|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 17, 2010 20:53:55 GMT -4
The NASA-Nazi connection is the main reason that so many non-whites are suspicious of NASA. I'm white, as it turns out, but I can clearly understand why over 50% of African Americans do not trust NASA, and believed that the lunar missions were staged. Neither me, or any other African-Americans I know, believe that Apollo was staged.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 17, 2010 21:11:46 GMT -4
As for the C rock, I figured that NASA could have done some air-brushing.Or the conspiracy theorists could have done some speculating and handwaving, if not outright lying. See, people are all set not to trust the government (or whatever authority), and that's fine; but for some reason they don't exercise the same skepticism toward conspiracy theorists. That indicates a bias. Why is it so hard to believe that the conspiracy theorists might just be trying to dupe gullible individuals? Some of the most evil men that ever walked the face of the Earth were involved with NASA and making those lunar missions possible...That's debatable. Which is to say, there's little question whether the Nazi regime was evil; but all the historical evidence points to von Braun, Puttkamer, Wendt, et al. as being opportunists. Von Braun was interested in rockets before being associated with the Nazis, while being associated with them, while he was a prisoner of war in the United States, and after he became a U.S. citizen. Regimes come and go, but von Braun's interest remained fairly focused on rockets and space travel. On 4 November 2002, the Italian daily "Corriere della sera" reported...You're really just getting all these from one web site. They completely misstated the evidence regarding the Moon rocks. Do you really trust them? Luckily I'm fluent in Italian and I can read the article cited by SourceWatch, which is not a Corriere article but a third-party claim that mentions the alleged poll in a footnote. The article, ironically, is about Vito Saccheri and his ludicrous UFO claims; the meat of the article assumes the authenticity of the Apollo missions, as does Saccheri. In fact, much of SourceWatch's allegations of opinion polls seem to be second- and third-hand sources. And much of their cited sources are in languages other than English, making it difficult for readers to determine whether they've been summarized correctly. I figured that the lunar missions could have been staged, and trusting the government's honesty all the time would be naive...Luckily one doesn't have to simply trust the U.S. government on the question of the Apollo missions' authenticity. There is plenty of verifiable detail. That's the problem with most conspiracy theories: they assume motives and then suppose actions must have followed. Whether the Moon landings are real or not is a matter of fact. Saying someone "must" have lied about it simply ignores that matter of fact. Siebel is a shady character; is there any way that I can contact him directly to challenge his claims?No. Nor does he consent to appearances that subject him to questioning he does not control. His appearance fee is astronomical too. In your search for motive did you happen to notice that Sibrel's company AFTH LLC recorded hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for nothing more than Moon hoax claims? Does he have a website?www.moonmovie.com/But as you can see, he doesn't allow debate on it. It's simply a marketing web site. Is there any validity to the claim that the photographic film itself would have been ruined by the radiation of space?Not really. Didn't the Russians manage to successfully place retroreflectors on the Moon using probes and robotics?They placed some, but with only marginal success. It's a harder problem than you think.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Mar 18, 2010 10:04:59 GMT -4
I'm white, as it turns out, but I can clearly understand why over 50% of African Americans do not trust NASA, and believed that the lunar missions were staged. Do you doubt the invasion of France in 1940? It was done by the evil Nazis, so it must be fake, right?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 18, 2010 10:35:24 GMT -4
What's the deal with that guy that claims... I don't know who that particular guy is, but really must have a go at this... If he's like many of the other moonlanding hoax-promoters, the deal would be that he either wants to get rich or has a big ego, maybe both. If he's offering to enlighten you about the "hoax" in return for US$39.95 or more, you can easily guess which. Back when the United States had a population of 260 million, one only had to make a profit of $3.85 out of one-tenth of 1% of the population to make more than a million dollars before tax. Here in New Zealand, the profit would be only $13,475. Openmindedskeptic, you're a refreshing change on this forum, for which you deserve our congratulations. Most hoax-believers arrogantly storm in here, totally convinced they know it all and are going to prove there was a hoax, and with that attitude they get a pretty cool reception here, especially when all they do is prove how stunningly ignorant and narrow-minded they are. They don't think to do as you have and simply ask questions. Some of them can't even put a sentence together properly. After a few days or weeks of their bluster, perhaps some BS and their darting around all over the show without resolving one single point, they usually slink away or deliberately do something that gets themselves banned, but few of them ever change their minds in the face of all the evidence. The truth is, they probably can't understand it. If you want to follow it up, in this post in a thread about the "talk": apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1139104925&page=2#1139269627I "analysed" for everyone's amusement the intercom leakage noises throughout a full 15 minutes of transmissions from the Apollo 11 crew. The alleged "talk" was never actually said, as claimed by Bart Sibrel. In the post above the one linked, it says, it sounds more like "tuft" than "talk."Anyway, I hope you've had a good look at JayUtah's Clavius website and explored some of the other links at the bottom of every page here, particularly Bob B's Rocket and Space Technology (he has a "hoax" page) and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. They will answer many of your questions and probably heaps more that you haven't yet asked or even thought of.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 18, 2010 11:38:50 GMT -4
I reiterate:Now, a question for you: (openmindedskeptic) Why would someone want to cast aspersions on the greatest feat of manned exploration? Something that people dedicated their careers and and occasionally their lives to accomplish only to have it be spat upon by vandals who, for reasons unknown, wish to take it away. The people who made it possible, from the (lowly) machinist who constructed an antenna that remains on the lunar surface to the men who zipped up the only thing that kept them from a decompressive, hypoxic death, are dwindling. Why would anyone find joy in spray-painting graffiti on their accomplishment? This is a serious, not flippant, question and it is not meant to attack or demean merely to try to understand a way of thinking.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 18, 2010 12:02:11 GMT -4
I have one other question about that Banned in America video: why was the 3rd party person telling the astronauts when to talk? If Bart Sibrel hadn’t suggested to you that it was the word “talk”, what would you have thought it was? Sibrel is very good a misdirection and suggestion. The entire first half of his video is intended to get you all riled up and distrusting of the government so you let your guard down and become open to the power of suggestion. He then beats you over the head with his fabricated story and tries to con you into believing it has evidentiary support, but he never lets you see the evidence. He cherry picks and edits the NASA video and narrates over the dialog so you can’t hear what’s going on. He let’s you hear one syllable that sort of sounds like the word “talk” because that’s the one fragment he wants you to hear because it fits into the fairytale he’s telling you. Bart Sibrel is a snake oil salesman, plain and simple. I seriously doubt he believes his own nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by openmindedskeptic on Mar 18, 2010 16:24:33 GMT -4
I'll respond to several of the posters. I won't go into the 9/11 conspiracy, because that's beyond the scope of this forum. I misspelled Siebel's name --- oh well. Von Braun was a Nazi war criminal that utilized slave labor in Nazi Germany. He was a lot more than "kind of a jerk". A jerk is someone that cuts you off on the freeway. Von Braun was a monster that should have been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Look it up. Gillianren, the fact that a substantial percentage of blacks distrust NASA doesn't meant that every single one does. The statistic itself implies that, since it's not 100%. Like I said multiple times, the movie Capricorn One brought the subject to mind. I know that it was just some movie, and wasn't any more factual than Die Hard. It just got me thinking about the subject of NASA possibly faking one or more of the Moon landings. As for the Skylab pic, gravity is not selective, and the absence of gravity is not selective. In space, nothing should be hanging. On Earth, you don't find things floating around every once in a while, and in space, you don't find things occasionally being pulled down by magical gravity. The fact that the towel in the corner is most likely hanging tells me that this picture was most likely taken on Earth. I'm not saying that Skylab didn't exist. I'm saying that this one picture was probably faked. I'm also wondering what else could have faked. "Conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative stigma intended to marginalize someone that presents possible evidence for a conspiracy. Evidence is still evidence, and if there is evidence that NASA fakes something, then there is evidence for it. I came here to hear the Apollo supporters' case for debunking what hoax proponents claim to be evidence. Most of my questions were answered. Thank you for your time. If any more questions come up, I'll be back to ask them. Bye.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 18, 2010 16:48:09 GMT -4
I'll respond to several of the posters. I won't go into the 9/11 conspiracy, because that's beyond the scope of this forum. No, just this section. We're perfectly willing to educate you on where you're wrong about 9/11 elsewhere on this forum. It's a good indicator of your research skills--and you did it again just there. Um, we have. You think you're the first person to play the Nazi card? I think you are the one who needs to really look into his actual actions. However, there's no evidence for your statistic. Or at least none that you've shown. Yes, but given that it is fiction, and it's bad fiction, and internally inconsistent, and has someone work it all out while the alleged mission is still happening, why should it make you think it's easier to do it in the real world? No, you were already predisposed towards conspiracies, and Capricorn One reminded you that, hey, there was a Moon landing the government said was true; that's probably lies! When you present evidence instead of ignorance, maybe that would take away the pejorative nature. And since it was shown to be nonsense . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Mar 18, 2010 17:47:34 GMT -4
Someone mentioned the article in SourceWatch? SourceWatch is a wiki. Its content is generated by its users. If you look at that article's history, you will see that it is written by a single user. This is basically equivalent to an "article" published on a free hosting site (e.g. YouTube), although in this case it tries to parasite on SourceWatch's authority (if it has any). This particular... person has a habit of sneaking Moon Hoax articles in open wikis. He has done in Citizendium, too, and has tried to do it in Wikipedia, but didn't succeed. You can take a guess about his motivations for doubting the moon landings if you look at his user page in Wikipedia: User:ЛъчезарIt has a lot of... red. Some people never got over how the Cold War ended.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Mar 18, 2010 18:12:24 GMT -4
I'll respond to several of the posters. Snipped cos its up there and saves page space. This is starting to sound familiar. Von Braun was a small product of a regime that was insidious in its nature. Rommel was as well. So were many others that were not inherently evil. I see these comparisons from people who prefer the term astro not. (spell checker is making me spell it right, I do mean the last three letters to be NOT with astro infront....) OK, stats for distrust. Lets see the figures, have you asked everyone in person? Why is the towel supposed to be any shape in particular in zero g? How can you fake an Apollo landing, start with the size of vacuum chamber. edit ah, sorted. split the word.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 18, 2010 18:12:55 GMT -4
Von Braun was a Nazi war criminal that utilized slave labor in Nazi Germany. He was a lot more than "kind of a jerk". A jerk is someone that cuts you off on the freeway. Von Braun was a monster that should have been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Look it up. Von Braun worked on the design side of a program that used slave labor on the manufacturing side. Von Braun had nothing to do with the decision to use slave labor nor did he oversee it, though he likely knew about it. There really wasn’t anything he could do to stop it, and if he tried, he likely would have been imprisoned himself. He was certainly no saint for turning a blind eye to the situation, be he was not the monster responsible for the horrid acts that were perpetrated. As for the Skylab pic … The fact that the towel in the corner is most likely hanging tells me that this picture was most likely taken on Earth. Just because it looks like it might be hanging doesn’t mean it is. Isn’t it far more likely that the towel is simply free floating near the ‘ceiling’?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 18, 2010 18:30:28 GMT -4
Von Braun was a monster that should have been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Look it up.What makes you think we haven't? Consult Ordway and Sharpe's The Rocket Team. The first hundred pages describes the relationship between Peenemünde and Mittelwerk, the roles of the various operatives, the conditions, and the feelings of the people involved at what was going on. Gillianren, the fact that a substantial percentage of blacks distrust NASA doesn't meant that every single one does.But you haven't substantiated any of those alleged results. Your only source is SourceWatch, which relies solely on second- and third-hand sources in non-English languages for those polls. If those results were true, and a substantial number of African-Americans distrusted NASA, then at least one of us would likely know at least one such person. But if none of us know even one Black person who disbelieves in Apollo, then it's unlikely that half of all that population thinks NASA faked the Moon landings, as you've claimed. Most likely your allegations are all going to trace themselves back to the claims of Aaron Ranen, who has spent ten years and two movies trying to prove that NASA is a racist Nazi organization. Ranen is Jewish, and likes to jump on every allegation of NASA racism regardless of whether there is any merit in it. Factually, most of NASA's installations in the 1960s were in the South, and that's not a good time or place to be Jewish or Black. That's the backdrop behind all of Ranen's claims. The fact that the towel in the corner is most likely hanging...Weasel words. It's either "most likely" hanging (your interpretation), or it's a fact that it's hanging. It can't be both a fact and a guess. You've noticed something in a photo that doesn't meet your expectation. What have you done to assure yourself that your expectations aren't simplistic? Do you really propose to know ahead of time exactly how every object will behave without gravity? Should a towel really always be stuck outward, blatantly floating the way it does in Hollywood movies to beat you over the head with the notion that there's no gravity? Or do objects simply stay the way they were put initially, and if it happens to have been hooked in a "down" position it's staying there because no force acts to change it? There is a persistent misconception that everything has to float "upward" in zero gravity. If no force acts to put it in that orientation or position, it simply doesn't go there. In fact, in zero gravity you have things in a variety of positions, some up, some down, and some in the middle. In short, you don't get to claim that something "must" be fake simply because it doesn't meet your personal expectation of what real ought to look like. You bear the burden to demonstrate that your expectations are valid -- not just to suppose that they are, but to prove it. Then and only then will an indirect proof of fakery work. I'm not saying that Skylab didn't exist. I'm saying that this one picture was probably faked. I'm also wondering what else could have faked.And that's the same insinuational line of reasoning that every conspiracy theorist uses. In three sentences you've gone from a reasonable statement of skepticism to throwing out the whole NASA record. You're stuck in the mindset of looking for one smoking gun that lets you hold a desired belief without all the tedium of dealing with the mountain of evidence. "Conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative stigma intended to marginalize someone that presents possible evidence for a conspiracy.No, it's a descriptive term for someone who theorizes that a conspiracy occurred to create a false history, and a tortured and biased line of reasoning for supporting it. The reason "conspiracy theorist" has such a poor stigma is that so many conspiracy theorists are woefully unprepared and highly dishonest. The reputation is earned, not imposed. Evidence is still evidence, and if there is evidence that NASA fakes something, then there is evidence for it.The problem is that the "evidence" against NASA is all too often factually wrong or based on ignorant suppositions. Or it's based on intentionally distorting or selectively quoting the evidence. That makes us question the motives of those proponents. You seem eager to challenge all of NASA based on your interpretation of a towel, but you won't put your own sources to the same rigor. Butchered claims about Moon rocks don't deter you from quoting SourceWatch. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue and highly edited source film doesn't deter you from quoting Bart Sibrel. Just because someone fights your enemy doesn't mean he's fighting fair.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 18, 2010 21:40:36 GMT -4
Leonov says, "... These people don't know anything about technology. Or they just seek popularity."
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 19, 2010 2:50:21 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 19, 2010 5:44:31 GMT -4
Von Braun was a Nazi war criminal that utilized slave labor in Nazi Germany. He was a lot more than "kind of a jerk". A jerk is someone that cuts you off on the freeway. Von Braun was a monster that should have been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Look it up. I have looked it up. I have looked it up in more detail than you have, I would be willing to bet. I have even spoken to people who knew him. Von Braun did not run slave labour, he did not decide to use slave labour, he did not stand there weilding a whip. He was placed in a facility that already used slave labour for construction purposes. Could he have refused to work in such a place? Yes. Would that be a good idea in a dictatorship that locks you up for just suggesting your rockets might have peacetime uses? Not remotely. Members of my family worked in factories in England that produced weapons used to kill far more people than von Braun's V2 rockets ever managed. Some even flew the raids that flattened German cities, killing men, women and children indiscriminately. Are they war criminals? Are the men who designed, built and deployed the A-bombs that practically wiped two Japanese cities off the map war criminals and monsters? Von Braun's Nazi history is a convenient crutch for conspiracy theorists, simply because of the universal hatred the word 'Nazi' creates. How easy it must be for someone who has not lived through a worldwide conflict or lived under a ruthless dictatorship like Naziism to stand in judgement of those who did and did not measure up to your cosy standards of humanity. What if I put a towel on a rail and arrange it so it appears to be hanging. What will move it in the absence of gravity? Even if the towel is freely floating, a photograph captures one static moment. How have you excluded the possibility that it just happened to be pointing downwards at that time? How have you determined it is 'most likely' hanging, as opposed to many other possibile explanations? How, in fact, have you determined that it is actually a freely hanging towel anyway? Part of it is obscured, so how have you determined whether it is free floating or attached to something? OK, then tell us why it was faked if Skylab was real and they could take real pictures.
|
|