Lunar hoax believers: DO NOT OPEN THIS THREAD!

[Apollo 11]

Has any of y'all every thought about how by saying "we never flew to the moon", or "9/11 was planned by the U.S. Government" or, "Space Shuttle flights are in a studio" or even "the moon, which has BEEN THERE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS is fake" is kinda like denying some of mankinds greatest acheivements? Conspiracy theorists are basically saying "we're not smart enough to have done this, so we didn't. We just made a hollywood movie, forced thousands of people to keep a secret for 40 years, and even made fake moon rocks" It really pi$$es me off.

Anyone ever noticed how piracy is in conspiracy?? Coincidence???

 

[Hielor]

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.

I like how in one sentence you say that a proven historical fact might be false, and then in the next sentence you suggest that we take a "scientific, objective approach" to things. I agree, we should take a scientific, objective approach.

Any "scientific, objective approach" shows that we did land on the moon, with no room for doubt. So either there is no possibility that the moon landings were faked, or you're not looking at things scientifically and objectively. Pick one.

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.

There's a difference here. Belief in the aether or the indivisibility of the atom were beliefs unsupported by evidence or fact. That the moon landings or the holocaust occurred are historical facts that have been supported by enormous amounts of evidence.

There is no quantum theory of history. It is indeed certain that I was not in Timbuktu yesterday. I can generate reams of evidence saying that I was indeed in Redmond, WA yesterday. There is precisely 0 evidence saying that I was in Timbuktu yesterday. You would however claim that it is not certain I was not in Timbuktu yesterday.

I would suggest you look up the meanings of "scientific" and "objective" again, because if you think that a scientific and objective viewpoint could give any doubt at all as to my not being in Timbuktu yesterday, then you don't know what those words mean.

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.

You are confusing the concept of a "belief" in something that is unknown to be true (ie, the existence of pink unicorns, or that the speed of light is a cosmic "speed limit") with the concept of "belief" in facts.

It doesn't matter whether or not I believe I was in Timbuktu yesterday, that does not change the fact that I was not in Timbuktu yesterday. There is much evidence supporting that I was in Redmond, and none supporting that I was in Timbuktu.

It doesn't matter whether or not people believe we went to the moon, that does not change the fact that we went to the moon. There is much evidence supporting that we went to the moon, and none supporting it being a hoax.

It doesn't matter whether or not people believe that millions of people were slaughtered in the Holocaust, that does not change the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the Holocaust. There is much evidence supporting that millions of people were slaughtered in the Holocaust, and none supporting it being a hoax.

 

[Andy44]

computerex's comments to me make some sense. He is saying tht mathematically, the probability that the moon landings did not occur is a non-zero number, but still extremely small, so small that no one would seriously bet the landings were fake.

And he is right. All historical facts, unless you were there, could possibly be fake, but probably are not. Even if you were there, you may not be remembering it correctly.

This does not mean "the moon landings were a hoax". What it does mean is "the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the accepted history of the Apollo program."

And remember, his comments were made in opposition to Moonwalker's statement that the web should be censored to purge all non-accepted history.

If a moon hoaxer was censored, he would say that there was a conspiracy to silence his opinion because it was unpopular and different. And for once, he would be absolutely correct.

This control by authorities over the speech and thought of individuals is too dangerous a power to entrust in them. More dangerous than letting conspiritards continue to out themselves as fools in public.

 

[Brycesv1]

who knows. maybe the conspiritards will decide its a good idea to do a mass scuicide in defence of their idiocy. it would be ironic and they would finally be doing something productive with themselves

 

[Unstung]

Apollo 11: Hollywood films are also a human achievement.

 

[Hielor]

computerex's comments to me make some sense. He is saying tht mathematically, the probability that the moon landings did not occur is a non-zero number, but still extremely small, so small that no one would seriously bet the landings were fake.

And he is right. All historical facts, unless you were there, could possibly be fake, but probably are not. Even if you were there, you may not be remembering it correctly.

This does not mean "the moon landings were a hoax". What it does mean is "the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the accepted history of the Apollo program."

There is no such thing as a quantum theory of history.

Ignoring relative timing of events (because there's no absolute measure of that), we can say that there is a set of events that have happened, and some (presumably much larger) set of events that have not happened.

An event is in either one or the other of these sets. There is no other option. An event is not partially in one set and partially in the other. We may not be sure which set an event is in, but it most definitely is in only one of them.

Saying that "there's a probability the moon landings were faked" is absurd. For events that are well-studied, such as the moon landings or the holocaust, we know which bucket they're in--there's no doubt in the scientific community, at all. The only "doubt" comes from people making stuff up. The probability that the moon landings were faked is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero, and saying that there's any probability at all is giving the impression that it's more likely than it is, and giving credence to people who spread misinformation.

And remember, his comments were made in opposition to Moonwalker's statement that the web should be censored to purge all non-accepted history.

If a moon hoaxer was censored, he would say that there was a conspiracy to silence his opinion because it was unpopular and different. And for once, he would be absolutely correct.

This control by authorities over the speech and thought of individuals is too dangerous a power to entrust in them. More dangerous than letting conspiritards continue to out themselves as fools in public.

I agree with this point entirely; however, ctex's comments were not about whether or not the moon hoaxers should be censored (they should not), but rather about the correctness of their claims (they are not).

Moon hoaxers should not be censored. Nor should people who correct them be censored, either.

 

[Moonwalker]

Saying that "there's a probability the moon landings were faked" is absurd. For events that are well-studied, such as the moon landings or the holocaust, we know which bucket they're in--there's no doubt in the scientific community, at all. The only "doubt" comes from people making stuff up.

You came to the point exactly.

And as a German guy who additionally has grandparents who know what was happening in my country over 6 decades ago, nobody tells me different stuff, especially not foreigners who get feed by fraudulent web sources. In real life a denial of the holocaust is worth a strong hit into peoples visage, just like Buzz Aldrin did it, but in this case it is worth it even more. There is no other way to get rid of such mental diarrhea if you're facing it in real life where you can not just shut the browser down. Luckily I did not face such idiots in real life yet, but they should take great care if they meet me and try to tell me their ill bull****.

Anyway, I don't understand the purpose of thinking about probabilities of fake historic events. It's like nihilism, like thinking that there is a probabiliy that nothing does exist, that anything is just a vision, the whole universe, just a big imagination. I indeed met a person who was convinced of that. Such thinking is a total waste of life time, and it does not contribute anything useful to a society. It is simply nothing more than useless thought experiments, and that in any direction.

 

[Apollo 11]

haha I suppose hollywood films are a human acheivment!!!

 

[Urwumpe]

Again, even after you have had your say, the possibility that the moon landing may have been hoaxed remains.

Wrong. The possibility does not exist at all. You have to explain all observations with a hoax theory - really all.

For example recordings of radio transmissions and video signals done by radio telescopes, which had been able to pin point the source of the emissions in a region 8 km large.

You have to explain how the film sequences show clear signs of being filmed in a vacuum. Remember: 1968 did not have CGI yet - for producing a single rendered image (640x480) of a teapot in 1968, with eyelight shading (shading by the angle of the surface to the camera), a mainframe had to calculate for a week.

Even in 2000, the computer graphics had not been advanced enough to make it possible to produce such wast amounts of CGI with all required optical effects in reasonable time. A single Apollo Mission has more 16mm film frames and TV frames than all Pixar movies in the last 5 years.

So, now lets go by logic and not rule out the possibility of it being a very clever fake with 1991 technology, developed and hidden in Area 51 until that time. Let's assume the state of the art of 1991 was the CGI of Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park had only a few Minutes of CGI, but required already two weeks on multiple for producing it (2-4 hours per frame, 6 hours for the T-Rex in the rain). Apollo 11 has already 90 minutes of 16mm film, at 24 frames per second. Makes, even when using just two hours per frame, 259200 hours only for the 16mm material. Even when you assume NASA had 100 SGI work stations hidden in Area 51 decades before they had been "invented" officially by SGI, you have 2592 hours or 108 days. This is just raw rendering, not making models, planning the scenes, building the scenes or making test sequences (which strangely disappeared as evidence).

Do you notice something? The scene becomes more and more absurd for "magically" (according to Clarke) faking something, that could also have been done with less advanced technology without faking it.

You can't say it is not impossible to rule out, that it could have been faked. That is not true. You can rule out that as long as causality applies and magic time travel or other fictional superweapons are not used, it was not possible to fake it, as it was observed with the budget and time available.

And that is why there is one important philosophy in science (and which should also apply to other fields):

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

 

[Moonwalker]

You don't even have to think about CGI. Just by watching all the EVA videos you already notice that there is no chance to fake it, not even today.

I have about 9 hours of Apollo 15 lunar EVA videos on my hard drive. I did not yet count the hours of all the other missions I have. I guess all in all it's about 50 hours or so. It is just way too much that I did not look everything within years. But if you just watch a few hours, un-cut, the enormous distances taken with the rover and the distances between the rover/camera and the astronauts, the movements, the dust, all the geologic work and the comms, you already notice that there is no chance to fake it. Especially if you compare it with todays hours of Shuttle/ISS EVA videos. There is no hollywood production in the world, not even today, that could let it look the real way, for many hours, un-cut, like you get for Apollo and ISS from NASA.

What conspiracy theorists watch, always is the same very few well known images and the same very few well known video shots. But if they would watch just at least many hours of it, and if they would watch hundreds of photos (meanwhile I have more than 7.000), they would have a lot of explaining to do...

 

[Urwumpe]

You don't even have to think about CGI. Just by watching all the EVA videos you already notice that there is no chance to fake it, not even today.

Give me infinite time and resources and I could do that. The problem is: While Apollo had nearly infinite resources (for a spaceflight project) it had only very little time.

And only hoax proponents think that, if you have nine women, you could have a baby every month.

 

[bujin]

I'd agree with Andy44. There is certainly a non-zero chance that the moon landings were hoaxed, but that percentage chance is ridiculously small due to the amount of evidence in favour of the landings actually taking place.

As an analogy, no serious biologist thinks of the theory of evolution as anything other than scientific fact due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in its favour, but all it takes is for one person to dig up a fossil rabbit in the precambrian rock layers to destroy the theory. No biologist thinks this will ever happen because the theory is so well supported and understood, but unless every single bit of precambrian rock is fully investigated for such fossils, no-one can say with 100% certainty that the theory of evolution is absolute truth.

In the same sense, there's loads of documented evidence, video, photographic evidence, laser experiments, photos from the LRO of the landing sites, plenty of moon rock that has been brought back, etc... There's so much evidence that we can say with almost 100% certainty that the moon landings took place. But all it takes is for someone to conclusively show (for example) that the Van Allen belt is more hazardous than NASA claim, and the whole theory goes out the window. Again, few people seriously think it will ever happen.

EDIT: Oh, and on the censoring issue, I'd also agree that free speech is of paramount importance to a free society. Whenever I see a YouTube clip where the comments have been disabled, my suspicions about its content are immediately aroused. And usually my suspicions are correct!

 

[Viper1]

"In the same sense, there's loads of documented evidence, video, photographic evidence, laser experiments, photos from the LRO of the landing sites"

No matter what anyone says to the contrary; YES we landed on the Moon!

 

[Apollo 11]

Did we land on the moon? Yes. There is more evidence that we did than there is evidence that we did not. Is there speculation? Yes. People can speculate that we didn't go. But I have not seen one piece of viable EVIDENCE that says we didn't land on the moon. Once again, as preiviously mentioned, most of the hoax believers are in no way qualified to give those accusations. We know Sibrel has cheated. We know he pressures astronauts to swear on the bible. So what? Where is the evidence? Show me the set were they walked on the moon. Show me the landing sites on the moon where there isn't any equipment. Really, it would have been easier to just fly to the moon than to keep a secret THIS big from the whole world for 40 years. Really.

 

[Urwumpe]

In the same sense, there's loads of documented evidence, video, photographic evidence, laser experiments, photos from the LRO of the landing sites, plenty of moon rock that has been brought back, etc... There's so much evidence that we can say with almost 100% certainty that the moon landings took place. But all it takes is for someone to conclusively show (for example) that the Van Allen belt is more hazardous than NASA claim, and the whole theory goes out the window. Again, few people seriously think it will ever happen.

You forget something: The real world does not use real numbers.

Just think about it: we have even a non-zero chance for a paradise planet full of beautiful women suddenly popping into the solar system, if you naively use mathematics. But does that mean it can happen at all in the real world? Sure not. Such extreme models are based on the ideal that there is no limit for physical values. You could extremely small and extremely large values from 0 to infinity and it should ideally all work the same. Between 0 and 1 could be infinite numbers in mathematics.

But in reality, you can't divide one meter into infinite number of small distances. Or have infinitesimally small masses. Just as well as you can't have the opposite. The mathematics are only a model for describing something over a small defined range of somethings. If you start using a mathematical model outside it's definition, it will with certainty fail.

Sure a painful blow to all mathematicians who think that they can control the world weapons of math instruction and al-gebra. 2 + 2 must not even be four in reality, because reality does not read math books.

 

[Viper1]

A great deal of the hoax believers are people who have been fooled into believing the hoax theories by what they think is evidence provided by hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research, scientific ignorance, or extreme prejudice.
The reasons behind most of these conpiracy theories is sadly money. Allmost all if not all of the most verbal and outspoken conspiracy proponents have a book or video to sell, Flat Earth Society, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, William L. Brian, David Percy, and Ralph Rene to name just a few. The rest, are people who are not willing to do the legwork, look up facts or even open a Scientific book to gather information, they are used to been spoonfed information with the quickest digestable format, Youtube for one.
In another 20-30 yrs. when we finally gain the ability to travel to the Moon as space tourist, those of us who are still alive will look back and laugh. The evidence is already visible, but many among us like St. Thomas need to put our finger in the wound to verify the truth.
I hope to see you all on the Moon someday and we'll have a MoonAle at The Brighton Beach Space bar, I'm Buying!

 

[bujin]

No matter what anyone says to the contrary; YES we landed on the Moon!

Hoax Believers would just claim that those photos were faked too.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

I hope to see you all on the Moon someday and we'll have a MoonAle at The Brighton Beach Space bar, I'm Buying!

Awesome! I'll be there.

Just hope you are patient enough to wait for me to land. I'm painfully slow at landing there!

0.3m/s forward. STOP! 0.3m/s forward again. STOOOOOP!!! Oops, gone past it. 0.2m/s backwards. STOOOOOP! :lol:

 

[Viper1]

Hoax Believers would just claim that those photos were faked too.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------




Awesome! I'll be there.

Just hope you are patient enough to wait for me to land. I'm painfully slow at landing there!

0.3m/s forward. STOP! 0.3m/s forward again. STOOOOOP!!! Oops, gone past it. 0.2m/s backwards. STOOOOOP! :lol:

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase

Dont worry about the landing I'll Wave you in!

 

[Moonwalker]

Give me infinite time and resources and I could do that.

It won't look like the original footage.

 

[Urwumpe]

It won't look like the original footage.

No, it would look even better. With stars and parallel shadows. And the wires are better concealed. :lol: