Funny HB claims

[Grand Lunar]

Against better judgement, I recent engaged Straydog on YouTube.

It's really funny to see how he shifts his claims concerning the moon rocks.

First, he'll claim just how similar Earth rocks and moon rocks are, and just how easy they are to pass for eachother.

Then, when confronted with what makes them different, he complains about the Big Impact theory concerning the age of moon rocks (the ones that are older than any Earth rock).

And then he rants on how there's no proof that Apollo returned 800 lbs of rocks, claiming that it's all locked up for almost no one to see. He also argue that all geologists get are slivers of the rock. Nothing large.

And he also argues that the large rocks in musuems aren't proof.

Are these classical claims, or something new that's turned up?

I tell you, just writing his claims is enough to induce hand-banging.
Where's that emoticon, anyway?

[AtomicDog]

Will this do?

[Bob B.]

Apr 28, 2008 8:38:50 GMT -4 Grand Lunar said:

Are these classical claims, or something new that's turned up?

Nothing new that I can tell. It's just the typical handwaving that HBs must go through to hang on so desperately to what they want to believe.

[JayUtah]

Are these classical claims, or something new that's turned up?

The same old feeble affirmative rebuttals: desperate excuses for why evidence somehow shouldn't matter.

Similarity. The similarity between Earth rocks and Apollo samples is presented in elementary terms for public consumption. The notion that a skilled geologist would mistake one for another on that basis is not part of that presentation. Geologists know what they're looking at, even if laymen don't.

Age discrepancy. Earth rocks are renewed by geological activity. Moon rocks are not, hence stick around longer in their early forms. The age of the Moon compared to the age of the Earth is not the same as the age of the Moon rocks compared to the age of Earth rocks.

Locked up rocks. Lots of people have worked at the LRL over the years. Just because Straydog hasn't seen them doesn't mean he gets to argue that others have not.

Size of distributed samples. Very small samples are distributed when the nature of the investigation requires pristine samples that are rendered further unusable as a result of the investigation. Since the samples are naturally consumed by such research, pacing the research is prudent and not suspicious. Large prepared samples can be obtained for other purposes, such as for microscopic examination. Large museum samples are for display, not thorough scrutiny; they are not offered as proof and to take them as such is a straw-man argument.

[waynewitt]

Of course, if NASA did allow large portions of the rocks to be totally consumed in research activities, HBs would start yelling about how NASA is destroying the evidence, and if they were real moon rocks then NASA should/would be much more careful in how they're used.

One of my favorite hoax claims was about the flag allegedly waving on the moon. They attempted to recreate it using a paper flag by the computer and making it move by waving their hand by it. This was their recreation and proof that the whole thing was staged. The fish in my tank are capable of more logic than that.

These conspiracy theorists always try to grab the moral high ground and claim that they are simply working to uncover the truth. However, their minds are already made up. They believe that the landings were fake, and they will go to nearly any length to believe what they themselves say. I truly do not know or comprehend if it's a matter of deceit or if they are in denial about their own arguments. Take, for example, Kaysing's argument about Grissom and the Apollo 1 fire. Kaysing claims that he was murdered in the fire for threatening to spill the beans about the hoax. Kaysing even uses Grissom's famous lemon prank as evidence for Grissom's dissatisfaction with the program. He claims that Grissom was unhappy because he knew the machines weren't working properly and in that state wouldn't be able to go the moon. So he was going to blow the lid off the hoax. But wait...if it was a hoax all along, why would the machines even have to work in the first place? So why would Grissom be unhappy about the machines being incapable of reaching the moon if he knew all along they were never going to go there? Anyone who takes just two seconds to think will be able to see through Kaysing's smokescreen. But HBs want to believe it, so they do, and they do so unflinchingly. I generally try not to look down on people, but these hardcore HBs are some small people.

[BertL]

Apr 28, 2008 9:17:40 GMT -4 AtomicDog said:

Will this do?

I have a screen filling one. I can use it if you want me to?

[AtomicDog]

I've seen bigger ones. I was just offering a photo that could take the place of an emoticon.

[Grand Lunar]

Apr 28, 2008 9:17:40 GMT -4 AtomicDog said:

Will this do?

That'll do! ;D

[Grand Lunar]

Great posts, all.

It does help me greatly to have an infusion of reality and rational thinking.

Now, I must work on my Cavorite sphere to prove the HBs wrong.

[Count Zero]

Now, I must work on my Cavorite sphere to prove the HBs wrong.

I've got Guy the Expendable Crewman out collecting a beryllium sphere right now...

[sts60]

But maybe he's the plucky comic relief!

[Count Zero]

By Grabthar's Hammer, I hope so!

[Obviousman]

All the drugs he has taken have just screwed him up. His sense of reality slips away more each day.

[Grand Lunar]

Apr 29, 2008 20:49:47 GMT -4 Obviousman said:

All the drugs he has taken have just screwed him up. His sense of reality slips away more each day.

Not to mention his lack of cognetive thinking.

I mention his latest gem in "HB contradictions".

[nomuse]

I've been wandering over to Godlike Productions every now and then (mostly trying to talk to people who think there are fossilized tigers in the Burgess Shale...) A fun one that came through there recently was that Apollo in general is provably faked because an incident during an Apollo 17 EVA was obviously fake because.....Duct Tape Can't Work in Space.

Yah.

And on one of several "Duct tape doesn't work in space" threads, someone pointed at actual video of Gene Cernan using a roll of duct tape, and claimed more obvious trickery or special effects errors, as the end of the tape hung down off the roll.....which it "obviously" should not have done in the Moon's gravity.

Yes. "Heavy Boots" is back again, and stupider than ever.


A different set of threads has been going on about the hammer and feather experiment. A movement of the feather somewhat prior to the drop is being pointed at as clear evidence that a Wire Was Attached to the Tip of the Feather.

I've tried to understand what this is supposed to accomplish. None of my skills in theatrical trickery permit such a dead-stupid way of rigging any effect. At LEAST you could tie the fishline to the center of the feather! But that's the least of the flaws in this absurd idea of how an effect could be accomplished.


Is there a word, I wonder, that aptly separates the ideas hoax believers promote from actual worked-out theories? I mean, in theory-land, I'd say "a fish-line was attached to the hammer and paid out slowly, probably from a simple gravity-driven mechanism, reducing it's acceleration to that of the feather." And then I could point out that the feather showed no aerodynamic effects, and that the hammer is observed to turn in the air; that theory is readily falsified.

In hoax believer land; "The hammer and feather drop was faked and there was a wire and special effects." It doesn't actually describe anything. Or, to be fair, it is an attempt to reconcile several different observations; A) the hammer-and-feather drop is faked (assumed); B) there's something that could be a wire. Since there is no attempt to intrinsically connect these other than by the generic class "Movie special effects are involved," there is no way to falsify.