned the amount of propellant mass required to change a spaceship's velocity.  It was explained to him, repeatedly and in the simplest terms possible, what was wrong with his calculations. He flatly refused to accept the answer, even though the answer remains the same, regardless of whether you're talking about Apollo 11, Ariane, or DragonX. Physical laws are not subject to the approval of hoax believers; every spacecraft orbiting today is there as a result of the calculations that Heiwa rejected.

The other issues the hoaxers raise are answered on almost a daily basis. Van Allen Belts? Dr. Van Allen himself called the idea that they were an insurmountable obstacle "nonsense". There are satellites in orbit this minute that transit the belts, and many electronics are much more sensitive to radiation than the human body, yet they seem to survive without the "two metres of lead shielding" you hear in many claims.

The LM doesn't look like a real spacecraft? Hey, this is the real world, not Star Wars. Have you ever even seen a real spacecraft?
(http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt353/jarvisn/832_zpsde236eb6.jpg)
Look like a flying junkyard, huh?  And please note that that's not a NASA product - it's Arabsat-5c, which went up on a French rocket in September 2011 and currently resides at 35,000 km altitude - right in the outer VAB. It got there in accordance with the equations that were explained to Heiwa, despite his disbelief.

Stars in space? The ISS is staffed by astronauts from various nations. With a little effort, you can probably email one of them and ask whether they can see stars out the windows on the day side of Earth.

Apollo may be 40+ years in the past, but most of the "questions" raised by hoax believers are still being answered on a daily basis. Absolute, 100% proof? No; very few things are ever absolute. Proof enough to get a conviction in front of any jury? Certainly, many times over.  Open your eyes and look at the facts.
-----------------------------------

Edit
LunarOrbit: Booted?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 15, 2013, 12:02:08 PM
Believer asks why people would defend Apollo if they weren't being paid for it. These are my reasons...

I love history. Real history. I like nothing better than finding out that some historical event either never happened or happened very differently from how it is commonly perceived. I love having my preconceptions shaken up. The truth, to me, is far more compelling than made up stories. If I had discovered that was the case for Apollo, I'd be yelling it from the rooftops, but I've never encountered anything to make me doubt its veracity for very long.

Same for me. I love history. In years gone by, I'd often spend entire Saturdays at the National Library, reading old newspapers on microfilm. It's an intriguing feeling reading about events as yesterday's news which to me are history.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm preparing for publication the memoirs of one of my great-grandfathers. He wrote of his experiences going to sea as a 14 year old in 1863, and how by the late 1870s he was a captain. He also experienced a couple of shipwrecks. I've been able to find reports of these shipwrecks in newspapers of the time, as well as of the courts of inquiry held into the accidents. One of the interesting things has been comparing what he says in his memoirs with the newspaper reports - they're often quite different, and it's fun to speculate why the accounts differ. Nevertheless, there's always a little thrill from seeing his name in print.

Quote
I'm not an engineer or a physicist. Being an art-y type, I was never very good with numbers. But I can see that the vast majority of people in those fields believe in the truth of Apollo. Those that don't? Well, their qualifications usually don't bear close examination. However, I do understand some of the fundamentals of those areas and it amazes me that people who don't even have that level of understanding feel able to denounce people who are qualified professionals.

Same for me again. I have an instinctive grasp of a few of the relevant topics, but no relevant professional qualifications. That's why I leave arguments over formulas to those who know them. Nevertheless, it says something about the quality of some Hoax Believer arguments that even I can occasionally challenge them on technical factors.

Quote
I defend Apollo because I resent being called a shill or a sheep by those who believe that, for instance, a day on the Moon lasts 24 hours...

I don't resent it so much. It's more like something between amused contempt and cheerful earnestness, depending on the demeanour of the Hoax Believer.

Quote
On a more personal level, I defend Apollo because I regard the astronauts as true heroes. Unassuming, intelligent, incredibly brave men who represent everything that humanity is truly capable of and I despise those who, based on nothing but untruths, distortions and ignorance, would tarnish their characters and achievements by calling them liars and cowards and criminals.

+1. Two other things. One is that I agree with these opinions while still accepting Apollo's Cold War context - it was politics first and engineering/science second. The second is that our values have changed a lot since then - sport stars and talk show hosts are heroes these days instead of astronauts or scientists, and celebrity is preferred over knowledge. I don't have the right knowledge to be a scientist or astronaut, but in promoting or defending Apollo I can do my little bit to redress the imbalance.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on April 15, 2013, 02:09:54 PM
Heiwa pretending to be Believer is about as convincing as Homer pretending to Mr Burns.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2013, 09:57:13 PM
You know, I almost certainly had family killed by the Nazis.  (My great-grandmother was born in a Gypsy camp; she was allowed into the US, but her first husband and their children were not.  I assume they got a divorce or something, but she married my great-grandfather somehow.)  They probably didn't even make it into the camps; a lot of Gypsies were just taken out and shot.  Being compared to Nazis amuses me more than it infuriates me, because it proves that the person making the accusation doesn't know anything about me or Nazis.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 16, 2013, 02:16:33 AM
You know, I almost certainly had family killed by the Nazis.  (My great-grandmother was born in a Gypsy camp; she was allowed into the US, but her first husband and their children were not.  I assume they got a divorce or something, but she married my great-grandfather somehow.)  They probably didn't even make it into the camps; a lot of Gypsies were just taken out and shot.  Being compared to Nazis amuses me more than it infuriates me, because it proves that the person making the accusation doesn't know anything about me or Nazis.

Not in the same league of offensiveness as the Nazi comparison, but the "shill" line does the same for me. I do find it annoying that it is bleated out with such monotonous regularity and somehow means that the the person saying it has no need to bother with any other kind of answer, but if they only knew how much it completely demolishes their ridiculous argument.

I'm not sure what they imagine a NASA shill looks like, but I'm pretty sure it's not a long-haired nearly 50 grandfather sitting in his living room in the north of England with crappy TV in the background wondering if there really should be other things he could be doing with his time.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on April 16, 2013, 02:52:04 AM
Its schoolyard name calling, by adults who should know better. It allows the callers to pigeon-hole their "opposition" and by doing so devalue their responses "Ohh, you would say that, you're a shill/NASA employee/sheeple"
Title: Re: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 16, 2013, 05:29:31 AM
Its schoolyard name calling, by adults who should know better. It allows the callers to pigeon-hole their "opposition" and by doing so devalue their responses "Ohh, you would say that, you're a shill/NASA employee/sheeple"

And often ironic and it is those most keen to accuse others of following the herd who are often doing more uncritical parroting of their line. This applies to more than just conspiracy crackpottery.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on April 16, 2013, 12:08:42 PM
You know, I almost certainly had family killed by the Nazis.  (My great-grandmother was born in a Gypsy camp; she was allowed into the US, but her first husband and their children were not.  I assume they got a divorce or something, but she married my great-grandfather somehow.)  They probably didn't even make it into the camps; a lot of Gypsies were just taken out and shot.  Being compared to Nazis amuses me more than it infuriates me, because it proves that the person making the accusation doesn't know anything about me or Nazis.

Not in the same way you mean, but the Nazis certainly tried to kill my Dad and several of my uncles in combat.  They were unsuccessful, although they did manage to wound two of them.

Quote
Not in the same league of offensiveness as the Nazi comparison, but the "shill" line does the same for me. I do find it annoying that it is bleated out with such monotonous regularity and somehow means that the the person saying it has no need to bother with any other kind of answer, but if they only knew how much it completely demolishes their ridiculous argument.

I'm not sure what they imagine a NASA shill looks like, but I'm pretty sure it's not a long-haired nearly 50 grandfather sitting in his living room in the north of England with crappy TV in the background wondering if there really should be other things he could be doing with his time.

I've said this before, but it seems to me to be a general characteristic of HBs that if you follow their line of... uh, "reasoning" it always leads to a patently absurd conclusion of one kind or another, such as...

The Soviets knew it was a hoax, but didn't reveal it because they were in on the conspiracy.

There were only a handful of the 400,000 participants who knew it was a hoax. The Mission Control personnel were fooled by fake data being sent to their screens - never mind that it would have taken a whole cadre of engineers to produce the fake data in the first place,  and wherever that big Saturn V went, some group of engineers had to program the flight, etc.

The reason there are so many mistakes in the photo record is that they were put there deliberately by technicians hoping to reveal the hoax.

And of course, the truly strange, such as:

We went to the moon, but there were ETs there who warned us not to come back.

The Illuminati... [your delusion here]

The reason the Apollo astronauts are so sincere is that they were drugged/hypnotized and false memories were implanted, so they really believe they went.

Etc, ad nauseum.

IMO, the notion that anyone who defends the historical facts of Apollo is a paid "shill" is just one more absurdity that they have to believe to prop up their otherwise unsupportable position.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 16, 2013, 08:12:57 PM
Wasn't there a story last year about a study which found that the people most likely to believe in conspiracy theories were people who'd engage in that sort of behaviour?

And, for the record, my father and his younger brother were both in the Australian Army in World War Two. They both enlisted shortly after the German invasion of France. Dad served first in Africa and the Syrian campaign, then in the Pacific. My uncle was in the Australian 8th Division and was captured at the fall of Singapore. He then survived more than 3 years as a guest of the Emperor, including working on the Burma Railway.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't resent being called a Nazi or a shill. As far as I'm concerned it says more about the accuser than about me.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on April 16, 2013, 08:48:57 PM
Wasn't there a story last year about a study which found that the people most likely to believe in conspiracy theories were people who'd engage in that sort of behaviour?
I seem to remember reading something about that.  My point, though, was that there doesn't seem to be any way to support a hoax theory without introducing something even more ridiculous.
Quote
And, for the record, my father and his younger brother were both in the Australian Army in World War Two. They both enlisted shortly after the German invasion of France. Dad served first in Africa and the Syrian campaign, then in the Pacific. My uncle was in the Australian 8th Division and was captured at the fall of Singapore. He then survived more than 3 years as a guest of the Emperor, including working on the Burma Railway.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't resent being called a Nazi or a shill. As far as I'm concerned it says more about the accuser than about me.
Yeah, I can't say I'm particularly offended by it either. I regard it as just another ad hominem they go to when they can't handle facts.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 16, 2013, 09:14:00 PM
Yeah, I can't say I'm particularly offended by it either. I regard it as just another ad hominem they go to when they can't handle facts.

Quite the contrary, I LIKE it when an HB resorts to name-calling and ad hominum attacks, because that usually means they have run out of stupid answers, and I've got them by the short, curly ones!!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 16, 2013, 09:24:11 PM
...My point, though, was that there doesn't seem to be any way to support a hoax theory without introducing something even more ridiculous.
Fair enough, and I agree entirely.

Again, just to be clear to the Hoax Believers who might be reading this thread, I accept the reality of some conspiracies. But when it comes to Apollo, I've never seen anyone come up with an explanation for a Hoaxed Apollo that makes sense; at some point every explanation becomes absurd or internally inconsistent.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on April 16, 2013, 10:40:38 PM
I certainly don't take personal offense at being called a Nazi. It is such predictable name and really deserve no response other than contempt.  For me, it is always taken as an (unintended) concession of the discussion based on the first corollary of Godwin's Law.  So like any polite person, I will acknowledge the concession and drop the discussion.   Albeit with some amount of hidden gloating inside and hopefully some objection from the other party. 
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 16, 2013, 11:15:16 PM
Again, just to be clear to the Hoax Believers who might be reading this thread, I accept the reality of some conspiracies. But when it comes to Apollo, I've never seen anyone come up with an explanation for a Hoaxed Apollo that makes sense; at some point every explanation becomes absurd or internally inconsistent.

In the strictly legal sense, the Holocaust was a conspiracy.  It's not the kind HBs mean, but it was.  There are plenty of conspiracies of the secret kind, too; Watergate and Iran-Contra were secret government conspiracies.  Neither of them lasted very long, but they were real, secret, government conspiracies.  I don't deny their existence.  I deny that they are evidence that a conspiracy along the lines of an Apollo hoax could be kept secret.  After all, we know about Watergate and Iran-Contra, and both of them were given away in some pretty foolish ways!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 17, 2013, 04:02:06 AM
Again, just to be clear to the Hoax Believers who might be reading this thread, I accept the reality of some conspiracies. But when it comes to Apollo, I've never seen anyone come up with an explanation for a Hoaxed Apollo that makes sense; at some point every explanation becomes absurd or internally inconsistent.

In the strictly legal sense, the Holocaust was a conspiracy.  It's not the kind HBs mean, but it was.  There are plenty of conspiracies of the secret kind, too; Watergate and Iran-Contra were secret government conspiracies.  Neither of them lasted very long, but they were real, secret, government conspiracies.  I don't deny their existence.  I deny that they are evidence that a conspiracy along the lines of an Apollo hoax could be kept secret.  After all, we know about Watergate and Iran-Contra, and both of them were given away in some pretty foolish ways!

Actually, Watergate is one of those conspiracies that shows just how stupid the idea of an Apollo Programme conspiracy is.

How many people actually knew about the wiretapping at DPHQ? Thirty, forty, perhaps fifty? It only took ONE to leak the necessary information to Woodward and Bernstein, and it was all over red rover!!!

So, what chance there wouldn't be a W. Mark Felt among the 400,000 if it was a real conspiracy.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Peter B on April 17, 2013, 07:55:23 AM
And something else about Felt? He lived even though Nixon apparently knew he was Deep Throat.

Supposedly NASA goes around killing astronauts to make the rest toe the line about the hoax. But Nixon doesn't do the same with a guy who helped ruin his Presidency?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 17, 2013, 08:41:06 AM
So, what chance there wouldn't be a W. Mark Felt among the 400,000 if it was a real conspiracy.

Frank Serpico blew the whistle even though the death threats against him were very real.

If the HB believe that there isn't one single person within the whole Apollo Programme  who has/had the personal integrity and courage that Frank Serpico had, then they do not have an understanding of Human beings at all.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: darren r on April 17, 2013, 09:34:00 AM

If the HB believe that there isn't one single person within the whole Apollo Programme  who has/had the personal integrity and courage that Frank Serpico had, then they do not have an understanding of Human beings at all.


Spot on.

There are two things all HB's seem to believe  - that they are the only people with courage or integrity and that anyone who disagrees with their conclusions is working for NASA.
Title: Re: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 17, 2013, 10:03:35 AM

If the HB believe that there isn't one single person within the whole Apollo Programme  who has/had the personal integrity and courage that Frank Serpico had, then they do not have an understanding of Human beings at all.


Spot on.

There are two things all HB's seem to believe  - that they are the only people with courage or integrity and that anyone who disagrees with their conclusions is working for NASA.

And of course they are allowed to live.
Title: Re: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on April 17, 2013, 10:40:25 AM

If the HB believe that there isn't one single person within the whole Apollo Programme  who has/had the personal integrity and courage that Frank Serpico had, then they do not have an understanding of Human beings at all.


Spot on.

There are two things all HB's seem to believe  - that they are the only people with courage or integrity and that anyone who disagrees with their conclusions is working for NASA.

And of course they are allowed to live.

I still maintain that, especially considering that a lot of Apollo took place in Texas, that death threats on a large scale would have been more likely to result in a landscape littered with deceased "Men in Black" than meek compliance.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: DataCable on April 17, 2013, 09:20:42 PM
In the strictly legal sense, the Holocaust was a conspiracy.
This movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/) agrees.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 17, 2013, 10:53:46 PM
And it's based on the Nazis' own documents, so there you are!  (It is also quite good; why is Kenneth Branagh so good at playing a Nazi?)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on April 19, 2013, 03:01:45 AM
I'm rapidly forming the opinion that some conspiracy theorists have lost all rationality and are nothing more than lonely, angry souls with bugger all connections to the rest of the human race. They carry their bitterness and desire to believe that they are "special" to extraordinary lengths. I'm sure that some of these freaks rarely have contact with "normal" society.

I'm sorry for the harsh words, but someone linked me to the Cluesforum.info page. The utter cretins on there have a "Boston Marathon - alleged "terror attack" thread going, where in-between the photos of an inhuman atrocity, you have sad-sacks trying to argue that the pictures are faked and the bombs were nothing more than a media conspiracy (do not search for the thread unless you are prepared for some pretty horrible images of human suffering). Again. I'm sorry, but these people are living n the margins of what I would call normal.

I can only assume that most are like this image. Sad, sad little people, with no true human bonds.
(http://www.demandstudiossucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/super-computer-nerd.jpeg)


<shakes head, walks away to contemplate>
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on April 19, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
I'm rapidly forming the opinion that some conspiracy theorists have lost all rationality and are nothing more than lonely, angry souls with bugger all connections to the rest of the human race. They carry their bitterness and desire to believe that they are "special" to extraordinary lengths. I'm sure that some of these freaks rarely have contact with "normal" society.

I'm sorry for the harsh words, but someone linked me to the Cluesforum.info page. The utter cretins on there have a "Boston Marathon - alleged "terror attack" thread going, where in-between the photos of an inhuman atrocity, you have sad-sacks trying to argue that the pictures are faked and the bombs were nothing more than a media conspiracy (do not search for the thread unless you are prepared for some pretty horrible images of human suffering). Again. I'm sorry, but these people are living n the margins of what I would call normal.

I can only assume that most are like this image. Sad, sad little people, with no true human bonds.
(http://www.demandstudiossucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/super-computer-nerd.jpeg)


<shakes head, walks away to contemplate>

I got about two pages in and had to bail. I'm pretty much inured to graphic injuries, but the graphic stupidity was too much for me to handle.

I mean, ignorance can be corrected, but 'you can't fix stupid'.

Seriously, do not go look if you can't handle the sight of serious injury.




Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on April 19, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
I've always wondered who that kid is and where he is now.
He obviously had a certain love for computers back in their early infancy as home user devices. Was he able to find work that furthered that joy, or did it whither and die from lack of support or being only able find work that crushed that dream?
He may be the Internet's ubernerd, but he is also a human being. With hopes, loves, and dreams, some different but many the same as any of us.
Is he someone's uncle or even father?
If he is dead, who mourned him? Do they morn him still?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on April 19, 2013, 09:30:08 PM
Thank you.

I also felt queasy at the making fun.  But I didn't know how to say it.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 19, 2013, 10:51:04 PM
I'm not sure he's a kid, come to that.  Observe his right hand.

But yeah, I see no reason to assume that the guy in the picture is as much of a loser as the cretins who trade in human suffering for their own personal self-aggrandizement.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 20, 2013, 07:56:16 AM

I got about two pages in and had to bail. I'm pretty much inured to graphic injuries, but the graphic stupidity was too much for me to handle.

I mean, ignorance can be corrected, but 'you can't fix stupid'.

Seriously, do not go look if you can't handle the sight of serious injury.

Same here, even the most extreme gore doesn't bother me anymore... except the sight of severe hand injuries which for some reason does very much! But I didn't even make the bottom of the first page without wanting to head-butt the wall in exasperation!

I wonder how some of these people have actually got enough brain power to switch a computer on with some of the inane and incredibly stupid questions they come out with.

One picture halfway down the first page is, I guess, a gif. file...... two photos flashing one over the other. The first shows the pavement just after the blast with all the injured and the first 'responders', the second shows the pavement after everyone has been taken away and it is now quite obviously a 'crime scene'

The moron who has posted these, shows absolute incredulity that the barriers and flags have all been removed but the detritus of the aftermath is still there, bits of clothing, bloodied dressings, street rubbish etc.

I want to grab hold of this moron and scream in his ear with a bullhorn "Why the 'F' do you think its still there?"

On Facebook there is a 'Private detective' in Germany who believes Boston is a 'false flag operation'. He has posted a ghastly photomontage which shows Jeff Bauman being rushed away in the wheelchair.

First statement he makes: "I cant believe that he is still conscious after such blood loss"..... mmmm where have we heard this kind of argument before?

Second statement: "Why are they wheeling him up the street why didn't they wait for an ambulance and proper first aid?".......mmm some detective you are cupcake! if you have seen the press reports there is a Medical Tent, presumably with trained Doctors in it, about 120-150m away from the blast site...why should they wait for an ambulance with a guy who has severe injuries and shock from blood loss... also one of the guys with the wheelchair is in uniform with EMT on his chest... doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand what that means.

third Statement: "If there are no ambulances available how come wheelchair is immediately at hand"...... Gods teeth! Can it be possibly true that a grown man, and supposedly a detective at that, cant figure out why on earth there would possibly be wheelchairs at the finish line of an event where thousands of people run for 26 miles? People who in the majority are not World Class athletes, people from their teens to their 80's....is it really so hard to figure this out?

It makes me fume that such derogatory (to the victims and their families) crap is put on line sometimes!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AtomicDog on April 20, 2013, 09:04:19 AM
That's the same kind of crap that anywho said in the post that got him banned.
He also said that Sandy Hook was a hoax, too.
He's one of those that no hoax belief is too outrageous for him to swallow.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: darren r on April 20, 2013, 12:51:59 PM
Looking through the insanity on Cluesforum makes me despair for the human race. The internet is a great educational tool but it also enables the ignorant and foolish to effortlessly feed each others delusions.

In the London 7/7 section, one dunderhead appears to believe that a chrome bar on the outside of the Tavistock Square bus is part of the 'lifting apparatus' used to drop the 'prop bus' into position.(Er, no, it's a feature common to many UK double-deckers. Its function is to deflect tree branches from the top front windows). And, of course, nobody challenges this claim, although references to 'Jews' crop up almost immediately.


Title: Re: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 20, 2013, 02:55:22 PM
Looking through the insanity on Cluesforum makes me despair for the human race. The internet is a great educational tool but it also enables the ignorant and foolish to effortlessly feed each others delusions.

In the London 7/7 section, one dunderhead appears to believe that a chrome bar on the outside of the Tavistock Square bus is part of the 'lifting apparatus' used to drop the 'prop bus' into position.(Er, no, it's a feature common to many UK double-deckers. Its function is to deflect tree branches from the top front windows). And, of course, nobody challenges this claim, although references to 'Jews' crop up almost immediately.

Such incoherence. The idea that a blue petered blowed up bus could be hauled through central London and dropped into place without anyone notice is beyond ludicrous. For all the insane things I've heard about the Apollo hoax, nothing approaches this.

And of course, they accidentally left the tell tale equipment.

If 7/7 was a government conspiracy, why not just blow up the bus as it travelled its route?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on April 20, 2013, 02:58:47 PM
Looking through the insanity on Cluesforum makes me despair for the human race. The internet is a great educational tool but it also enables the ignorant and foolish to effortlessly feed each others delusions.

In the London 7/7 section, one dunderhead appears to believe that a chrome bar on the outside of the Tavistock Square bus is part of the 'lifting apparatus' used to drop the 'prop bus' into position.(Er, no, it's a feature common to many UK double-deckers. Its function is to deflect tree branches from the top front windows). And, of course, nobody challenges this claim, although references to 'Jews' crop up almost immediately.

Wait...a totally visible, CHROMED fitting used to lower scenery into camera view?

Has this man ever SEEN a film?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 20, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
So I guess a good follow up question would be "Do you actually think about the theories you propose, or do you just blurt out every random idea that pops into your head?".
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: darren r on April 20, 2013, 04:12:28 PM

Wait...a totally visible, CHROMED fitting used to lower scenery into camera view?

Has this man ever SEEN a film?

I think his point was that it was left on, either through incompetence or, guess what? Whistleblowing. That's one of the things they share with Apollo HB's. That these huge, complex conspiracies with casts of thousands but no apparent objective are stuffed to the gills with people who want to give the game away by leaving clues lying around the place (a movie poster on the side of the bus with the word 'terror' in the blurb is apparently a dead giveaway). They also share with HB's an inability to understand things like perspective, camera angles and different lenses.


Such incoherence. The idea that a blue petered blowed up bus could be hauled through central London and dropped into place without anyone notice is beyond ludicrous. For all the insane things I've heard about the Apollo hoax, nothing approaches this.

And of course, they accidentally left the tell tale equipment.

If 7/7 was a government conspiracy, why not just blow up the bus as it travelled its route?

The one glimmer of hope is that, again much like Apollo HB's, they can't even agree what the conspiracy actually was. Some believe the whole thing was a media hoax, with all the participants actors, all photos and video faked, no real casualties. Reminds me of nothing more than the 'People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front' schism in Life of Brian!

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 20, 2013, 05:24:39 PM
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html?spref=tw
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 20, 2013, 05:34:31 PM
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html?spref=tw

"Yes a little grey bugger, but we cut him up!"....... Thanks I nearly spat my coffee on my keyboard, and I only just replaced it last week for spilling coffee on it!  :D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 20, 2013, 09:59:31 PM
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html?spref=tw


That is bloody hilarious.. and so true

Is there any such thing as the opposite of a stundie?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 20, 2013, 10:18:21 PM
Yes, but you have to go to Stockholm to collect it.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Nowhere Man on April 20, 2013, 11:01:17 PM
"They're making up diseases to sell us more drugs."
"Sorry, what was that?"
"Pay attention." -> ADD
"Pay attention and calm down." -> ADHD

Ha!

Fred
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Tedward on April 21, 2013, 05:51:30 AM
We have a particular problem in S Wales, stems from one doctor causing a bit of a scare with MMR jabs. The result is an outbreak of measles. I notices it got some attention as a scare tactic to infect us with something from the jabs required to combat this.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 22, 2013, 03:38:27 PM
Do you ever get more than one CTer at a time?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 22, 2013, 04:50:14 PM
Rarely.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on April 22, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves. 
Title: Re: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 22, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves.

Speaking of talk, it's the 40th anniversary this year of the last man on the moon.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on April 22, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves.

Speaking of talk, it's the 40th anniversary this year of the last man on the moon.
Wasn't that last year?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Count Zero on April 22, 2013, 09:06:20 PM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves.

Speaking of talk, it's the 40th anniversary this year of the last man on the moon.
Wasn't that last year?

Yeah, last December.  :(
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on April 22, 2013, 11:22:20 PM
Something you not telling us? ;D
But, in all seriousness, it is a little sad. It passed so fast. One year it was the 40th anniversary of the first moon walk, and, in what doesn't feel that long, we have already passed the last one.
How long tell we walk again on any other world, let alone the moon?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 22, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
Something you not telling us? ;D
But, in all seriousness, it is a little sad. It passed so fast. One year it was the 40th anniversary of the first moon walk, and, in what doesn't feel that long, we have already passed the last one.
How long tell we walk again on any other world, let alone the moon?

2025 if you believe these guys

http://mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/about-mars-one
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on April 23, 2013, 12:34:23 AM
Sadly, I do not. I hope they succeed, but I have very little faith in it actually happening.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 23, 2013, 02:31:08 AM
Oh yeah. 1973 was Skylab.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 09:27:49 AM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves.

The Hoax Proponent does, by and large, seem to be a solitary creature.  Maybe that's because there aren't very many of them, maybe it's because they don't trust each other.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2013, 11:20:30 AM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves.

The Hoax Proponent does, by and large, seem to be a solitary creature.  Maybe that's because there aren't very many of them, maybe it's because they don't trust each other.


Proponents, ones that actually go out of there way to make a special issue of a moon hoax, like Jarrah White, are relatively few in number and have some number of followers and fellow travelers.  They also have somewhat abrasive public personalities toward non-sycophants that limit their social appeal, thus the solitary nature you describe.   

The count for general purpose conspiracy buffs and deniers who actually put some effort into it seems a bit higher.  For the widest category in my lexicon, hoax believers, YouTube seems to be littered with people that prefer to entertain themselves with a good hoax or conspiracy without ever giving it a second thought. 
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on April 23, 2013, 02:16:46 PM
Skepticism on a budget.  They know one thing that the sheep around them don't know -- and it only cost them the time to watch a YouTube video.  Their investment is as deep.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 03:01:44 PM
Proponents, ones that actually go out of there way to make a special issue of a moon hoax, like Jarrah White, are relatively few in number and have some number of followers and fellow travelers.  They also have somewhat abrasive public personalities toward non-sycophants that limit their social appeal, thus the solitary nature you describe.   

The count for general purpose conspiracy buffs and deniers who actually put some effort into it seems a bit higher.  For the widest category in my lexicon, hoax believers, YouTube seems to be littered with people that prefer to entertain themselves with a good hoax or conspiracy without ever giving it a second thought.

Perhaps I misuse my terminology, being relatively new to this particular freak show, I should have referred to believers rather than proponents.

I do sometimes run across people who refer to the whole moon hoax business.  On every single occasion I can think of, the speaker has expressed not only disbelief in the hoax theories, but also amazement that anyone could actually believe this rubbish.  And yet these odd characters seem to be quite common on the internet.  So I wonder.

(i) Maybe believers in the hoax theories are quite rare, and the global reach of the internet is required to find very many of them.

(ii) Maybe they're quite common, but they are all kept in some ghetto somewhere so as not to bother everyone else, and the internet is the only way they can communicate with us.

(iii) Maybe they're quite common, but not willing to embarrass themselves in person, preferring the anonymity of the internet.

(iv) Maybe they're all just having a laugh at everyone else's expense.

Most likely there are some other plausible explanations.

Whether their density is feigned or real, I do get the impression here than many are inadvertently setting themselves up as targets.  I can fully understand the frustration caused when the dumbest person in the room starts mouthing off about what an idiot everyone else is, but I think it would be wise for us to strive not to become subjects to the breath of every fool.1

1Bonus points to anyone who can identify the reference, said points being worth exactly what the lucky winner paid for them.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Andromeda on April 23, 2013, 04:12:08 PM
Henry V?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 23, 2013, 04:17:38 PM
Sometimes we get the same one, two at a time, under different names.  More commonly the same one serially under different names.  In between HBs, we talk about Apollo amongst ourselves.

The Hoax Proponent does, by and large, seem to be a solitary creature.  Maybe that's because there aren't very many of them, maybe it's because they don't trust each other.


Could also be because the very nature of their belief systems affects their character to a degree that inevitably leads to them being social pariahs.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2013, 04:30:18 PM
I suspect that it just isn't all that important for most people one way or the other.  There are people who believe in the alleged hoax, but they don't bring it up, because it isn't important.  Similarly, few of my friends who do accept reality feel the need to mention Apollo very often.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 05:15:11 PM
Henry V?

Well done.  Don't spend your bonus points all in one place :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Laurel on April 23, 2013, 05:29:42 PM
Do we get bonus points for knowing where your user name comes from?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 05:59:27 PM
Do we get bonus points for knowing where your user name comes from?

Sure, why not?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2013, 06:11:57 PM
Perhaps I misuse my terminology, being relatively new to this particular freak show, I should have referred to believers rather than proponents.

One use is as good as another.  I have just developed my own usage because I am special that way. ;)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Laurel on April 23, 2013, 06:22:35 PM
Do we get bonus points for knowing where your user name comes from?

Sure, why not?

"The Man Who Would Be King." Kipling.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Daniel Dravot on April 23, 2013, 11:14:58 PM
"The Man Who Would Be King." Kipling.

God's Holy Trousers, you are right!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 24, 2013, 04:07:01 PM
"The Man Who Would Be King." Kipling.

God's Holy Trousers, you are right!

Well, to be fair, first result in google kind of gives it away.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Laurel on April 24, 2013, 04:44:05 PM
I didn't have to Google it, I read the story in university.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on April 24, 2013, 07:01:02 PM
I didn't have to Google it, I read the story in university.

I totally believe you....jus' saying for us that didn't, the University of Google works too ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on April 24, 2013, 10:05:43 PM
I can only assume that most are like this image. Sad, sad little people, with no true human bonds.
(http://www.demandstudiossucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/super-computer-nerd.jpeg)
Hey!
Without the goofy specs that could be me 30 years ago.
I had pretty much the same set-up.

If 7/7 was a government conspiracy, why not just blow up the bus as it travelled its route?
Not fiendishly complicated enough?

Same with no-planers.
Why would an organisation evil enough to blow up skyscrapers WITH PEOPLE IN IT have any problem using aircraft as a weapon?
These guys (and occasional gal) seem to have never heard of the KISS principle.
Instead they use the Illuminati's Razor: The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer.
(Stolen from Fazor on BAUT.)

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html?spref=tw
Oh great! Another brilliant site to keep track off.
I'll never catch up.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Glom on April 25, 2013, 02:24:36 AM
In addition, the target wasn't originally the bus but the Northern line. But it was suspended that morning for Tube reasons so the bomber went on a bus instead.

So if the bus bombing was part of the original conspiracy, then so was suspending the Northern line, which is in fact the ultimate act of terror.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 03, 2014, 08:43:37 AM
I don't know, if this question to the HBs has already been asked here, so I add it:

Dear HBs, CTs or however you prefer to be called,

you're convinced that NASA faked the manned moonlandings, and you've got all the evidence for it, right?

Why don't you go to court to file a suit against NASA?

Most of you tell us, NASA betrayed the taxpayers about 30 billion dollars. This isn't a small number, I think. So if you're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, why the hell don't you do anything with substance but creating some clips on youtube or dorky websites?

Why don't you present your findings to scientists/engineers/experts from Russia, China, India or other countries who are not involved in NASA (northkorean scientists would welcome you with open arms, I guess)?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on October 03, 2014, 12:22:57 PM
Under U.S. law, a "taxpayer" does not have standing to sue in civil court for this type of allegation.  I'm not sure how well your legal system compares to Anglo-Saxon "Common Law," but I assume you can figure out what it means under our system to have "standing."

However your challenge is easily converted to one of criminal law.  If NASA really did use appropriated funds to hoax the Apollo missions rather than undertake an attempt in good faith, then that subjects its higher officials to criminal prosecution.  That would have to follow the course of submitting evidence to a federal prosecutor and convention of a federal grand jury to weigh the evidence and, if necessary, produce an indictment.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 03, 2014, 12:56:40 PM
Under U.S. law, a "taxpayer" does not have standing to sue in civil court for this type of allegation.  I'm not sure how well your legal system compares to Anglo-Saxon "Common Law," but I assume you can figure out what it means under our system to have "standing."

However your challenge is easily converted to one of criminal law.  If NASA really did use appropriated funds to hoax the Apollo missions rather than undertake an attempt in good faith, then that subjects its higher officials to criminal prosecution.  That would have to follow the course of submitting evidence to a federal prosecutor and convention of a federal grand jury to weigh the evidence and, if necessary, produce an indictment.

I must admit, I'm not an expert in US law (even not in German law  ::)) but I hope, you can imagine my intention.  Everytime I'm still wondering about the reason, no one of the HBs give their findings to scientists/experts not involved in NASA.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ChrLz on October 04, 2014, 12:21:24 AM
I think you'll find it is exactly the same reason that they always run away when asked to present their very best, killer, smokin' gun, number one, piece of evidence.

They won't commit as they know it will fail under proper scrutiny / haven't researched any of it properly (or have, and realised they were wrong or is was just all too difficult, but went ahead anyway).

It's a game that is now only played (on the denier's side) by people who are:
- very, very silly
- very, very deluded
- very, very committed to every conspiracy theory out there
- trolling
or some combination thereof.  And the Gish Gallop is the only methodology they can apply...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 04, 2014, 11:10:34 AM
I think you'll find it is exactly the same reason that they always run away when asked to present their very best, killer, smokin' gun, number one, piece of evidence.

They won't commit as they know it will fail under proper scrutiny / haven't researched any of it properly (or have, and realised they were wrong or is was just all too difficult, but went ahead anyway).

It's a game that is now only played (on the denier's side) by people who are:
- very, very silly
- very, very deluded
- very, very committed to every conspiracy theory out there
- trolling
or some combination thereof.  And the Gish Gallop is the only methodology they can apply...

That's the best definition I've ever received. Thank you  :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AstroBrant on October 16, 2014, 07:18:32 PM


Why don't you go to court to file a suit against NASA?


I have used that same argument several times. Maybe there are some aspiring attention-seekers who have seriously considered it -- until they read the law or consulted an attorney. The penalty for frivolous litigation or malicious prosecution in federal court, even if you believe you're right, can involve serious financial, (double or triple the defendant's expenses + fines), and even criminal charges if it is determined that the claim is groundless and fundamentally ridiculous. Bottom line: there is no lawyer who would take the case. He/she could receive a fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, and sanctions against the attorney and/or that attorney's law firm.

That same argument could be made regarding 9-11, only this time it would be a mass murder charge in addition to criminal conspiracy. The costs would be enormous. The complainant would have to get the district attorney to agree to press charges. Well, that's not very likely.

Wunder-Blunder hired a lawyer to threaten me with lawsuit if I didn't remove 27 of my YT videos. I refused. I never heard from him again. An attorney told me that yes, there are lawyers who will intimidate people this way for a client, even if they are just bluffing. But getting one to go to court to prosecute such frivolous complaints is quite another story. Still, I would love to see Wunder-Blunder go into a US court, unrepresented, and tutor a judge on copyright law.

This all raises another question, though. If a lawsuit seems frivolous from the start, does the court attempt to assess the plaintiff's ability to pay fines and other damages to the defendant if his complaint is shown to be groundless and malicious? If so, would the court be likely to preemptively dismiss the case primarily on the grounds that the defendant could be financially ruined by a frivolous litigation?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 17, 2014, 04:50:40 AM


Why don't you go to court to file a suit against NASA?


I have used that same argument several times. Maybe there are some aspiring attention-seekers who have seriously considered it -- until they read the law or consulted an attorney. The penalty for frivolous litigation or malicious prosecution in federal court, even if you believe you're right, can involve serious financial, (double or triple the defendant's expenses + fines), and even criminal charges if it is determined that the claim is groundless and fundamentally ridiculous. Bottom line: there is no lawyer who would take the case. He/she could receive a fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, and sanctions against the attorney and/or that attorney's law firm.

That same argument could be made regarding 9-11, only this time it would be a mass murder charge in addition to criminal conspiracy. The costs would be enormous. The complainant would have to get the district attorney to agree to press charges. Well, that's not very likely.

Wunder-Blunder hired a lawyer to threaten me with lawsuit if I didn't remove 27 of my YT videos. I refused. I never heard from him again. An attorney told me that yes, there are lawyers who will intimidate people this way for a client, even if they are just bluffing. But getting one to go to court to prosecute such frivolous complaints is quite another story. Still, I would love to see Wunder-Blunder go into a US court, unrepresented, and tutor a judge on copyright law.

This all raises another question, though. If a lawsuit seems frivolous from the start, does the court attempt to assess the plaintiff's ability to pay fines and other damages to the defendant if his complaint is shown to be groundless and malicious? If so, would the court be likely to preemptively dismiss the case primarily on the grounds that the defendant could be financially ruined by a frivolous litigation?

I couldn't agree more with you.

Btw, I've watched some of your yt-clips, especially these ones about HWSNBN. Great job, I've learned so many things from your clips (of course from other clips either  :D) and fora like this one or i.e. Unexplained Mysteries.

Remembering your yt-clips, there comes a funny thing in my mind. There is one HB, who is repeatedly insisting in a courtfile against the astronauts. I told him the same about the lawyer and asked him to do something and stop  whining. You can imagine his response  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AstroBrant on October 18, 2014, 09:48:41 AM
To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 18, 2014, 09:52:56 AM
To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?

He Who Shall Not Be Named  ;D

Call me lazy, but it's easier to type ;)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Sus_pilot on October 18, 2014, 10:12:51 AM

To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?

He Who Shall Not Be Named  ;D

Call me lazy, but it's easier to type ;)

HWSNBN:  Isn't that pronounced "hasn't-been"?  (A play on "has been")
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 18, 2014, 10:20:38 AM

HWSNBN:  Isn't that pronounced "hasn't-been"?  (A play on "has been")

Good question, but I don't know. My native language is German, so I don't pronounce the acronym that way. But it makes sense.  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on October 18, 2014, 03:12:21 PM
I'd love that kid to go to court. He'd finally have to answer for his numerous counts of perjury in his misuse of the Youtube video reporting system for censorship.
That just toasts my buttocks in the worst way.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AstroBrant on October 19, 2014, 01:13:08 AM
To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?

He Who Shall Not Be Named  ;D

Call me lazy, but it's easier to type ;)

Thanks. I've seen some of the veterans using acronyms that I didn't recognize at first. I could figure some of them out, but not others. From the context clues I figured you were talking about TGDASOBWDHACWHTA, but I just couldn't get it. At least now I know this one.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on October 19, 2014, 02:32:27 AM
Every community starts to form its own little jargon after a while. I  think it's kind of neat, though it can be a little hard to understand at first.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on October 19, 2014, 04:27:58 AM
I'd love that kid to go to court.

I would too. I would also like to see him defend his arguments against real experts, while it is being filmed for the sake of prosperity. The latter would provide me with more enjoyment than the former, as the DMCA violations are a side show.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 19, 2014, 08:41:47 AM

Thanks. I've seen some of the veterans using acronyms that I didn't recognize at first. I could figure some of them out, but not others. From the context clues I figured you were talking about TGDASOBWDHACWHTA, but I just couldn't get it. At least now I know this one.

TGDASOBWDHACWHTA

 :P Got the feeling to have broken fingers after typing this.

Now it's me, who couldn't get it. I've never seen this acronym. Who is this?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: BazBear on October 19, 2014, 11:54:40 AM

Thanks. I've seen some of the veterans using acronyms that I didn't recognize at first. I could figure some of them out, but not others. From the context clues I figured you were talking about TGDASOBWDHACWHTA, but I just couldn't get it. At least now I know this one.

TGDASOBWDHACWHTA

 :P Got the feeling to have broken fingers after typing this.

Now it's me, who couldn't get it. I've never seen this acronym. Who is this?
Maybe it's something like "That God Damned A-hole (Australian?) Son Of a Beach Doesn't Have A Clue When He Talks Apollo"? :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 19, 2014, 12:32:25 PM

Thanks. I've seen some of the veterans using acronyms that I didn't recognize at first. I could figure some of them out, but not others. From the context clues I figured you were talking about TGDASOBWDHACWHTA, but I just couldn't get it. At least now I know this one.

TGDASOBWDHACWHTA

 :P Got the feeling to have broken fingers after typing this.

Now it's me, who couldn't get it. I've never seen this acronym. Who is this?
Maybe it's something like "That God Damned A-hole (Australian?) Son Of a Beach Doesn't Have A Clue When He Talks Apollo"? :)

 ;D Seems you nailed it.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Mag40 on October 19, 2014, 12:37:14 PM

Thanks. I've seen some of the veterans using acronyms that I didn't recognize at first. I could figure some of them out, but not others. From the context clues I figured you were talking about TGDASOBWDHACWHTA, but I just couldn't get it. At least now I know this one.

TGDASOBWDHACWHTA

 :P Got the feeling to have broken fingers after typing this.

Now it's me, who couldn't get it. I've never seen this acronym. Who is this?

That god damned Aussie son of a bitch who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. 8)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 19, 2014, 12:42:34 PM

Thanks. I've seen some of the veterans using acronyms that I didn't recognize at first. I could figure some of them out, but not others. From the context clues I figured you were talking about TGDASOBWDHACWHTA, but I just couldn't get it. At least now I know this one.

TGDASOBWDHACWHTA

 :P Got the feeling to have broken fingers after typing this.

Now it's me, who couldn't get it. I've never seen this acronym. Who is this?

That god damned Aussie son of a bitch who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. 8)

So we can use a similar acronym for Awe: TGDDSOBWDHACWHTA (This god damned Dutch....)  ::)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: tikkitakki on October 19, 2014, 03:44:27 PM
Gesundheit!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 19, 2014, 04:02:11 PM
Gesundheit!

Ups, endlich mal jemand, der Deutsch schreibt  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on October 19, 2014, 09:11:42 PM
Keine bange - deutsch ist verstanden bei viele.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on October 19, 2014, 11:51:09 PM
My mother lived in Frankfurt for a time.  Sadly language proficiency is not genetic.  I've visited southern Germany (Ettal, Oberammergau, etc.) but all I can really remember are the pretzels. :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AstroBrant on October 19, 2014, 11:58:07 PM

That god damned Aussie son of a bitch who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

BazBear was close and probably gets most of the credit, but you refined it to the exact words. Congratulations!
I tried to compose it with some clues so that it might be solved. Of course, for the person making up something like this, it is very difficult to tell how solvable it is. Thanks, BazBear and Mag40 for confirming it for me.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Sus_pilot on October 20, 2014, 01:25:50 AM

My mother lived in Frankfurt for a time.  Sadly language proficiency is not genetic.  I've visited southern Germany (Ettal, Oberammergau, etc.) but all I can really remember are the pretzels. :)

What's really embarrassing is being first-generation American where German was spoken at home and I still can't speak it well.  I'm hopelessly lost on the genders of objects or even why they have genders (Das Flugzeug?  Die Flugzeug?  Der Flugzeug?  The damned thing's an inanimate object, for cryin' out loud!).

I remember being in Mom's home town trying desperately to buy  tungsten (or "indoor") Ektachrome in a camera shop.  After struggling for about 15 minutes, trying to come up with the German terms for "color balance" and "incandescent light", or even "3200 degrees Kelvin", the storekeeper, in perfect English, asked if I wanted to show him what I wanted in the London edition of the Kodak catalog.  <*sigh*>
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 20, 2014, 11:01:58 AM
My mother lived in Frankfurt for a time.  Sadly language proficiency is not genetic.  I've visited southern Germany (Ettal, Oberammergau, etc.) but all I can really remember are the pretzels. :)

Brezel  ;D

It's good to know that here are some people knowing German. I live in the western part (Düsseldorf, the capital of Nordrhein-Westfalen). October 3rd, when I remember right, there was an event 30 km's away in Dortmund, where Buzz Aldrin was awarded. I had no luck to get a ticket.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 20, 2014, 11:13:07 AM
Keine bange - deutsch ist verstanden bei viele.

A comforting fact for someone who tries to follow a debate in a foreign languange  :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on October 20, 2014, 12:25:18 PM
I'm hopelessly lost on the genders of objects or even why they have genders

I spent some time living in Austria, learning German from other hotel employees and never could get gender straight.  Then when I would go to elsewhere, the locals would correct my Tirolean/American accent. So I did better speaking English, which everyone understood and offended no one.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on October 20, 2014, 01:00:25 PM

I spent some time living in Austria, learning German from other hotel employees and never could get gender straight.  Then when I would go to elsewhere, the locals would correct my Tirolean/American accent. So I did better speaking English, which everyone understood and offended no one.

My experience with foreigners here in Germany, who are learning this language, is: The most difficult detail to learn are "connected verbs" (I don't know the exact English term for this). An example would be "to call". In English we use: I call you (I call you tomorrow etc etc). The verb in German is "anrufen" (to make the two parts clearer: an - rufen). In German we say: Ich rufe dich morgen an. Most of the pupils/students of German language start with: Ich anrufe dich morgen  :)

I think learning the gender has a similar difficulty, but this is only my opinion.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Echnaton on October 20, 2014, 03:19:03 PM
It seemed that I needed proper instruction in German.  Not conversations with a few people where we swapped non-technical language help. Most of the other employees wanted to improve their English skills.  Gender was just as far as I got into knowing I was in trouble.  I didn't worry much about things like declension that I can't even explain in English.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on October 21, 2014, 03:37:47 AM
Keine bange - deutsch ist verstanden bei viele.
Aber nicht jeder.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Noldi400 on October 22, 2014, 06:00:15 PM
Brandt,
have you seen the HB bingo cards we keep around? I've temporarily lost track of the link, but I'm sure someone can provide it.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: LunarOrbit on October 22, 2014, 07:34:26 PM
http://apollohoax.net/bingo
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on October 23, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
I'd love that kid to go to court.

I would too. I would also like to see him defend his arguments against real experts, while it is being filmed for the sake of prosperity. The latter would provide me with more enjoyment than the former, as the DMCA violations are a side show.
Well, claiming Apollo was a hoax is not a criminal matter. It's foolish and deluded,  but it's not a  crime.
Perjury is. 
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on October 23, 2014, 08:24:51 PM
Misappropriation of government funds?

ETA--I think you missed it; I think the issue is that we'd love to see him try taking others to court.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AstroBrant on October 23, 2014, 11:20:39 PM
http://apollohoax.net/bingo

The top "O" square is kinda tough, as worded. Could that maybe be replaced with "Rockets can't work in a vacuum"?
Other suggestions: "HAHAHA"
"How much does NASA pay you?"
"'Your' instead of 'you're'"
"Disney or Kubrick"
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Tanalia on October 23, 2014, 11:37:34 PM
Just reload the page to get a new card.  Some of the squares that come up may be difficult, while some combinations will be nearly impossible.  For instance, getting "Astronauts would have been too cold" and "Astronauts would have been too hot" in the same row/column/diagonal would effectively remove 1/10th of the card's chance to "win".  There is, of course, the chance of an HB presenting both arguments together; we've seen plenty of other self-contradictions.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: AstroBrant on November 21, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
As for questions, I'd like to contribute some that I have used several times and which generally serve to make hoax nuts go away.

1) When they talk about how hot it is on the moon's surface I ask them, "Why is there permanent ice on the tops of the highest mountains, even in tropical zones?"

2) "If astronauts were suspended from wires, why did they keep falling down?"

3) "Would you like to discuss the radiation data from the Chandrayaan, Curiosity, and Van Allen probes?"

4) And when they pick out some "impossible" anomaly in shadows or lighting I ask, "If Apollo was faked on some set, what would have caused this?"
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: twik on December 12, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
For instance, getting "Astronauts would have been too cold" and "Astronauts would have been too hot" in the same row/column/diagonal would effectively remove 1/10th of the card's chance to "win".

Not necessarily. It's quite possible for a HB to argue "they would have been too cold in space, AND too hot on the Moon." (I agree that the chances of bingo would be reduced, of course.)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on December 12, 2014, 12:25:05 PM
This is true; there's a lot of cargo-cult reasoning in conspiracism.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Tanalia on December 12, 2014, 05:45:06 PM
For instance, getting "Astronauts would have been too cold" and "Astronauts would have been too hot" in the same row/column/diagonal would effectively remove 1/10th of the card's chance to "win".

Not necessarily. It's quite possible for a HB to argue "they would have been too cold in space, AND too hot on the Moon." (I agree that the chances of bingo would be reduced, of course.)

Which was also stated right after the section you quoted.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on December 12, 2014, 06:29:43 PM
It is generally much colder in deep space than on the moon during the daytime. Of course, this should never be taken as any kind of fixed rule. The only way to know what actually happens is to carefully model all of the incoming and outgoing radiation (since heat cannot flow through a vacuum in any other way) using the surface properties of an object at each wavelength. And the internal properties too, if the object is of any significant size, to understand how heat moves within it.

The basic physics is pretty simple but doing this in practice requires very good computer models and a lot of expertise. It's kinda like the difference between understanding Newton's laws of motion and modeling an airplane crash into a building...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 07:42:01 PM
I've got a few simple questions for those of you who consider yourselves "conspiracy theorists", "truthers", or "hoax believers".

Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not?

About all that can be said in response to this is a)I don't lie, EVER for any reason,b)I don't pretend to be anything, the pretense is on your part to "know" these things. As time goes on, it will become apparent that you are woefully ill equipped to prove these suppositions. There are thousands of qualified individuals who do not subscribe to your beliefs. the fact that they do not attack NASA with the same veracity that you defend it is obvious, they have little to gain by doing so. This will be my only post to this thread, i just thought it was neccessary to reveal your pretentious,arrogant and false to claim to holding the high ground and authority on the subjects involved. it is clear to me by reading these boards an engaging the persons who frequent them is that no matter what level of proof is presented, you will never concede anything in the Apollo evidence was faked, and that is a fact..

You made a mistake when you made the claim no one who denied Apollo was a real accomplishment is not scientifically qualified to have that opinion, and I make this promise to you here that whether you admit it or not you will be proved wrong.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 07:57:29 PM
I've got a few simple questions for those of you who consider yourselves "conspiracy theorists", "truthers", or "hoax believers".

Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not?

About all that can be said in response to this is a)I don't lie, EVER for any reason,b)I don't pretend to be anything, the pretense is on your part to "know" these things. As time goes on, it will become apparent that you are woefully ill equipped to prove these suppositions. There are thousands of qualified individuals who do not subscribe to your beliefs. the fact that they do not attack NASA with the same veracity that you defend it is obvious, they have little to gain by doing so. This will be my only post to this thread, i just thought it was neccessary to reveal your pretentious,arrogant and false to claim to holding the high ground and authority on the subjects involved. it is clear to me by reading these boards an engaging the persons who frequent them is that no matter what level of proof is presented, you will never concede anything in the Apollo evidence was faked, and that is a fact..

You made a mistake when you made the claim no one who denied Apollo was a real accomplishment is not scientifically qualified to have that opinion, and I make this promise to you here that whether you admit it or not you will be proved wrong.

How do you propose to do that when you refuse to post the evidence you claim to have?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 03, 2015, 08:21:45 PM
Nobody who denies Apollo is scientifically qualified.  At least, the claims they put forward don't show that.  EVERY single hoax claim does not stand up to scrutiny and most reveal extreme scientific ignorance on the part of the person putting it forward.  You may not agree but that is demonstrably the truth.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on February 04, 2015, 04:44:08 AM
I don't lie, EVER for any reason,b)I don't pretend to be anything, the pretense is on your part to "know" these things.

Well...apart from where you said that Armstrong was
a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA
when he spent 37 days touring the world as a representative of NASA after the Apollo 11 landing.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ineluki on February 04, 2015, 11:22:23 AM

You made a mistake when you made the claim no one who denied Apollo was a real accomplishment is not scientifically qualified to have that opinion

To adapt a quote from Star Trek 8:

"Brave words. I've heard them before, from thousands of moonhoaxers across thousands of forums, since long before your account was created."

Show us the ones who you think are qualified...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on February 04, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
...I make this promise to you here that whether you admit it or not you will be proved wrong.

Well, that's a promise you won't be keeping.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on February 04, 2015, 11:39:52 AM
Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not?

So instead of presenting evidence that Apollo was faked, you chose to insult EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD WITH PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS, by calling them liars??

Reported...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on February 04, 2015, 11:51:58 AM
As time goes on, it will become apparent that you are woefully ill equipped to prove these suppositions.


Sorry, but you are confused. The Apollo missions are established historical FACT. We have no need to prove any suppositions.

You keep trying to shift the burden of proof, you need to stop doing that.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on February 04, 2015, 11:56:35 AM
This will be my only post to this thread...

Call those who disagree with you liars, then "run away".

I'm beginning to detect a pattern.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 02:18:28 PM
Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not?
So instead of presenting evidence that Apollo was faked, you chose to insult EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD WITH PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS, by calling them liars??

Reported...
The text you quoted was from LunarOrbit, not Romulus.  I believe the gist of Romulus' response was that he and some number of other hoax-believers  are qualified to interpret the Apollo record.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 02:32:57 PM
It is clear to me by reading these boards an engaging the persons who frequent them is that no matter what level of proof is presented, you will never concede anything in the Apollo evidence was faked, and that is a fact..

Are there levels of proof? What constitutes a proof? Sorry to get philosophical on you, but I am a scientist and I understand the notion of proof. Scientists don't kick down the door and throw their toys because their theories/ideas are not accepted without condition. Who decides your level of proof and its acceptance on the word stage, you? That's not how science works. If your ideas are not accepted by this forum then take them elsewhere. There are people here that are experts in their field, and many people who have a substantial understanding of science and Apollo.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: RAF on February 04, 2015, 02:38:30 PM
Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not?
So instead of presenting evidence that Apollo was faked, you chose to insult EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD WITH PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS, by calling them liars??

Reported...
The text you quoted was from LunarOrbit, not Romulus.  I believe the gist of Romulus' response was that he and some number of other hoax-believers  are qualified to interpret the Apollo record.


Doh.,.need to pay better attention....I blame it on my impending colonoscapy,..,seriously, I'm in the out patient waiting room awaiting the procedure as I speak.,..wish me luck
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 02:43:05 PM
I think we can all agree that is a legitimate excuse.  Good luck.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 04, 2015, 02:50:59 PM

Doh.,.need to pay better attention....I blame it on my impending colonoscapy,..,seriously, I'm in the out patient waiting room awaiting the procedure as I speak.,..wish me luck

Take my best wishes.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 04, 2015, 03:15:39 PM

Doh.,.need to pay better attention....I blame it on my impending colonoscapy,..,seriously, I'm in the out patient waiting room awaiting the procedure as I speak.,..wish me luck

Take my best wishes.

That's not all he's about to take...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 04:02:02 PM
Why do people, like you, feel the need to lie to make your case? Why do you pretend to be engineers, scientists, or doctors when you very clearly are not?
So instead of presenting evidence that Apollo was faked, you chose to insult EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD WITH PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS, by calling them liars??

Reported...
The text you quoted was from LunarOrbit, not Romulus.  I believe the gist of Romulus' response was that he and some number of other hoax-believers  are qualified to interpret the Apollo record.


Doh.,.need to pay better attention....I blame it on my impending colonoscapy,..,seriously, I'm in the out patient waiting room awaiting the procedure as I speak.,..wish me luck
LOL, been there done that. The worst part is the drinking of the gloopy muck beforehand resulting in the world falling out of your bottom. If you are in the waiting room the worst is quite literally behind you.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 11:41:20 PM
Just don't type anything for the record (which is just about everything you post anywhere on the Internet) until the Versed has completely worn off.

When I got home from mine, I had a phone conversation with my parents that later I didn't even remember having. Freaked out my mom, even when I reassured her that amnesia is the expected and desired effect.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ineluki on February 05, 2015, 09:31:29 AM
About all that can be said in response to this is a)I don't lie, EVER for any reason,

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26364#msg26364

I might have believed one additional post after his announcement to leave, but eleven?

Then again, perhaps it was just another example of him not actually understanding the words he was using... as he has demonstrated before

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 10:00:15 AM
Knowing who it is, I wouldn't be surprised if those 11 posts are nothing but insults, vulgarity, racism and antisemitism.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 12:58:44 PM
And the lovely punctuation finally showed. I was waiting for it.

Besides those eleven posts, he's found time to write several long rambling posts at GLP where he describes his great victory over the nest of liars here. Boring even the locals there, who basically ignored him.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 01:11:14 PM
Any links for GLP?  My karma level could use a boost from reporting his vulgarity-infused posts.  You can always count on him for that.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
I just search for "Moon."

Yes -- that is the secret that so befuddles IDW and the like, who think I have top-secret NASA software tracking all their posts. I just drop by every few weeks when I'm really bored, and search for "Moon."

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 01:47:22 PM
I do the same but the search on GLP is horrid.  Sometimes it works and sometimes I've seen threads on the front page not show up in the search.  I'm not finding anything recent with comments from him.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 01:54:13 PM
That's part of the fun, though!

Since IDW is unable to make bookmarks or "open new tab" work, he is utterly dependent on the search function whenever a thread he's trying to post to moves off the first page.

Cuing an immediate round of accusations of censorship and post-hiding and other nefarious efforts to keep him from posting what he could have just put in the last post.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Al Johnston on February 05, 2015, 02:01:02 PM
That's part of the fun, though!

Since IDW is unable to make bookmarks or "open new tab" work, he is utterly dependent on the search function whenever a thread he's trying to post to moves off the first page.

Cuing an immediate round of accusations of censorship and post-hiding and other nefarious efforts to keep him from posting what he could have just put in the last post.

Really?

How does he even turn his computer on?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 05, 2015, 02:03:22 PM
That's part of the fun, though!

Since IDW is unable to make bookmarks or "open new tab" work, he is utterly dependent on the search function whenever a thread he's trying to post to moves off the first page.

Cuing an immediate round of accusations of censorship and post-hiding and other nefarious efforts to keep him from posting what he could have just put in the last post.

Really?

How does he even turn his computer on?

We have to re-enable the power button.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 02:04:55 PM
That's part of the fun, though!

Since IDW is unable to make bookmarks or "open new tab" work, he is utterly dependent on the search function whenever a thread he's trying to post to moves off the first page.

Cuing an immediate round of accusations of censorship and post-hiding and other nefarious efforts to keep him from posting what he could have just put in the last post.
I have noticed that.
It doesn't bother me much because I just go there for humor and rarely post.  I only log into my account to report posts for karma.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 02:08:23 PM
I've been kicked off for months at a time in what I assume are mass IP bannings. I don't even bother to email anymore...just enjoy the time away.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 02:14:23 PM
I've been kicked off a few times too.  Apparently there is a secret list of websites you should never post or you'll be insta-banned but they never bother to tell you those sites.  I just don't post links anymore. 
I also think they occasionally ban random users to try to extort them to pay for a membership.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Humots on February 05, 2015, 05:38:23 PM
I just search for "Moon."

Yes -- that is the secret that so befuddles IDW and the like, who think I have top-secret NASA software tracking all their posts. I just drop by every few weeks when I'm really bored, and search for "Moon."

Did you search body, thread title, or some other way?

Either way, I get a list that is devoid of IDW in any of the incarnations I know.

I usually search on the user name: Interdimensional Warrior, IDW, Anonymous Astrophysicist, AA but I haven't turned up anything by him posted today.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 05:59:47 PM
He is being more and more careful. But he hasn't figured out the thing he really needs to do is lay off the profanity and race-baiting -- those are what gets his posts deleted.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on February 05, 2015, 07:16:55 PM
He is being more and more careful. But he hasn't figured out the thing he really needs to do is lay off the profanity and race-baiting -- those are what gets his posts deleted.
Nothing doing. Post a link, I am disinclined to spend too much time in that cesspit.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 07:21:18 PM
There are a few post from him today here
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2682209/pg20
but without a name.  I haven't found anything along the lines of "several long rambling posts at GLP where he describes his great victory over the nest of liars here. Boring even the locals there, who basically ignored him." but I'd like to see them.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 08:53:14 PM
Mod action there tends to be retroactive; they delete all posts made from the same IP. So his more reasonable (if not actually, you know, employing actual reasoning) posts may have gotten caught in the garbage collection.  He's annoyed enough mods there to be basically shoot-on-sight.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Northern Lurker on February 06, 2015, 04:37:42 PM
Hi again

Thanks for the warm welcome  :)

I hope you are well RAF. I had the whole trinity (colonoscopy, gastroscopy and stomach area ultrasound) in January.

Here is funny and pretty accurate description of said procedure http://singletrackworld.com/2009/02/the-picolax-thread-returns/ (contains toilet humour, you are warned  ;D )

Lurky
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2015, 04:53:55 PM
Hi again

Thanks for the warm welcome  :)

I hope you are well RAF. I had the whole trinity (colonoscopy, gastroscopy and stomach area ultrasound) in January.

Here is funny and pretty accurate description of said procedure http://singletrackworld.com/2009/02/the-picolax-thread-returns/ (contains toilet humour, you are warned  ;D )

Lurky

Ahh..Agent Picolax. One of the funniest threads to ever hit the Interwebs  ;D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on February 06, 2015, 05:34:25 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/moseisleyGLP.jpg)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on February 12, 2015, 04:51:16 PM
Kicked off GLP again. For tweaking IDW's tail.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 14, 2015, 03:32:18 AM
Kicked off GLP again. For tweaking IDW's tail.

You're a very naughty boy.

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 14, 2015, 09:14:39 AM
Kicked off GLP again. For tweaking IDW's tail.
Were you told that was the reason?  Because the mods don't typically care about that.

The only things I've seen get people banned are threats of violence, excessive vulgarity and racism, posting links to banned sites (autoban that takes effect immediately before the post even gets posted.  As far as I can tell only the mods know all the  sites that are banned.  Above Top Secret and JREF are definitely two of them) and the supposed random ISP bans where they claim to block a range of IPs due to attacks on the forum.  I personally think most of their bans are designed to extort money by trying to force people into paid memberships.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on February 15, 2015, 07:14:16 AM

The only things I've seen get people banned are threats of violence, excessive vulgarity and racism,

How does IDW get away with not being banned?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 15, 2015, 07:24:11 AM

How does IDW get away with not being banned?

A good question. But I think, he shouldn't be banned. He has something of a comedic approach, because each single post makes me laugh. And on the other hand he shows precisely, how supporting the hoax idea doesn't work.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 07:43:15 AM
A good question. But I think, he shouldn't be banned. He has something of a comedic approach, because each single post makes me laugh. And on the other hand he shows precisely, how supporting the hoax idea doesn't work.

That's how I feel, providing standards of decency are not compromised. For example, LO posted that a member was banned here for trying to post images of the Boston bombing victims. Clearly not in good taste.

With awe130 and Romulus, the longer they were allowed to post, the more it exposed how ludicrous they were. I think all of us were adult enough and smart enough to rebuff petty insults. I am of the opinion that as long as those insults remain petty and we can continue cross examination of claims then it shows their ilk for what they are. It really is about us being gracious and ignoring 'slanderous' remarks. I do on occasions resort to sarcasm, but that's me (and yes, I do sometimes get on my high horse about Blunder, but after his threats toward me I kind of get a little bit agitated when I hear his name.)

Even when the postings get more extreme I don't think it should be an immediate ban hammer. I give a perfect example of what happened on British TV where Nick Griffin was invited onto BBC Question Time. Nick Griffin is a British Nationalist. There was a huge debate whether he should be allowed to speak on BBC. I for one thought it was a no brainer as it would show him for the bigot he was. Sure enough, he was outed as being an absurd little man and support for the BNP dwindled after his appearance.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Zakalwe on February 15, 2015, 08:17:36 AM
Even when the postings get more extreme I don't think it should be an immediate ban hammer. I give a perfect example of what happened on British TV where Nick Griffin was invited onto BBC Question Time. Nick Griffin is a British Nationalist. There was a huge debate whether he should be allowed to speak on BBC. I for one thought it was a no brainer as it would show him for the bigot he was. Sure enough, he was outed as being an absurd little man and support for the BNP dwindled after his appearance.

Absolutely. This is why free speech is so important. Censoring idiots like Griffin only allows then to build a base by whispering about censorship and being against "The Man". The Qestion Time program is a fine example as that was a turning point for the growth of the BNP. Following that program their descent back into the ooze was pretty rapid.

I only hope that Farage follows the same fate.



(and with apologies to LO....I'm not intending to hijack the thread into a political debate).
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: frenat on February 15, 2015, 09:04:49 AM

The only things I've seen get people banned are threats of violence, excessive vulgarity and racism,

How does IDW get away with not being banned?
He does get banned.  Often.  At least that is the impression he gives.  He'll come back every day with a different ID number showing he's connecting through a different IP address.  He claims he gets banned often but nobody except the mods knows for sure.  It could be IDW trying to play the martyr.  It is possible the mods are banning him for comedic value too.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 09:13:26 AM
I only hope that Farage follows the same fate.
I have seen the video you posted, and agree with your sentiments regarding Farage. The man is a hypocrite.

Quote
(and with apologies to LO....I'm not intending to hijack the thread into a political debate).

I agree. Let us self-moderate and leave the Farage debate here. In context of the conspiracy theorists the political analogy is a good one. Allowing extreme views to be aired does not hinder their liberty, free speech and the right to self expression, but it serves our purpose of 'showing them up' for what they are.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 02, 2015, 08:15:00 AM
The bit I don't get about these idiots is how that they can believe, fully believe no questions asked, that a hell of a lot of people can 'lie' about the Moon landings....for the rest of their lives.

There was what 400 000 people employed in the Apollo programme in one way or another? Lets  say for arguments sake that 5000 of them in a position to know, without doubt 100%, that its 'was a big hoax' and not a single person has come forward and 'blown the whistle' apart from one technical writer, with no Engineering or scientific experience whatsoever (so he wouldn't know scheisse from shinola so to speak), Kaysing I do believe!

That means that every single Astronaut lied, every one from Mercury right up to the present day. They lied to the Media, the Public, and to their wives and children (if applicable). Every one! Not a single one told his wife, or if they did then the wives are also fantastic liars, even those that later divorced and had no more reason to keep the lie going. Or maybe they 'confessed' to their kids but luck would have it that their kids are all happy and accomplished liars too...plausible?

Then there's not just the Technical, Engineering and Scientific senior managers (whom are expected to lie....well they're NASA aren't they?...or Grumman or Rocketdyne or ...etc. etc. etc.) but the junior Engineers, Scientists and Technical people those with the brains to actually know that what they were doing was just a sham even if they weren't told. Not a single one of them has come forward either! Not a single one has said' "well this or that definitely wouldn't have worked because..."

How do these people actually believe 100% that so many people could actually hold such a massive lie forever! Perhaps it's because they can actually tell lies themselves simply and fluidly, as easy as breathing each breath, with no remorse, no guilt, no shame. And perhaps they perceive it to be a normal 'state of affairs' so everyone else, without fail, is a habitual (and very, very, very, accomplished) lair themselves.

Idiots every last one!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 02, 2015, 08:22:26 AM
Kaysing was out (fired or quit?) already in 1963, so he wasn't in a position to know anything.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ineluki on April 02, 2015, 09:16:43 AM
The bit I don't get about these idiots is how that they can believe, fully believe no questions asked,

Putting it nicely: I think the remaining Hoaxbelievers simply can't grasp how obvious "their" fake would be and how many people actually would know about.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 02, 2015, 09:22:26 AM
The bit I don't get about these idiots is how that they can believe, fully believe no questions asked,

Putting it nicely: I think the remaining Hoaxbelievers simply can't grasp how obvious "their" fake would be and how many people actually would know about.

Yep that's just what I was trying to say ;-)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2015, 10:31:50 AM
Kaysing was out (fired or quit?) already in 1963, so he wasn't in a position to know anything.

Quit.  Kaysing sent a press kit to Phil Plait years ago, who forwarded it to me.  It contains a document from Boeing (by that time the parent company of Rocketdyne) outlining Kaysing's employment record.  He quit for "personal reasons."

But I agree that by 1963 not enough had been done at Rocketdyne on Apollo to substantiate Kaysing's claim to be an important insider.  Plus, he worked as a member of a four-man documentation team in a field office, not as an engineer or designer or "Head of Advanced Research," as some highly ignorant conspiracy theorists have titled him.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
But I agree that by 1963 not enough had been done at Rocketdyne on Apollo to substantiate Kaysing's claim to be an important insider. Plus, he worked as a member of a four-man documentation team in a field office, not as an engineer or designer or "Head of Advanced Research," as some highly ignorant conspiracy theorists have titled him.

Kaysing was truly ignorant. I think my understanding is correct:

Kaysing claimed that Rocketdyne could not solve the pogo problem. Pogo is more of a problem of vibrations along the rocket body - right? The only real problem that Kaysing could be aware of was the injector plate/fuel instability problem. Had the F1s been developed far enough by 1963 for Kaysing to know about the fuel instability.

If not, it is clear that he was chucking around technical jargon in hindsight and being a Mitty character in the process.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on April 02, 2015, 01:23:41 PM
The pogo problem is uneven thrust causing flexing of the fuel lines, causing uneven fuel flow, causing uneven thrust - and if the system has a resonance frequency equal to or close to the thrust oscillations, it's going to fail.

One problem - I don't remember which engine - only showed up in flight, because on static testing, the flexing fuel line was covered in ice, making in inflexible. In actual flight, the forces on the fuel  line was so strong, the ice fell off. Once the fuel line had been replaced with a stiffer tube, the pogo oscillations were within safe levels.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2015, 01:57:33 PM
Pogo is a phenomenon that couples propellant flow to vehicle body elasticity.  So yes, it occurs only in a fully erected rocket and can be detected only there.  It can be initiated by vehicle response to any load, including propulsion and aerodynamic flight loads.  But it manifests itself in anomalies in propellant flow, caused -- as Allan F said -- by the mechanical behavior of the propellant feed system.  Longitudinal propellant line runs, for example, can set up columns of propellant that act inertially to slosh within the lines.  In the pump's inertial reference frame, this translates to unacceptable fluctuations in head pressure that cannot be smoothed out.  This in turn creates unsteady thrust that often amplifies the inertial behavior of the propellant.  The problem becomes a divergent feedback loop that can result in large-amplitude vibration and failure at the thrust-bearing structures.

Combustion instability arising from engine misbehavior can also initiate pogo.  But the type of instability encountered early in the F-1 development was of the standing-wave type that does not result in long-duration thrust anomalies.  Instead it created hot spots in the thrust chamber that violated its thermal design criteria and allowed the thrust chamber to rupture under pressure.

Pogo is not generally corrected by engine design exercises.  Corrective actions are inevitably applied to the propellant feed system and/or the vehicle structure design.  Detuning procedures minimize the coupling of resonances.  Accumulators along the propellant lines absorb pressure fluctuations.  Judicious routing of propellant lines minimize long stretches of inertially-affected flow.

Combustion instability is corrected solely in engine design.  In the case of the F-1, a change of management ensued which more effectively applied engineering resources.  The engineering solution developed included novel baffling patterns on the injector face and more stable impingement patterns.  These changes occurred after Kaysing left Rocketdyne, although he was still employed there when the standing-wave combustion instability problems were encountered.  He is not therefore an authority on the nature and effectiveness of the solutions implemented 1963-1966.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
Thank you both your considered replies (Jay and Allan). I was aware of some of the things you both wrote, but I certainly go away more educated on pogo and fuel instability.

It is clear that Kaysing was using terms he did not understand to sound erudite, and attributed those problems in a hand waving fashion. I'm sure that Jay has dealt with the Kaysing pogo claim before.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2015, 02:29:53 PM
Yes, here:  http://www.clavius.org/techsvpogo.html

I responded to Bennett and Percy's formulation of the claim, which they borrowed from Kaysing.  As you note, Kaysing was using words he did not understand, and the Dark Moon authors didn't know any better.  Incidentally I had a professor in the aerospace engineering department of some university (in Georgia, I believe) ask permission to use this Clavius article in his lectures on propellant system design.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2015, 03:02:33 PM
Yes, here:  http://www.clavius.org/techsvpogo.html

I responded to Bennett and Percy's formulation of the claim, which they borrowed from Kaysing.  As you note, Kaysing was using words he did not understand, and the Dark Moon authors didn't know any better.  Incidentally I had a professor in the aerospace engineering department of some university (in Georgia, I believe) ask permission to use this Clavius article in his lectures on propellant system design.

Yes, I knew I had read about the pogo claim at Clavius  :) Anyway, my point being that when Kaysing left Rocketdyne there was no Saturn V so there was no pogo problem (yet). It does make me smile to think that because there were teething problems with the F1 it meant that NASA couldn't meet their goal. Does every engineering project go smoothly without glitches, or was Apollo the only one that ran into insurmountable problems?  ::)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: smartcooky on April 02, 2015, 03:19:44 PM
Plus, he worked as a member of a four-man documentation team in a field office, not as an engineer or designer or "Head of Advanced Research," as some highly ignorant conspiracy theorists have titled him.

I worked as a document writer at RAF Sealand when I was on exchange with the RAF in 1988.

The system I worked on was Stage 1 of the Marconi AI24 Foxhunter radar that was to be installed in the Panavia Tornado F3 (ADV).  All I ever saw were parts of the tech manuals including aircraft wiring diagrams, circuit diagrams, block/flow diagrams, exploded component views and line drawings of the system's "black boxes" and their mounting trays.

I'm posting this to give readers a real-life, personal example of the limits of the knowledge of a document writer; you get to know a lot about the tiny part of the whole that you are responsible for, and that is all. I never actually saw a real Foxhunter radar set or any of its components; I know that it had two modes of operation and had separate IF receivers for each mode; Frequency Modulated Interrupted Continuous Wave (FMICW) mode and Pulse mode with Surface Acoustic Wave compression, but I could not tell you anything about the Tornado F3, its combat roles, its performance capabilities or its flight characteristics. I saw one flying once at RAF Waddington, but it was not fitted with a radar, it was fitted with a large lump of concrete inside the nose radome as ballast (known as "Blue Circle" radar, only our British members are likely to get that little joke).

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 02, 2015, 03:37:39 PM
I think of pogo as an (undesired) mechanical oscillator.

Thrust increases a little, which also increases acceleration.
The increased acceleration increases propellant pressure at the turbopump inlets.
The increased pressure increases the propellant flow rate.
The increased flow rate increases thrust.

This vicious circle repeats until a limit is reached, e.g, on flow rate through the pumps. Then it continues:

Thrust decreases a little, decreasing acceleration.
Propellant flow rate decreases.
Thrust decreases.

And this repeats until a lower limit is reached. Thrust thus oscillates, possibly very rapidly and in an extreme way that could destroy an engine or at least tear it out of its thrust mounting.

A static test of a rocket engine can't simulate the changing longitudinal accelerations and the resulting fuel pressure fluctuations of pogo, so the problem has to be solved mainly through analysis and modeling. The only other way is an expensive flight test.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 02, 2015, 03:47:16 PM
Thinking more about it, I suppose it might be possible to design a static test stand that could simulate pogo. You'd measure engine thrust and vary the propellant inlet pressures to simulate their responses to the increased thrust.

You'd have to do this very quickly. You might control the pump inlet pressures by changing the pressurization in the (fixed) propellant tanks, but I can't imagine how you'd do that at a few dozen hertz. And this would not simulate any change in momentum of the propellants already flowing through the lines, or the dynamic response of the vehicle structure that can oscillate like an accordion.

I guess computer modeling has gotten good enough to resolve pogo in the design phase so there's no real need for ground testing. If not, it'll usually come out in the early flight tests.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2015, 03:51:34 PM
Analysis or flight test or both.  This was the Aries-1 dilemma.  Analysis, chiefly via FEA, showed longitudinal oscillations (in this case purely structural, since it was a solid-fueled vehicle).  But the lack of FEA convergence couldn't be assertively attributed to actual mechanical properties or to the natural instability of FEA models.  So the only option was a flight test, which was nominally successful.

As for problems cropping up in development, there's a maxim that says if you don't run into problems in development, you're not engineering hard enough.  Which is a pithy way of saying that in order to make something of sufficient value to be notable or profitable, you have to bite off enough of a problem to make it unsure whether you're going to get there without difficulty.  That was the spirit of Apollo.  They were biting off huge problems, and the notion that they would get there without incident or serious difficulty is a gross misunderstanding of what engineering development is.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 02, 2015, 03:55:15 PM
Exactly. One of my company's founders put the same idea in a slightly different way:

"If you haven't tested it, it doesn't work!"
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 02, 2015, 03:55:24 PM
You'd have to do this very quickly. You might control the pump inlet pressures by changing the pressurization in the (fixed) propellant tanks, but I can't imagine how you'd do that at a few dozen hertz.

You put an accumulator on the propellant line and vary the pressure of the gas bubble using a cylinder or other variable-volume apparatus connected to the top of the accumulator.  You can use a roller cam, or a set of them, to quickly actuate the piston or bellows or whatever.  I've even seen rotating eccentrics used for this in lower-pressure applications.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
That was the spirit of Apollo.  They were biting off huge problems, and the notion that they would get there without incident or serious difficulty is a gross misunderstanding of what engineering development is.

I'm not an engineer, but the argument that the problems they encountered is evidence that the success of Apollo was prohibitive can be easily countered:

'They were building something that was going to the Moon, it's not like dusting crops.'
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 02, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
You put an accumulator on the propellant line and vary the pressure of the gas bubble using a cylinder or other variable-volume apparatus connected to the top of the accumulator.
Why didn't I think of this? I know that a helium gas accumulator was used to damp pogo in the S-IC, so it makes sense that one could also be modulated to deliberately create it in a test.

I suppose you could also use the same thrust mounting as on the actual vehicle to let the engine move as it would in flight. This would reproduce the dynamic part of the acceleration on the engine itself, though the static acceleration would still be 1g. To change that, you'd need a big-ass centrifuge...

Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2015, 04:07:01 PM
Is it true that when they fixed the fuel instability problem but the engineers were stilla little baffled by how it was caused in the first place? I understand injector plate designs based on what they believed would work were developed, but the actual cause was unknown (if that makes sense). I picked up this snippet in a BBC docudrama, but I find it hard to believe that the engineers just kept changing designs in the hope that they'd find something that worked.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 02, 2015, 04:26:12 PM
I think that's right; they simply didn't have the tools to really understand what was happening inside the combustion chamber.

I do know that combustion instabilities can be very difficult to fix largely because they can be intermittent and/or rare, and thus never occur in ground testing or even in numerous flight tests. The amateur radio satellite group I'm involved with lost a spacecraft in 1980 on the Ariane L-02 flight due to a combustion instability in a first-stage engine. The first test flight was perfect, but it only carried a dummy payload because nobody wanted to risk theirs on an untried rocket.

I think the F-1 engineers devised a method to initiate an instability by firing small explosive charges in the combustion chamber. I can't imagine how they did that.

Here's some footage of an Atlas with serious combustion instability problems. Note the left booster engine in the second camera view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I55LkRz3Gok
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 02, 2015, 04:42:16 PM
I think the F-1 engineers devised a method to initiate an instability by firing small explosive charges in the combustion chamber. I can't imagine how they did that.

That's right. I understand the idea was that if the F1 carried on working after the explosive charge was set off, then they could be certain that they had solved the instability.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ka9q on April 02, 2015, 04:51:36 PM
In electrical engineering terms, they conducted an "impulse response" test. I've done many as an EE, but never have I generated the impulse with an explosive...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gwiz on April 03, 2015, 05:23:19 AM
How do these people actually believe 100% that so many people could actually hold such a massive lie forever! Perhaps it's because they can actually tell lies themselves simply and fluidly, as easy as breathing each breath, with no remorse, no guilt, no shame. And perhaps they perceive it to be a normal 'state of affairs' so everyone else, without fail, is a habitual (and very, very, very, accomplished) lair themselves.
I seem to remember a psychological survey that showed that conspiracy theorists were indeed more likely than average to resort to underhand methods.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 03, 2015, 05:31:10 AM
I forget which one of them it is, but at least one of these fraudsters routinely describes himself, and consequently gets described, as a 'NASA Consultant'.

The inference from this for people who don't think too hard about it is that he is employed in some capacity by NASA, when in fact the correct interpretation is that he is consulted by people about NASA. I could also describe myself as a NASA consultant, because when people on the internet ask questions about NASA, I answer them.

This does not means I have any connection with NASA, nor does it mean that my answers are necessarily correct.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2015, 05:42:03 AM
I forget which one of them it is, but at least one of these fraudsters routinely describes himself, and consequently gets described, as a 'NASA Consultant'.

Ralph Rene. You'll find the explanation here, but I've quoted the material below to save you visiting the site.

http://ralphrene.com/biography.html

Over a decade ago, the Rand Corporation contacted him pleading for contributions of free inventions or thoughts relating to space for NASA.  Two years later he received from the superintendent a free, full sized, thick, glossy page, full color NASA propaganda document.  To his complete surprise he found his name printed in the middle of page A-51.  To deserve this questionable honor, at least one of his ideas had to pass three sequential screening committees. By intonation this listing made it seem that he was a booster of a NASA's manned Mars mission.

If I recall, NASA did not contact him personally, it was a general invite for ideas and Ralph replied. Ralph does have two patents so he wasn't quite a useless sack of sorry DNA. I understand that being a patent holder would have led to him being 'invited' to put forward ideas as the RAND communication ramped up mass mailing from data searches of the patent records.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2015, 11:45:02 AM
Is it true that when they fixed the fuel instability problem but the engineers were stilla little baffled by how it was caused in the first place? I understand injector plate designs based on what they believed would work were developed, but the actual cause was unknown (if that makes sense). I picked up this snippet in a BBC docudrama, but I find it hard to believe that the engineers just kept changing designs in the hope that they'd find something that worked.

There was very little theory in combustion mechanics through the 1950s and 1960s.  Quite a lot of it was trial and error.  There were at least a half-dozen baffle-plate candidates and three different orifice ratios and impingements that made it to the construction stage.  Today we understand a great deal more, but our FEA systems are still not at the point where we can do a full-up, accurate fluid-dynamics simulation of what happens inside a thrust chamber.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2015, 12:01:06 PM
Why didn't I think of this? I know that a helium gas accumulator was used to damp pogo in the S-IC, so it makes sense that one could also be modulated to deliberately create it in a test.

Yep, and that's how it's tested.  Propellant pressure and flow fluctuations cause other problems such as cracks in delicate structures like flow liners.  This happened on the orbiters in the early 2000s due to unforeseen interactions between the LPFT blade tips and the propellant line walls.  We were one of the FEA contractors for that research, and it resulted in design changes to the flow liner.  But the resulting liner design has to go through rounds of qualification testing at operating temperature with the pressure fluctuating at various ranges of frequencies.

It's also how they create vibrato on a pipe organ.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2015, 12:07:47 PM
Rene's patents are small and reasonably ingenious but don't require any great scientific or mechanical knowledge.  One, for example, is a brazing torch for soldering pipe joints.  It's a tube in the shape of a shepherd's crook having several jets of flame on the inside of the hook.  It applies heat evenly to the entire circumference of the joint and, more importantly, does not direct heat at nearby structures like walls.  They're straightforward and likely born from necessity.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 03, 2015, 12:16:58 PM
I saw a programme on YT last night with Rene and Kaysing, and JayUtah too (younger than I thought you were!..either that or you've 'aged' well!) ! I have never actually seen either before and known it was them (I did see Rene on Penn & Teller's BS! a long while back but didn't know who he was back then!) They both come across as a bit dim if you ask me, anyone who seriously puts forward the 'C' rock as a viable argument is not 'all there'!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on April 03, 2015, 12:30:05 PM
That program was made about 10 years ago, but also I do tend to look younger than I am.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: geo7863 on April 03, 2015, 12:51:18 PM
Jay have you ever met Rene, Kaysing, Sibrel or any of the other dyed in the wool Hoaxers in the flesh and 'debated' their views?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2015, 01:41:46 PM
Rene's patents are small and reasonably ingenious but don't require any great scientific or mechanical knowledge.  One, for example, is a brazing torch for soldering pipe joints.  It's a tube in the shape of a shepherd's crook having several jets of flame on the inside of the hook.  It applies heat evenly to the entire circumference of the joint and, more importantly, does not direct heat at nearby structures like walls.  They're straightforward and likely born from necessity.

The other patent is a variable pitched roof bracket. As you suggest, they're hardly technology changers. It would be interesting to know the approach of the RAND corporation. I'm guessing they may have been involved in some sort of technology seeding. I'm sure that Ralph claimed that they were a CIA front.  ???
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on April 03, 2015, 01:51:18 PM
I did see Rene on Penn & Teller's BS! a long while back but didn't know who he was back then!

Blunder Boy has a tape recording of a phone call he had with Ralph and discusses how P&T made him out to look a bit stupid. Ralph sounded a bit deflated when Jarrah fed him this information. I'm not even sure Ralph had watched the episode given his reaction. Maybe he realised after the film crew had gone that he had been set up and was about to made to look an idiot. I think the P&T researchers were fairly ruthless and knew exactly what they'd get from Ralph.

I cannot remember if it was Blunder or Ralph who said they picked the choice cuts to make him look stupid. Personally, if you're going to be interviewed by P&T, then you're either going to be involved in some magic or they're going to extract urine, and if you're Ralph Rene, you're going to look pretty stupid no matter what you say. P&T didn't really need a lot of help with cutting out the tenderloin, Ralph managed to do a good job of shooting himself in the foot by simply opening his mouth.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Count Zero on April 03, 2015, 10:02:54 PM
How do these people actually believe 100% that so many people could actually hold such a massive lie forever! Perhaps it's because they can actually tell lies themselves simply and fluidly, as easy as breathing each breath, with no remorse, no guilt, no shame. And perhaps they perceive it to be a normal 'state of affairs' so everyone else, without fail, is a habitual (and very, very, very, accomplished) lair themselves.
I seem to remember a psychological survey that showed that conspiracy theorists were indeed more likely than average to resort to underhand methods.

It was a study by Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology.
Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x/abstract)

Here is an article about the study that summarizes it well:
One Surprising Reason People May Believe Bizarre Conspiracy Theories (http://www.alternet.org/story/150730/one_surprising_reason_people_may_believe_bizarre_conspiracy_theories)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on July 17, 2015, 08:18:58 AM
I did see Rene on Penn & Teller's BS! a long while back but didn't know who he was back then!

Blunder Boy has a tape recording of a phone call he had with Ralph and discusses how P&T made him out to look a bit stupid. Ralph sounded a bit deflated when Jarrah fed him this information. I'm not even sure Ralph had watched the episode given his reaction. Maybe he realised after the film crew had gone that he had been set up and was about to made to look an idiot. I think the P&T researchers were fairly ruthless and knew exactly what they'd get from Ralph.

I cannot remember if it was Blunder or Ralph who said they picked the choice cuts to make him look stupid. Personally, if you're going to be interviewed by P&T, then you're either going to be involved in some magic or they're going to extract urine, and if you're Ralph Rene, you're going to look pretty stupid no matter what you say. P&T didn't really need a lot of help with cutting out the tenderloin, Ralph managed to do a good job of shooting himself in the foot by simply opening his mouth.
I hadn't seen that videoed conversation, just the one involving the Apollo 1 fire, unless they were parts of the same conversation.  Rene, came across as knowing bits of facts generally associated with the fire that Jarrah appeared not to know.  After viewing that series I like you try to avoid any of his videos.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on July 17, 2015, 06:50:45 PM
I ignore Jarrah generally, simply because he appears to be publishing only to feed his ego.  Specifically, most conspiracy theorists tacitly write so as to portray the authors of the conventional narrative as evil and oppressive.  Hence most conspiracy rhetoric tilts quite noticeably toward that vilification.  Jarrah goes beyond that to vilify the skeptic debunkers personally.  His arguments, where he's not careful, simply devolve into "getting" his critics at all costs, regardless of whether the proffered rhetoric has anything to do with Apollo.  That approach historically signals someone trying to make his reputation at the expense of others, regardless of topic.  Witness his attacks on Adam Savage and Phil Plait.  I have given him two opportunities to debate me directly, and he ended both by foaming at the mouth so badly the moderators stepped in.  All that spells a situation made only worse by giving him attention.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: 12oh2alarm on July 29, 2015, 04:43:30 AM
I have given him [Blunder] two opportunities to debate me directly, and he ended both by foaming at the mouth so badly the moderators stepped in.  All that spells a situation made only worse by giving him attention.
Is any of that available to read or hear on the 'net?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Allan F on July 29, 2015, 06:30:09 AM
I have given him [Blunder] two opportunities to debate me directly, and he ended both by foaming at the mouth so badly the moderators stepped in.  All that spells a situation made only worse by giving him attention.
Is any of that available to read or hear on the 'net?

You can find some of it on imdb.com - look up "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". And look in the discussion section.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on July 29, 2015, 11:11:41 AM
You can find some of it on imdb.com - look up "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". And look in the discussion section.

The subtext being that after his shellacking he went back and deleted many of his comments, ostensibly to make it harder to follow the discussion.  I assume that's so he could go back to his loyal fans and credibly make up whatever story he wanted to about why he abandoned the debate.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on July 29, 2015, 12:13:39 PM
The subtext being that after his shellacking he went back and deleted many of his comments, ostensibly to make it harder to follow the discussion.  I assume that's so he could go back to his loyal fans and credibly make up whatever story he wanted to about why he abandoned the debate.

Of course, once he comprehended the context (not content) of his shellacking, he accused you of asking an impossible question - How he could possibly correlate proton data pre-GOES (1976). I mention this every time the IMDb discussion is raised, not because my needle is stuck or because I want to raise it for the sake of raising it. I raise it as Jarrah lurks here and I want to keep reminding him:

(a) Why did it take him so long to go back and come back with his objection? (answer - because he couldn't find the answer using Google.)
(b) He would find the answer on Google if he had the knowledge (I did).
(c) How can he prove proton correlation if there is no data pre-1976 (he cannot have his cake and eat it)?
(d) Does he actually realise that proton data exist pre-1976, so why is he asking you that question?
(e) Does he actually know that one does not need a satellite to obtain proton data?
(f) When he tried an integrated dose calculation he still did not understand the concept of calculus.

He won't answer these questions, but once he does he'll just dig a deeper hole that shows his incompetence.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on July 29, 2015, 01:11:28 PM
Of course, once he comprehended the context (not content) of his shellacking, he accused you of asking an impossible question...

Of course, "impossible" because he couldn't figure out how to answer it.

Quote
(a) Why did it take him so long to go back and come back with his objection? (answer - because he couldn't find the answer using Google.)
(b) He would find the answer on Google if he had the knowledge (I did).

That's part of my debate philosophy.  When a proponent presents an argument that embodies a pretense to expertise, I ask questions that require knowledge, not facts.  You can Google for facts, but you can't Google for knowledge.  You either have it or you don't, and the only way to get it is to do real work in the field and make mistakes in it.  If you don't have the appropriate knowledge, then you don't get to say that everyone in the profession is wrong and you're right.  Jarrah can whine all he wants that I'm being unfair, or that his teacher didn't catch his mistakes, or that we should excuse any other situation in which his incompetence has been revealed.  But my ears are deaf to that; he's taking on the fields of astrophysics and aerospace and calling them liars, and he can expect no quarter.

Quote
(c) How can he prove proton correlation if there is no data pre-1976 (he cannot have his cake and eat it)?
(d) Does he actually realise that proton data exist pre-1976, so why is he asking you that question?
(e) Does he actually know that one does not need a satellite to obtain proton data?

As with most conspiracy theorists who attempt the science, he applies only a cargo-cult level of reasoning toward these measurements and their understanding throughout history.  For heaven's sake, we have solar emission data from the Victorian era.  His inability to determine how such things were known prior to the modern satellite measurements is simply an example of that cargo-cult mentality.  At some point people who deploy that kind of argument have to realize how feeble it will be in the real world.  I interpret Jarrah's unwillingness to defend his findings to qualified experts as his admission to that realization.

Quote
(f) When he tried an integrated dose calculation he still did not understand the concept of calculus.

And that's why it's laughable for him to claim to be studying astrophysics.  It's one thing to botch a calculus computation for some trivial reason.  It's another thing altogether to be unable to display any understanding whatsoever of what calculus is and why it's necessary to a correct understanding of the properties of the physical world.  Someone who is entirely oblivious to the concept of calculus will have no success whatsoever in the study of most physical sciences beyond the high school level.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on July 29, 2015, 03:01:41 PM
As I've said before, I never took calculus, and while I've taken high school physics, there are excellent reasons that none of us really learned anything in the class.  This is why I don't try to overturn science; I'm simply not qualified.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on July 29, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
I stopped one step higher than you in science, but with the same results.  I was more interested in the engineering aspects, not of the science.  It is good to be around those that carried on beyond my learning to fill in some of the gaps.

EDIT:
Added: science
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on July 29, 2015, 04:31:32 PM
As I've said before, I never took calculus, and while I've taken high school physics, there are excellent reasons that none of us really learned anything in the class.  This is why I don't try to overturn science; I'm simply not qualified.

Exactly. There's lot of reasons I didn't try to become a painter, dancer, photographer, musician, singer, footballer, rugby player, cricketer... add to the list as you wish. I was much more naturally talented at maths, chemistry and physics, and also had a natural interest/talent. I quite enjoy reading history now. I find when I enjoy something I'll work at it. With my list, I worked out them but just got no better, so stopped enjoying them (this is all a statement of the obvious really).
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on July 29, 2015, 04:39:45 PM
That's part of my debate philosophy.  When a proponent presents an argument that embodies a pretense to expertise, I ask questions that require knowledge, not facts.

I've noticed  ;D

In the dark parts of the internet where you'll find the most wretched hive of scum and villainy, those that call you Liar Windley bemoan this philosophy with their banshee cries that 'Windley just asks questions, he debates unfairly, he never addresses our claims.'

I'm not sure they understand the idea of examination by viva voce. If you've got a thesis, then it's going to be examined with a rigorous cross examination.

If they don't like the grill setting then they can get out of the kitchen. :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: dwight on July 29, 2015, 05:01:04 PM
Yeah, but can you find most of the best pilots in the darkest parts of the internet. That is what matters most, of course I understand one must be cautious.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on August 11, 2015, 11:29:04 PM
That's part of my debate philosophy.  When a proponent presents an argument that embodies a pretense to expertise, I ask questions that require knowledge, not facts.

I've noticed  ;D

In the dark parts of the internet where you'll find the most wretched hive of scum and villainy, those that call you Liar Windley bemoan this philosophy with their banshee cries that 'Windley just asks questions, he debates unfairly, he never addresses our claims.'

I'm not sure they understand the idea of examination by viva voce. If you've got a thesis, then it's going to be examined with a rigorous cross examination.

If they don't like the grill setting then they can get out of the kitchen. :)
I just finished reading a couple of threads at the Education Forum.  It seems that Jack White and Duane Daman sure have poisoned the water concerning Jay.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on August 12, 2015, 09:49:35 AM
I just finished reading a couple of threads at the Education Forum.  It seems that Jack White and Duane Daman sure have poisoned the water concerning Jay.

Vitriol is all they had, and I think they know it.  White called me an "ignorant a--hole" and threatened to sue me for libel for challenging his Apollo claims.  Yet he rarely ventured outside of any of his walled gardens.  As I'm sure you're aware, I cover a few of White's bellwether claims on the Clavius site.  He really had no skill whatsoever in photographic analysis.  But the sheer proportion of bluster White and his congregants relied upon makes their shrill complaints from their self-imposed exiles pretty comical.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on August 12, 2015, 10:02:15 AM
I just finished reading a couple of threads at the Education Forum.  It seems that Jack White and Duane Daman sure have poisoned the water concerning Jay.

Vitriol is all they had, and I think they know it.  White called me an "ignorant a--hole" and threatened to sue me for libel for challenging his Apollo claims.  Yet he rarely ventured outside of any of his walled gardens.  As I'm sure you're aware, I cover a few of White's bellwether claims on the Clavius site.  He really had no skill whatsoever in photographic analysis.  But the sheer proportion of bluster White and his congregants relied upon makes their shrill complaints from their self-imposed exiles pretty comical.
I NEVER have seen him defend any position he took.  Just saying "My work speaks for itself".  There was  James Fetzer, who I'm speculating, was being given post hints to continue the debate.  Classic use of words, that required my checking the dictionary to their meanings!  BLUSTER, IMO
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: JayUtah on August 12, 2015, 11:35:55 AM
I NEVER have seen him defend any position he took.  Just saying "My work speaks for itself".

That is a symptom of living too long in a walled garden.  White surrounded himself with fanboys who took his every word as gospel.  Under those circumstances it's not hard to acquire the mistaken belief that one merely has to say something and it thereby acquires the status of fact.

That's why I'm glad to be here.  When I make a mistake, a half dozen people on my side spring up and say, "No, Jay, I don't think that's right."  Other days it's someone else's turn to be mistaken.  This is how good work gets done.  When each person feels individual pressure to be right, making a mistake has emotional-investment consequences.  When there's a team mentality and a process (even informal) for reviewing propositions and correcting mistakes, the end result is more robust and requires less face-saving.  Engineering practice, in its purest form, is a group of skilled people executing a process of proposal, review, and analysis.  Individual mistakes and missteps occur along the way, but if a problem arises in the final product then the process is what went wrong.  It behooves the engineering team to discover how an error escaped the process designed to catch and correct it, not to point fingers at individuals.

Quote
There was  James Fetzer, who I'm speculating, was being given post hints to continue the debate.

Fetzer is another character altogether.  He made some hoax claims, and when I challenged him years ago to debate them he said he had no time to waste debating someone who didn't have a PhD.  (I guess a lifetime spent building aircraft and spacecraft professionally doesn't qualify me to stand in his glorious presence and talk about his claims relating to space flight.)  Fetzer's bluster is purely academic -- and literally so.  His entire career has been teaching esoteric philosophy of science in a backwater college.  He has no practical expertise in nearly anything that affects his claims, especially his hoax claims.  Fetzer showed up to JREF (now ISF) a year or so ago.  When I pressed him to assert whether or not he still believed in hoaxed Apollo missions, he evaded the question for weeks and then finally gave a perfunctory handwaving reference to a relatively obscure website author (one who basically just copied the Aulis authors) and told me that was all I needed to know about it.

He is clearly unwilling and unable to defend his Apollo hoax claims, but he still lists them on his own web site as something he apparently endorses.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Abaddon on August 12, 2015, 03:01:11 PM
IIRC, fetzer's PhD is in the philosophy of science. That hardly qualifies him to propound on hard science or engineering.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on August 12, 2015, 03:35:13 PM
IIRC, fetzer's PhD is in the philosophy of science. That hardly qualifies him to propound on hard science or engineering.
He did not have many facts for sure just the information that seemed to be coming from Jack and Duane in emails behind the debate.  That is clearly my speculation, however.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 07:34:32 PM
That's why I'm glad to be here.  When I make a mistake, a half dozen people on my side spring up and say, "No, Jay, I don't think that's right."  Other days it's someone else's turn to be mistaken.  This is how good work gets done.  When each person feels individual pressure to be right, making a mistake has emotional-investment consequences.  When there's a team mentality and a process (even informal) for reviewing propositions and correcting mistakes, the end result is more robust and requires less face-saving.

...and there are those days for some of us where we think we might know the answer but are not quite sure, so hold back and defer to others. That is why I am glad to be here too. My contributions are limited to a few fields, but with time I have grown more confident that I can contribute to the forum because it is evident that we deal with our mistakes together. This strengthens the forum as we are prepared to call each other out and work to a better understanding. I know there are times when I have been wrong and others have stepped in to correct me. I take it with good spirit and retract my initial statements. That's how scientists, engineers, technicians and the well informed lay-persons work together. The other aspect of this forum that I enjoy is the number of enthusiasts that contribute, their knowledge is incredible.


Quote
Fetzer is another character altogether.  He made some hoax claims, and when I challenged him years ago to debate them he said he had no time to waste debating someone who didn't have a PhD.

Several of us here have PhD's and MSc's, and know not to debate you (or others) on aerospace engineering. Just like I would not try and pull the wool over ka9q's eyes when dealing with communication and programming. I'm guessing Fetzer knows your reputation and backed out. To refuse a debate because someone does not hold an equal qualification is intellectual cowardice.

I've met many PhDs in my life, and a large proportion of them are most unimpressive people. Yes, they can talk about 11-dimensional topologies to describe quantum gravity, but don't know how to use a screwdriver or spanner. The best scientists and engineers I have met are those that have got their hands dirty and built things.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 30, 2015, 03:56:54 AM
I've met many PhDs in my life, and a large proportion of them are most unimpressive people.

Hi.

:D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 30, 2015, 04:13:52 AM
I've met many PhDs in my life, and a large proportion of them are most unimpressive people.

Hi.

:D

You're impressive, your work shows that.

For the record I have one myself (in physics). My point being that having a PhD is not the pathway to erudition. Don't get me wrong, in their fields all the PhDs I have met are very impressive, but some of their hands on skills or ability to think around their fields of expertise is disconcerting. I would probably count myself in the hands on skills area, but I know I can think beyond my areas of expertise.

I'm also making a point for the record here. As a PhD I know the subjects which I can talk about with expertise or as a well informed layman. Some CTs like to say, 'well he has a PhD.' My reply to that is 'in what field?' CTs seem to think when they find a PhD on their side it automatically means their argument is right because they have a PhD.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 30, 2015, 04:39:01 AM
Aw shucks :D

There's a lot of mythology amongst HBs about academia. They have some very strange ideas about what it means to be in it and that everyone involved at University level is somehow 'in on' something or other and have sold their soul to the devil for fame and glory.

As you point out, most people in research are just ordinary people with bills to pay, grinding away at small chunks of a subject to try and shine a light on something. A lot of people with PhDs, like me, are doing stuff that bears no relation whatsoever to their original career path. Fun though surveying all those reservoirs was, it has nothing to do with my job in IT now.

My contribution to the body of knowledge was small, but it was done according to the standards set out for me. It was the application of an appropriate method, that's all.

I do wonder whether what I've done with satellite photos would (if re-written and more fully referenced and without the abuse directed at conspiracy theorists) qualify for another PhD - or at least a Masters :D
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 30, 2015, 05:06:01 AM
My contribution to the body of knowledge was small, but it was done according to the standards set out for me. It was the application of an appropriate method, that's all.

Absolutely, while I wanted to unify the force fundamental forces of nature and change physics, I realised this was not going to happen during my undergrad studies. I was no Stephen Hawking, that was for sure. The PhD, while contributing little to the body of knowledge, provided me with a research skill set and an awful amount of resilience and fortitude to keep going in the face of adversity. It was a war of attrition for me, I was either going to beat that piece of equipment or it was going to beat me. I won :)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 08:10:15 AM
...

I do wonder whether what I've done with satellite photos would (if re-written and more fully referenced and without the abuse directed at conspiracy theorists) qualify for another PhD - or at least a Masters :D
The work shows that you are continually observing the data and then trying to put a theory/proposal to explain how/why the observation occurs.  It gets others to think and contribute in a somewhat peer review, although many of us aren't PhD, myself included.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Tindarormkimcha on September 30, 2015, 01:09:11 PM


If you have the facts on your side you don't need to lie. Something to think about.

I agree!

Now, tell NASA (Never A Straight Answer) that!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on September 30, 2015, 01:54:09 PM


If you have the facts on your side you don't need to lie. Something to think about.

I agree!

Now, tell NASA (Never A Straight Answer) that!
Link one statement that NASA has said that is false. And by false, I don't mean by your allegation, but by some scientist, engineer that has presented a peer review paper proving the statement is false.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: raven on September 30, 2015, 07:35:30 PM


If you have the facts on your side you don't need to lie. Something to think about.

I agree!

Now, tell NASA (Never A Straight Answer) that!
Link one statement that NASA has said that is false. And by false, I don't mean by your allegation, but by some scientist, engineer that has presented a peer review paper proving the statement is false.
And not just a mistake or something that later turned out to be incorrect due to new information; an out and out lie.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on September 30, 2015, 07:55:24 PM
Good additions raven
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Dalhousie on November 01, 2015, 02:05:42 AM


If you have the facts on your side you don't need to lie. Something to think about.

I agree!

Now, tell NASA (Never A Straight Answer) that!
Link one statement that NASA has said that is false. And by false, I don't mean by your allegation, but by some scientist, engineer that has presented a peer review paper proving the statement is false.
And not just a mistake or something that later turned out to be incorrect due to new information; an out and out lie.

A month later and he still hasn't come up with one.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on December 08, 2015, 06:30:10 PM
Another month has elapsed and no post or answer!
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: ineluki on December 09, 2015, 08:51:50 AM
Another month has elapsed and no post or answer!

Must be LunarOrbit suppressing his great truths...
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: bknight on December 09, 2015, 09:02:57 AM
Another month has elapsed and no post or answer!

Must be LunarOrbit suppressing his great truths...
ROTFLMAO  ::)
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on October 25, 2017, 07:23:01 PM
Okay, a friend of mine just raised a really good point.  If you believe we're all paid by NASA to say these things, why don't you try outbidding?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Geordie on October 25, 2017, 07:38:53 PM
Okay, a friend of mine just raised a really good point.  If you believe we're all paid by NASA to say these things, why don't you try outbidding?
You need to provide a sample of your services before the bidding begins in earnest.
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on October 25, 2017, 09:03:30 PM
Why don't I have a Maserati?
And a villa at Lake Como?
Title: Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
Post by: gillianren on October 26, 2017, 11:38:11 AM
You need to provide a sample of your services before the bidding begins in earnest.

It would probably be cheaper to pay me to admit being paid than to pay Jay, if we were both being paid.