|
Post by BertL on Jul 20, 2009 12:56:58 GMT -4
4 YouTube videos regarding Apollo 11 were featured today. As a result of this, a lot of people are commenting on it. Amazingly a lot of comments are stuff like "why does the flag wave" and "where are the stars". I've actually made five or six "standard responses" to such questions, explaining in very short sentences why there are no stars, or how they got through the Van Allen belts without dieing.
What amazes me most is how many people actually still ask those questions. I thought this had been debunked years ago. It just goes to show how much people are ignorant of the subject.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 20, 2009 13:45:52 GMT -4
Yeah, it's really easy to watch a video, and swallow everything in it at face value. It takes some effort to actually do a little research (it doesn't take a lot) to find the truth that refutes the claims.
They just can't be bothered to take that particular "small step".
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 20, 2009 15:12:40 GMT -4
Just because they've been debunked doesn't mean that people actually know about the answers.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 20, 2009 15:25:17 GMT -4
Very true. People on Yahoo Answers keep asking about the waving flag and who filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder and even the lack of stars in pictures.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 20, 2009 15:44:31 GMT -4
Very true. People on Yahoo Answers keep asking about the waving flag and who filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder and even the lack of stars in pictures. The problem is that they keep asking the questions when the answer is staring them in the face. I gave the same answer to the same question, asked by the same user at least twice. I think a lot of people don't really care about what happened, they just wonder that for a moment and then move on with their lifes without any interest in the answer or the truth. This bugs me a lot, as this means people will happily live their life believing a lot of things that are just plain wrong. I personally prefer living with the truth at my side, if you understand what I'm trying to convey.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:01:38 GMT -4
Big problem is that mainstream media reports on what the HB's believe without bothering to offer up any rebuttal. Case in point listening to BBC Radio 1, their news program marks the anniversary by mentioning there are people who don't believe in the landings, trots out a couple of soundbite interviews that cover the usual, waving flag, shadows, and then swiftly moves on. They even mentioned the video that shows the gantry crashing behind an astronaut but hadn't bothered to discover that this was a spoof!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 20, 2009 16:15:31 GMT -4
Big problem is that mainstream media reports on what the HB's believe without bothering to offer up any rebuttal. Case in point listening to BBC Radio 1, their news program marks the anniversary by mentioning there are people who don't believe in the landings, trots out a couple of soundbite interviews that cover the usual, waving flag, shadows, and then swiftly moves on. They even mentioned the video that shows the gantry crashing behind an astronaut but hadn't bothered to discover that this was a spoof! Yeah, the amount of scientific incorrectness in mainstream media has bothered me a lot as well. I recently watched a summary of how Dutch TV portrayed the Apollo 11 missions. Everything was explained, from why it took so much fuel just for the first stage, to how the rocket can't fly in a straight line, even to how the shuttle went into lunar orbit. The amount of detail in the description is amazing, and far better than the "they flew there with a super large rocket"-like news reports you find today.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:20:25 GMT -4
I'm just waiting for the first HB to come up with the old chestnut 'If space is a vacuum then how could the rocket fly without anything to push against?'
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 20, 2009 17:35:24 GMT -4
I'm just waiting for the first HB to come up with the old chestnut 'If space is a vacuum then how could the rocket fly without anything to push against?' I have seen one who seriously claimed that rockets could not work in space as their was no oxygen for them to burn. I decided it might be pointless to reply.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 20, 2009 17:50:37 GMT -4
I'm just waiting for the first HB to come up with the old chestnut 'If space is a vacuum then how could the rocket fly without anything to push against?' I do believe Moonman (or an equivilant) did bring this very argument up.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 20, 2009 19:07:16 GMT -4
I'm just waiting for the first HB to come up with the old chestnut 'If space is a vacuum then how could the rocket fly without anything to push against?' One did ask why the flag's wrinkles weren't being straighted out (making flag pretty much a perfect rectangle) because of the gravity pulling it down.
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jul 20, 2009 19:15:51 GMT -4
Hello all! Hope everyone is OK. I've noticed this on the videos I have hosted too. www.landingapollo.com stats have shot through the roof too. I've been doing my best to educate as usual with the youtube mainstream but it's like trying to put out a building fire with a straw and a bucket of water. Stupidity will prevail!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 20, 2009 20:08:54 GMT -4
I'm just waiting for the first HB to come up with the old chestnut 'If space is a vacuum then how could the rocket fly without anything to push against?' I do believe Moonman (or an equivilant) did bring this very argument up. An equivalent, surely. Moonman didn't believe there was a vacuum at all. "How far above the surface of the Moon does this alleged vacuum start," remember?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 23, 2009 16:05:03 GMT -4
An equivalent, surely. Moonman didn't believe there was a vacuum at all. "How far above the surface of the Moon does this alleged vacuum start," remember? My vacuum starts when I plug it in and press the button. Distance has nothing to do with it.
|
|