|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 23, 2010 3:07:22 GMT -4
There are many websites examining this subject, invariably from a pro or anti-conspiracy viewpoint. None which I’ve seen are completely unbiased. Many of us here would happily state that yes, we are heavily biased towards the truth about Apollo, and many of us are not from the United States so we owe no particularly loyalty to that country, its people, its government, or to Nasa. We simply defend what we know to be the facts -- the ones that stand up to scrutiny, to the proper tests, and that agree with our own knowledge and experiences in different fields. On the other hand, many hoax-believers seem to have the attitude, "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up." Or even worse, they ask questions but don't put in the effort that is required to understand the facts. That is essential to understanding many aspects of Apollo, which is sometimes counter-intuitive. After all, some of it is, in fact, rocket science. Here's hoping that you are not one of those people. It's certainly a pity that you think Aulis has a "good" website. Considering how long Bennett and Percy have been soundly debunked, and the impossibility of engaging them in proper debate, it appears that you might have a great deal to learn. Percy closed down the Q&A section of that website years ago when some of us here asked a few hard questions. That section could not be used, although it remained available for viewing for some time, but eventually it disappeared. Stick around and ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Mar 23, 2010 13:31:42 GMT -4
Your video was out there in the public domain. I merely expressed my opinion at the time, as I have every right to do. You, of course, have every right to ignore my opinion, and equally have the right to present your videos in whatever style you chose. That goes without saying, and you didn't answer my question. . Not really interested in getting tied down in a discussion about whether it's right to characterize everyone who thinks Apollo was faked in that way. I think anti-hoax videos should concentrate on the evidence rather than the personalities, or you risk the otherwise strong message getting diluted.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 23, 2010 16:38:01 GMT -4
I looks like we may have a seagull.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 23, 2010 18:39:54 GMT -4
Many of us here would happily state that yes, we are heavily biased towards the truth about Apollo...Not really. A bias isn't merely a belief or a conclusion. A bias compromises one's view of the evidence in a measurable, material way. The value of one's arguments or the strength of one's case cannot be dismissed simply because the proponent has an opinion. The evidentiary landscape is not guaranteed to be level on any particular question, hence to require one to be noncommittal as a condition of credibility is simply fantasy. Hoax believers accuse their critics of bias (pro-NASA, pro-America, pro-aerospace, pecuniary, etc.) as a standard ad hominem technique for sidestepping the real questions. We might, for example, rightly suspect that the National Tobacco Institute's research on the detriments of second-hand smoke may be biased. But a perceived motive is not proof of bias itself. We'd have to actually look at their research and identify, for example, where they might have skewed the sample to rule out other risk factors, or narrowly defined the effects they were looking for. Real bias always comes down to demonstrable errors in reasoning or data-handling, not merely handwaving accusations. Or even worse, they ask questions but don't put in the effort that is required to understand the facts.Conspiracism is, in many ways, a celebration of ignorance; but often those questions are asked in a purely rhetorical fashion. "How did NASA protect the astronauts against the searing radiation hell outside the Van Allen belts?" is meant simply to stir up doubt. There is a technical answer, but to someone who's already somewhat predisposed to distrust that answer it doesn't necesssarily sound convincing. The act of asking such a question and soliciting a dry, technical answer shifts the balance of credibility as well as the burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Mar 23, 2010 18:49:00 GMT -4
I looks like we may have a seagull. True, but I think it was worth it for the "Moon landing was faked on the Moon idea". That's some quality crazy right there.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Mar 24, 2010 8:55:13 GMT -4
True, but I think it was worth it for the "Moon landing was faked on the Moon idea". That's some quality crazy right there. It does raise one question that just begs to be asked. At what point can you describe a moon landing filmed on the moon as being a fake?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 24, 2010 9:20:52 GMT -4
True, but I think it was worth it for the "Moon landing was faked on the Moon idea". That's some quality crazy right there. It does raise one question that just begs to be asked. At what point can you describe a moon landing filmed on the moon as being a fake? When you fly an entire film crew and pressurized sound stage to the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 24, 2010 12:29:50 GMT -4
When you fly an entire film crew and pressurized sound stage to the Moon. Wait... just wait... a pressurized sound stage... to film scenes clearly taking place in a vacuum? The stupid... it burns!
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 24, 2010 12:35:12 GMT -4
Sound stages on the Moon have to be able to be pressurized; otherwise, the flags won't flap in the wind. Then you let all the air out so the dust kicked up by the astronauts and rover will travel in a parabolic arc. Then you re-pressurize the stage so you can film in shadows.
That hurt my brain to write that.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 13:21:47 GMT -4
Can you have an unpressurized sound stage. No air equals no sound. Remember, in the moon hoax, no one can hear you scream.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Mar 24, 2010 21:03:19 GMT -4
Not really interested in getting tied down in a discussion about whether it's right to characterize everyone who thinks Apollo was faked in that way. The video clearly refers to the fanatics as a "small group". "small group" <> "everyone". .
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Mar 25, 2010 10:13:07 GMT -4
Hagbard,
Would you please explain the LRO photos of the six landing sites?
Also explain how the Japanese terrain camera managed to replicate the terrain almost exactly at one site.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 25, 2010 10:42:31 GMT -4
Hagbard, Would you please explain the LRO photos of the six landing sites? Also explain how the Japanese terrain camera managed to replicate the terrain almost exactly at one site. Hint: Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 25, 2010 11:22:16 GMT -4
I suspected from the beginning that hagbard was going to be a one post wonder.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 25, 2010 14:05:58 GMT -4
Two post wonder.
|
|