Lunar hoax believers: DO NOT OPEN THIS THREAD!

[Orbinaut Pete]

There's a "Flat-Earth Society" near where I live.

It's full of weird-beard old men! :rofl:

*Not that I've got anything against weird-beards, or old men!

 

[eveningsky339]

I hope you feed them well. On a diet of broken glass, rusty nails and anthrax.

Eh, sometimes I forget. I noticed that the water bowl is empty so I guess they are still there.

 

[Moonwalker]

I have to disagree with that.

The reason "free speech" is a good idea is because you have to let people lay it all out and open up to argument. Using bullying "authority" to troll the net and shut down things you don't like is a complete nightmare. If you do not have the freedom to think incorrectly, then you basically have no freedom at all.

When you try to censor anyone, even when they say something you believe is obviously wrong, you only award them with credibility they do not deserve. You are playing into their hands.

That said, when you post videos it's up to you to disable comments to cut down on trolls and knuckleheads. Nothing wrong with that.

Certain conspiracy theories are not harmless. They partly become something like libel. Especially the 9/11 conspiracy theory denies victims and offends the surviving dependants. Sure, give those libeller and public enemies their freedom on certain places, but not in the wide public. Certain people already got banned from Youtube because of spreading lies and pure rubbish. I very welcome this.

 

[Pilot7893]

Another one is Apollo 13.

I seriously doubt that NASA or the American government would launch 3 astronauts in a ship which was designed to go wrong, and put the lives of the astronauts on board at a serious risk, even into Earth orbit (from a conspirator's point of view) to re-enter the atmosphere with seriously damaged systems and limited functionality and life support, as the systems on the re-entered Apollo ship were.

If they argue that the ship experienced the problems in Earth orbit, then why did it take them so long to return? I doubt that they would have spent extra time in such a dangerous ship in orbit with their lives at risk, just to keep the 'conspiracy' believable.

Clear the junk from your eyes!
Apollo 13 was when NASA said "Ok, guys, let's actually try GOING to the moon this time". Of course, they lacked the technology to do so, and things went horribly wrong. After that, they said "Ok, let's just go back to faking it."
Jeez, ANYone with half a brain could see that!

 

[Messierhunter]

Certain conspiracy theories are not harmless. They partly become something like libel. Especially the 9/11 conspiracy theory denies victims and offends the surviving dependants.

Certainly that is true of some theories like 9/11 twoof and holocaust denial which will often accuse victims of being in on it, but there is a recourse for those who have had their reputations damaged by these idiots; lawsuits. The problem is you have to show that damage was done, and that can be difficult. I've had conspiratards accuse me of being a "paid government shill" and that I fake my ISS images and videos to support the conspiracy. Clearly libel or slander depending on whether you consider internet forums to be transient speech or not, but the problem is how do I prove damages? Unless youtube yanks my video or bans me for being a hoax, something they don't even do to proven hoaxes, then it's pretty hard to quantify damages. In other words, unless your speech causes provable harm to someone else, you're not liable for it, and that's the way it should be imho.

A 9/11 or Holocaust victim or family member could be affected by false accusations far more seriously in the form of PTSD, emotional distress, etc, so I'd say it would be much easier to prosecute on those grounds in those cases.

 

[Ghostrider]

Do not prosecute. Ridicule. You do not Avada Kedavra a boggart, you do a Riddikulus on it.

 

[computerex]

PS: Conspiracy theory content within the web should be censored/removed/placed to a certain trash place.

Prosecute other people because their beliefs are different from yours? For someone who is such an advocate of secularism you have certainly displayed a very backwards way of thinking.

A conspiracy theory is, just another theory. People should be allowed to make up their own mind as to what they believe in, furthermore, they should be allowed to practice their right of free speech by sharing their theories with other people. So view a conspiracy theory as simply a theory.

Don't ever be so arrogant as to think that what you believe in is absolutely correct. For all we know, the moon landing could really have been hoaxed. There is evidence to support both sides. Of course, sometimes one explanation for an event sounds far more probable then others. But you should never forget the possibility of the other events taking place. We are after all in the twenty first century, and an objective, civilized analysis is always the best.

 

[T.Neo]

For all we know, the moon landing could really have been hoaxed. There is evidence to support both sides.

...

Where? All of the "evidence" I've seen has been constructed by conspiricy theorists.

But, yeah. You make a good point.

 

[Moonwalker]

The moon landing could have been hoaxed, but not with a comparable quality of the available NASA video, audio and image material. There is no evidence for it. Quite the opposite: not even decades later is it possible to let look cinematic moon and space missions real. Not even the Apollo 13 movie managed to do so, because you can clearly note the irregularity of the parabola flights (stuff floats sporadic). That's just one example. Not to mention exterior shots, even the computer-generated ones.

Also, the Apollo program, just like 9/11 or the holocaust, is not what people believe in. It is historic facts. It is reality. Denying those events and facts is libel of governments and public libel and vilification of the lives and work of witnesses/participants/surviving dependants. I even say it is nearly a statutory offense.

 

[Ghostrider]

Where? All of the "evidence" I've seen has been constructed by conspiricy theorists.

It's not even evidence, it's speculation based on either faulty data or technical ignorance. One argument I've heard is "How could they go to the Moon with a computer less powerful than the C64?" forgetting that the C64 could effectively help steer a spacecraft to the Moon. Why don't they go the extra mile and say that Columbus could never have discovered the Americas because he didn't have GPS?

 

[Messierhunter]

The moon landing could have been hoaxed, but not with a comparable quality of the available NASA video, audio and image material.

Not to mention the available third party observations of spacecraft communications and telescopic tracking.

Denying those events and facts is libel of governments and public libel and vilification of the lives and work of witnesses/participants/surviving dependants. I even say it is nearly a statutory offense.

On that I disagree. It's one thing to "libel" a government or public organization; that is something that MUST be protected speech, or else an out of control government is free to outlaw dissent without substantially changing any laws. Governments and public organizations must not be protected from speech, even if the speech could be held as factually wrong in a court.

It's one thing to say that "NASA faked it" without specifying individuals within the organization who aren't famous, well-known public figures as liars. It's another thing to say "you faked your evidence to support apollo, you're a part of the conspiracy and a liar." The latter is a direct accusation to you, a private citizen, not a public figure or organization. If they accuse you of misconduct and hurt your reputation by doing so, they've committed a civil offense, but it still shouldn't be statutory. The latter is severely chilling to free speech.

Mel Mermelstein sucessfully sued a group of holocaust deniers, but not directly because they effectively called him a liar for saying he saw his family taken to the gas chambers where they were killed, but because the group offered him a reward if he could "prove" the holocaust true. They refused to pay when he offered a notarized account of his first-hand experience, so he took them to court and won. In a way, you could say he won because they falsely accused him of lying, but it wasn't a "libel" case strictly speaking, it was failure to pay on a written promise.

 

[Ark]

Clear the junk from your eyes!
Apollo 13 was when NASA said "Ok, guys, let's actually try GOING to the moon this time". Of course, they lacked the technology to do so, and things went horribly wrong. After that, they said "Ok, let's just go back to faking it."
Jeez, ANYone with half a brain could see that!

Hahahaha, that's the best explanation for Apollo 13 I've ever heard. The one time we tried to actually do it, we blew up half the ship. :lol:

 

[ar81]

Apollo 13 was a fake. It seemed that Apollo program was losing popularity so it needed some drama. It was produced by TV channels that wanted a boost in ratings.

Concorde also was a fake. It was retired before we could have had the chance to see one flying. Proving the Concorde flies is just like proving you have seen UFOs.

Oh, and I am Elvis.:lol::rofl:

 

[computerex]

The moon landing could have been hoaxed, but not with a comparable quality of the available NASA video, audio and image material. There is no evidence for it. Quite the opposite: not even decades later is it possible to let look cinematic moon and space missions real. Not even the Apollo 13 movie managed to do so, because you can clearly note the irregularity of the parabola flights (stuff floats sporadic). That's just one example. Not to mention exterior shots, even the computer-generated ones.

I never said that the moon landing did not happen, I said that there is a possibility that it did not happen. Contrary to what you said, the possibility still remains. Do not underestimate the ingenuity of humanity .

Also, the Apollo program, just like 9/11 or the holocaust, is not what people believe in. It is historic facts. It is reality. Denying those events and facts is libel of governments and public libel and vilification of the lives and work of witnesses/participants/surviving dependants. I even say it is nearly a statutory offense.

You should understand that nothing is certain, we can only speculate and infer based on what we see. As I stated above, thinking that what you believe is one hundred percent correct is a very arrogant way of looking at things.

9/11 did happen, we can be relatively sure of that, but who was responsible for it? That's a more difficult question, with no definite answer (at least in my view, but that's the entire point of my rant).

In a chaotic world such as ours, the best we can do is exchange ideas. Jumping on other people's throats because you think your theory is the truth is most definitely not the best way to go.

(BTW for each source you present saying that the holocaust was a reality, someone out there could find ten saying otherwise. If only there was a way to find out what really happened in the past )

 

[Moonwalker]

Apollo, 9/11 and the holocaust neither is theory, nor is it uncertain or what me or other people do believe in. It is historic events that did take place by exactly 100%. Anything else, like talking about potential hoaxes, just is theory.

 

[Ghostrider]

Everything is possible, but there are some things that are highly probable and some that are highly improbable. There may be an invisible two-headed gay dragon who stomps around in my garden for all I know but if I find my flowers messed up and there are dog footprints on the ground, I don't go and think that the two-headed gay dragon did a waltz on my lawn and framed the neighbour's dog.

And before anyone asks, I have absolutely nothing against two-headed gay dragons.

 

[Viper1]

Ok I might as well admit it. I WAS THE SHOOTER IN THE GRASSY KNOLL! of course I was also 13 yrs old. and flew to Dallas as an unacompanied minor. Yeah thats it thats the ticket.... Conspiracies theories will always exist wether we like them or not. That is the bottom line. We live in a society that has Freedom of speech built right into it's Constitution. But that does not mean we have to believe what others are spouting! If you don't like RAP music turn the dial. You have the freedom to Research and make up your own mind. You DON"T have to take someone else's opinion as Gospel. FREE your mind! Investigate, research and make up your own mind. And for Pete's sake don't educate yourself via Youtube as anyone with the latest Warez copy of Photoshop elements and Anima8tor can prove to you that UFO's are real. Sort thru the nonsense and you can reach your own conclusion. In the end it's not what other people say that matters but YOUR own thoughts about a given subject.
The exchange of ideas as stated by computertex is the best way to sample all the posibilities and adopt or reject what you see fit's in with your opinion, the rest you can discard. To Quote from 'DESIDERATA',
"Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others,
even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."

 

[bujin]

It's not even evidence, it's speculation based on either faulty data or technical ignorance.

And when you look at the more famous moon landing hoax believers, you see it's more the second reason.

Bill Kaysing, for example, likes to claim he worked for Rocketdyne, a company formed by North American Aviation who designed the CSM and the Saturn V stage 2. And he did. But he has a degree in English, and worked as a technical writer. And a furniture builder. Both great qualifications for deciding what is physically possible in attempting a lunar landing, of course...

Bart Sibrel is an investigative journalist, and has even lied about his credentials. His knowledge of science is practically non-existent. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, he is only interested in raking in the money from the publicity of harassing NASA and the astronauts and keeping the hoax "theory" alive.

(N.B. "theory" in the non-scientific use of the term...)

 

[Messierhunter]

I never said that the moon landing did not happen, I said that there is a possibility that it did not happen. Contrary to what you said, the possibility still remains. Do not underestimate the ingenuity of humanity .

In order for it to not have happened, a whole lot of non-NASA people with no motivation to be involved would have to be involved. It's really no different than the "possibility" that ISS is fake and anyone who says they've seen it is part of the conspiracy. They'd also have to have some impossibly impressive CG or the world's biggest flying vacuum chamber big enough to hold a soundstage to fake 1/6th gravity astronauts and dust in a vacuum - and even the latter would have extremely limited their shots time-wise. Anyone who's watched the archival footage knows just how long some of those shots are. That alone makes it implausible as a theory, but when you add in the weight of witnesses who followed the flights with their own equipment, it makes it as impossible as ISS being fake.

You should understand that nothing is certain, we can only speculate and infer based on what we see. As I stated above, thinking that what you believe is one hundred percent correct is a very arrogant way of looking at things.

It's really a stretch to say that nothing is certain (delegitimizing what in some cases could be a legitimate subjective determination), especially events that have had that much documentation and witnesses. Am I just infering the existence of ISS based on observations during predicted sighting opportunities, or do I know it to be 100% correct? I don't think it's arrogant at all to state the latter. That doesn't mean my confidence cannot be swayed, but it would take a massive amount of evidence that could not only override, but be consistent with and explain what I've already seen.

(BTW for each source you present saying that the holocaust was a reality, someone out there could find ten saying otherwise. If only there was a way to find out what really happened in the past )

Facts are not determined by popularity, nor are theories made plausible by it.

 

[computerex]

In order for it to not have happened, a whole lot of non-NASA people with no motivation to be involved would have to be involved. It's really no different than the "possibility" that ISS is fake and anyone who says they've seen it is part of the conspiracy. They'd also have to have some impossibly impressive CG or the world's biggest flying vacuum chamber big enough to hold a soundstage to fake 1/6th gravity astronauts and dust in a vacuum - and even the latter would have extremely limited their shots time-wise. Anyone who's watched the archival footage knows just how long some of those shots are. That alone makes it implausible as a theory, but when you add in the weight of witnesses who followed the flights with their own equipment, it makes it as impossible as ISS being fake.

Again, even after you have had your say, the possibility that the moon landing may have been hoaxed remains. Notice, I did not once express my views on the subject in this thread. All I am saying is that we should take a scientific, objective approach to this as opposed to treating fellow human beings as criminals for having their own beliefs. No one should be prosecuted for having different beliefs then yours.

It's really a stretch to say that nothing is certain (delegitimizing what in some cases could be a legitimate subjective determination), especially events that have had that much documentation and witnesses. Am I just infering the existence of ISS based on observations during predicted sighting opportunities, or do I know it to be 100% correct? I don't think it's arrogant at all to state the latter. That doesn't mean my confidence cannot be swayed, but it would take a massive amount of evidence that could not only override, but be consistent with and explain what I've already seen.

I stand by my view that nothing is certain. Were we not certain about the existence of the aether? Or that the atom is indivisible? But as we progressed through time, some of our deepest believes turned out to be false.

Facts are not determined by popularity, nor are theories made plausible by it.

I think you misunderstood my point I was making to Moonwalker about the holocaust. I wasn't implying that the majority of the people believe in it's nonresistance, I was merely attempting to say that just because you call something a documented historic fact, others might not share the same beliefs. And yes, you are quite right to say that facts and theories aren't determined by popularity.