|
Post by macapple on Aug 4, 2009 11:15:14 GMT -4
That's just your opinion that it's that low. Actually the FBI estimates that there are 50-60 active serial killers in the US at any one time. (source FBI Site) anyway. The issue at hand is that the Apollo space program, in its entirety, is represented as fact. Definition -an actual thing or happening. This fact has had many hypothesis constructed about it over the years that are not supported or grounded in fact . Many HB present everything they say as fact but legally they are unsubstantiated theories and hypothesis. If the Apollo space program was hoaxed and all the HBs have this "amazing evidence" why has no one taken any of this to court for judicial review? This would be Govt. fraud on a grandiose scale and the easiest one to prove, according to almost everyone that peddles the conspiracy theory. Its an easy one this, the day they enter court and present this hoax garbage it will need scientific and legal back up to be presented as reliable evidence. In a court you need qualified testimony to back up your claims not a bunch of people justifying the hoax by presenting the world according to them. I mean really can you greenmagoo standing up in court trying to explain his videos as fact? They are all just unsubstantiated claims from his point of view and producing some you tube video isn't gonna make it fact. It does however make him feel wanted in a warm and hugged sort of way. A great example of this is the modern Flat Earth society who were formed in 1956. Their founder Samuel Shenton on seeing the film and photos of the earth from space said ""It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye". Now these guys were actually the first believers that the whole space program was a hoax as it really undoes their believe that the earth is flat and not round. It was interesting to read that a large proportion of the Flat Earth Society believed that the whole space program was filmed in a studio in Hollywood and written by Arthur C Clark. Personally i think its a conspiracy by the flat earth society to discredit anything that supports the fact that the earth is flat!!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 4, 2009 12:59:51 GMT -4
Actually the FBI estimates that there are 50-60 active serial killers in the US at any one time. (source FBI Site) anyway. I've read that they're trying to get away from quantifying the number they haven't caught, but that is still what they're saying. The 300 figure is Ann Rule's guess. She has, so far as I know, no specific training, but she's done a lot of studying. Lazarusty, do you really think there's so much as a one in a million chance that everyone who works with the evidence is either lying or deluded?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 4, 2009 13:05:52 GMT -4
Presenting both sides of the argument is a fine thing when one is talking about political matters where argument is often all there is, or the evidence is just a matter interpreting statistics. In cases where you have a mass of physical evidence on one side that keeps growing(the LRO images most recently), and vague speculation and a few photo anomalies on the other, then you have no excuse not to draw a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 4, 2009 13:13:17 GMT -4
In the case of a hoax of the Apollo program, presenting both sides of the argument is called debunking. It takes place in the form of accurately presenting HB claims and showing why they are not true. See Jay's Clavius for a fine reference to presenting both sides of the issue or any number of threads on this board.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 4, 2009 17:28:07 GMT -4
Smiley noted, but what case do you make that the number of astronaut deaths was suspicious? It was greater than zero, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2009 19:03:10 GMT -4
It was greater than zero, wasn't it? Indeed it was. The death toll for crab fishing is also non-zero. Does that make crab fishing suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 4, 2009 19:11:38 GMT -4
It was greater than zero, wasn't it? Indeed it was. The death toll for crab fishing is also non-zero. Does that make crab fishing suspicious? Maybe was inadequate. Is this one ;D better?
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Aug 4, 2009 19:19:14 GMT -4
Lazarusty, do you really think there's so much as a one in a million chance that everyone who works with the evidence is either lying or deluded? As I think has been mentioned many times in the past, the trick is COMPARTMENTALISATION. Only the very few at the top need know. The rest are just doing the job s they are ordered to do. Even the NASA ground control crew don't need to be let in on it. As far as they are concerned, they are getting a genuine feed.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2009 19:33:49 GMT -4
As I think has been mentioned many times in the past, the trick is COMPARTMENTALISATION. Only the very few at the top need know. The rest are just doing the job s they are ordered to do. Even the NASA ground control crew don't need to be let in on it. As far as they are concerned, they are getting a genuine feed. And as has been said a million times: 1. Engineering does not work under a compartmentalized regime. 2. Apollo was observed not to have been so compartmentalized. The conspiracy theorists propose these scenarios without attempting to match them to what was observed to occur.
|
|
|
Post by scubadude402 on Aug 4, 2009 19:47:14 GMT -4
How many is a "few"?? 10? 100? You don't think the NASA ground control crew would not figure something wasn't right eventually? I mean some of those guys were fairly edumacated! It has also been said a million times before that it would simply be a lot easier to just build the hardware and acutaslly do it than fake it and have to cover it up ( impossible anyway) for all time.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 4, 2009 20:55:31 GMT -4
Lazarusty, do you really think there's so much as a one in a million chance that everyone who works with the evidence is either lying or deluded? As I think has been mentioned many times in the past, the trick is COMPARTMENTALISATION. Only the very few at the top need know. The rest are just doing the job s they are ordered to do. Even the NASA ground control crew don't need to be let in on it. As far as they are concerned, they are getting a genuine feed. Since it would have been impossible to compartmentalise the enginneering and the equipment manufactured by companies such as ILC Industries, Rocketdyne, Grumman, and Boeing, that would have resulted in NASA actually having equipment that could sent men to the moon, keep them safe there, and return them. If they had the capablity of doing it, why bother going to the added expense of faking it?
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Aug 4, 2009 21:00:32 GMT -4
Because humans coudn't get through the Van Allen Belts without being killed. They made it looked like it was manned but actually sent it unmanned, hence it could still be tracked and it indeed went on a trip through space. Why should the engineers etc be told it wasn't manned?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 4, 2009 21:11:35 GMT -4
Because humans coudn't get through the Van Allen Belts without being killed. Okay, okay - Lazarusty - do you really believe that or are you just pulling our chain. If you do, on what evidence convinces you that the belts were that lethal?
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Aug 4, 2009 21:20:07 GMT -4
The words of Van Allen himself before he went a little strange about it all.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 4, 2009 21:21:27 GMT -4
They made it looked like it was manned but actually sent it unmanned, hence it could still be tracked and it indeed went on a trip through space. Why should the engineers etc be told it wasn't manned? The people at the tracking stations would know if it was manned or not. They talked to the astronauts on at least one occasion, during Apollo 16; John Young and Charlie Duke lost communication with Houston before their second EVA, so John Saxon from Honeysuckle Creek got on the radio to explain the situation and they had a brief friendly conversation. Or was Saxon part of the conspiracy too? (Personally, I find this story amusing because I always imagine someone asking Saxon how his day at work was and he gets to tell the person he had a conversation with astronauts on the Moon).
|
|