|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 10:54:28 GMT -4
Your belief is incorrect, . No. That is your opinion only. It is not a statement of fact. Let me try to demonstrate what I mean by looking at things from a slightly different angle. Does God exist?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Aug 3, 2005 11:05:52 GMT -4
Your belief is incorrect, . No. That is your opinion only. It is not a statement of fact. Whether the Apollo missions brought men on the Moon or not, is a fact. The amount of evidence supporting the fact that the Apollo missions went as described by the record, is overwhelming. The reality of the Moon landings is something that can be decided by facts, therefore it is not just a matter of opinion. Whether you accept the Apollo record or not, is another story.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 3, 2005 11:09:37 GMT -4
I will have to look into the methods used by Sibrel to gain interviews with astronauts before I can comment on that, as I am sure you will understand.
I am aware of only three instances, but I don't have URLs for them. The famous Buzz Aldrin interview that ended in a punch was arranged under the pretense of an "educational television" channel. Ed Mitchell said on his web site that he was told it was for the Discovery Channel. Another astronaut simply said he was lured "under false pretenses".
What is Aulis' reason for their stance on the Moon Hoax?
Who knows? I try to focus on motive as little as possible because that leads to wrong generalizations. I can say that they are wrong, and that they likely know they are wrong. Whether they actually believe their own hype simply isn't important to me.
I can say that when Aulis was answering questions about their claims, their standard answer was, "You must buy both our book and our video in order to get your answer." Clearly they want to hawk their wares. That may be your motive.
Aulis tried having message boards, but showed that they couldn't deal with logical objections. Finally they just stopped answering readers' questions altogether. Read whatever motives you want into that.
Reasonable people, when confronted with an error in their ways, correct the error. That's why a whole section of this message board is devoted to people correcting errors in my web site. I do correct the errors, of course, but I don't hide the fact that I make them. And my biggest critics in that regard are these people here -- people who agree with my general points. This is peer review. Respectable authors crave criticism in order to weed out bad arguments.
Aulis, however, tries to distract from their errors. Or they pick and choose which parts of the criticism they'll respond to and let the rest fade away. Often they'll try to identify some trivial irrelevant flaw or discrepancy in that criticism just to convey the appearance that the critic is wrong, but without addressing the actual criticism.
And what about Keysing? I gather he is fairly knowledgeable in the field of rocketry.
No. Not at all. His education was in English literature. He spent his life as an author. He worked for a number of years at Rocketdyne, which is a major manufacturer of rocket engines, but he worked as a writer and librarian, not in any technical capacity.
He's so scientifically inept that other conspiracy theorists say as much.
Are they all simply snake-oil salesmen?
I see my summaries from another forum have already been posted.
Sibrel, Rene, Bennett and Percy, Kaysing, and Jack White are people I believe fit the definition of snake-oil salesmen. They engage in patterns of evasion, patterns of distraction, and patterns of argumentation that give me the impression of some degree of willful deception.
Jim Collier, who died some years ago, I would put into the category of idiot. The more I watch his video the more I believe he simply doesn't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I will repeat- I don't believe it happened...
Very well, but why don't you believe it happened? That's what we're most interested in.
...and that within a very short time-frame, it will be admitted that it didn't.
Not likely. The people who understand space technology, space science, and photography as experts or professionals have found no reason to doubt Apollo after decades of building upon it. Everything checks out. Why would NASA admit something is false that knowledgeable people agree is true?
If you manage to prove to me that I am wrong, I will accept that I am wrong. Nobody here has done that yet.
Well, none of us can produce an Apollo astronaut for you to meet in person, which was your original personal standard of proof. You haven't yet suggested a more reasonable alternative.
I hate to make it sound like a cop-out, but in historical research authenticity is presumed and fakery has the burden of proof. This is because you can never prove authenticity (only the absence of detectable fraud) to any reasonable degree, but you can prove fraudulence to a reasonable degree (e.g,, Howard Hughes' will being written on official Dukes of Hazzard stationery).
Unless you can suggest an attainable standard of proof, then the best you can hope for is to have us explain your objections, and that will have to suffice as proof to you.
And we've basically done that already. But as has been noted, your typical response to those explanations is simply to restate your original belief. That doesn't help. You've got to address the content of the explanation with something more subsantial than disbelief and denial.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 11:26:38 GMT -4
Your belief is incorrect, . No. That is your opinion only. It is not a statement of fact. Of course. Just as you saying it's a hoax is an opinion. The difference is that my opinion is based on an understanding of the physical, programmatic, and engineering principles involved. Yours is not. I'm not quite sure what yours is based on; you've read conspiracist web sites and been convinced by them, but why you have been is still unclear. Sure. I believe it. I think you believe it. Now show me physical evidence for or against His existence. Where are the design specifications for God? Where is God's flight hardware? Who has a collection of still photography and imagery of God? Where are the hundreds of kilograms of God samples? You are comparing faith in a supernatural entity to evaluation of a matter of historical record, which includes an enormoous amount of objective corroboration. Your comparison is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 11:38:41 GMT -4
Plus, I'm still waiting to hear how Sibrel's record of dishonesty affects your opinion of his credibility.
Also, what do you think of Kaysing, who claimed a murder conspiracy at NASA to blow up a Shuttle in order to keep someone from saying you can see stars in space, when astronauts had talked about seeing stars in space during Apollo?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 11:57:34 GMT -4
One other thing. I'm being rather aggressive in attacking these sources because you have used such sources to some extent in your claims, but haven't discussed the claims with us. So all I have to go on is your implicit appeal to these sources as credible and authoritative. As Jay noted, we don't know all the sources that have influenced you, or why they've influenced you. We can only respond to things you actually tell us.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 12:58:59 GMT -4
Very well, but why don't you believe it happened? That's what we're most interested in.
There are just so many, many reasons. Some I have given to you. You may disagree with my views, and that is your opinion. Mostly though, because I am not the only person to see something, you simply say "Oh, you got that idea from so-and-so" I am sure you will do that whatever I say, but let me respectfully ask you another question- it is the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence that will finally shatter the Great Moon Lie. President Kennedy announced- rather foolishly- that the USA would send a man to the moon and bring him back by the end of the decade. He did this in May 1961. Within nine years, we had landed on the moon. Within eleven years, six spacecraft had been sent to the moon. Technologically, by 1987, we had moved on by a quantum leap. When NASA were asked if they could send a man "back" to the moon, they said that if they were fully-funded they might be able to do it by 2010. Twenty-three years. Well, why would that be then? Why so much longer. I'll tell you. Because we never went there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 13:23:42 GMT -4
There are just so many, many reasons.
Some I have given to you. You may disagree with my views, and that is your opinion.
Not so fast. It's your opinion that astronauts should comply with the demands of an obnoxious stalker shoving a Bible in their faces as a publicity stunt. I don't think most people share that opinion, but in any case it's an opinion, period.
As for your other opinions, e.g. that the LM "looks wrong", your opinion carries no weight because you have no understanding of what it should look like, or why something like 1/6 gravity should or should not be a problem. You don't have to be an engineer or physicist to have insight, but you do have to take the time to educate yourself about the relevant fields. You haven't. We have, and have explained where you're wrong. But you haven't backed any of your opinions up after we've done this.
And some of your claims are just factually wrong.
Mostly though, because I am not the only person to see something, you simply say "Oh, you got that idea from so-and-so" Nope. We've seen where you've quoted Sibrel directly. We've seen where you've made claims that are identical with his. We've also accepted your claim that you've gotten your views from other places, and asked you how you came to find and believe them, but you haven't told us.
I am sure you will do that whatever I say, but let me respectfully ask you another question- it is the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence that will finally shatter the Great Moon Lie.
Where exactly was the question in that?
And what evidence? The evidence we keep trying to discuss with you?
President Kennedy announced- rather foolishly- that the USA would send a man to the moon and bring him back by the end of the decade. He did this in May 1961.
Within nine years, we had landed on the moon.
Within eleven years, six spacecraft had been sent to the moon.
Technologically, by 1987, we had moved on by a quantum leap.
"Quantum leap" means a very small, discrete jump. Yeah, I know what you mean and I know it's common usage, but for some reason this just bugs the hell out of me.
When NASA were asked if they could send a man "back" to the moon, they said that if they were fully-funded they might be able to do it by 2010.
Twenty-three years.
Well, why would that be then? Why so much longer. I'll tell you.
No, I'll tell you, because I actually understand this business, and I understand something of the politics of this large and attention-deficient country I call home.
There was a national will to accomplish a specific task in the 1960s. It was the height of the Cold War, the country was startled and motivated to catch up after Sputnik, and the disillusionments of Vietnam, race riots, and Watergate were still in the future. National will means politicians sense votes and cough up the dough.
There has been only sporadic interest in this country since then, with our usual "been there done that" sort of mentality, a general suspicion of government since Vietnam and Watergate, and the compromises forced on manned spaceflight by diminished budgets and lack of a true exploratory goal. The current Administration's plans for renewed exploration of the Moon and eventually Mars are reasonably focused, but the support for a crash program like Apollo is not there. Nor should it be. That pace was not sustainable for long-term development of human presence in space, especially in an era of massive budget deficits and divided political attention. Add to that the institutional bloat of NASA and contractors which developed without the compelling focus of Apollo, and you understand why no sprint back to the Moon is about to happen.
Well, you would if you weren't bound and determined to disbelieve it.
Because we never went there in the first place.
Begging the question. Again.
(Edit - fixed a little syntax. Also realized margamatix's "respectfully ask you another question" most likely refers to the rhetorical back-to-the-Moon thing which follows) (also: blasted markup tags!)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 3, 2005 14:08:54 GMT -4
President Kennedy announced- rather foolishly- that the USA would send a man to the moon and bring him back by the end of the decade. He did this in May 1961. Within nine years, we had landed on the moon. Within eleven years, six spacecraft had been sent to the moon. Kennedy didn't just pull this goal and the timetable for it out of thin air. He was advised on what was believed possible. I work with deadlines on big projects all the time and they always seem to come down to the final days. When you know what has to be done and you know how much time you have to do it, then you schedule your resources as necessary to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 14:18:50 GMT -4
[Nope. We've seen where you've quoted Sibrel directly. We've seen where you've made claims that are identical with his. We've also accepted your claim that you've gotten your views from other places, and asked you how you came to find and believe them, but you haven't told us. Once again, please forgive me if I do not answer everybody on every point. There is only one of me and there are soooo many of you! The first thing was a programme I watched on British TV. I can't remember what channel, or what it was called, and at the time, although I had heard of a hoax theory, I had simply dismissed this as paranoid conspiracy theory. Well, they started off by pointing out the anomolies in the photos. They pointed out that a rear-lit figure would be in silhouette, and not brightly lit as they were. They showed the pool of light in which the sad charade was artificially illuminated. They pointed out where it ended, and where the centre was. They showed an aerial photograph obtained by a Russian spy satellite which was taken a few dozen miles north of Las Vegas, and compared it with a photo of "the moon" taken from moon orbit. Blimey! It's the exact same place! Then they showed footage from two Apollo missions, hundreds of miles apart. Well, whaddyaknow? Every single rock was in the exact same place. Every background hill was in the same place. It was the same place. Then they showed another bit of footage, where every rock was in the same place, but the backdrop had been changed. Then they showed footage of the astronauts moving around, sped up by a factor of two, which makes it perfectly obvious where they are. At this point, the "Tom & Jerry style donkey's ears" appeared from the top of my head and I realised I had been suckered all along. I was wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. And at this time, i had never even heard of Bart Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 14:21:42 GMT -4
I work with deadlines on big projects all the time and they always seem to come down to the final days That's called "Parkinson's Law"- work expands to fill the time available for its completion. But I expect you know that anyway.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 3, 2005 14:23:04 GMT -4
A lot of work that was later incorporated into the Apollo program began before President Kennedy announced the plan to go to the Moon. Research into the Saturn rocket, for example, began in the 1950's.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 3, 2005 14:28:53 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 3, 2005 14:33:07 GMT -4
That's called "Parkinson's Law"- work expands to fill the time available for its completion. But I expect you know that anyway. I've never heard it called by that name, but I'm very familiar with it.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 3, 2005 14:41:19 GMT -4
The first thing was a programme I watched on British TV. I can't remember what channel, or what it was called, and at the time, although I had heard of a hoax theory, I had simply dismissed this as paranoid conspiracy theory. Based on your description I'm pretty certain it was the FOX special that originally aired in 2001. The sunlight reflected off of the moon's surface in front of the astronaut and lit his front side. Simple as that. The program fed you a piece of incorrect information and you swallowed it without thinking. The fact that they look similar does not mean they are the same place. If you are saying that they filmed the Moon EVA's outside on Earth then how do you account for the fact that there is no atmosphere in any of the Moon footage? No, they showed you two clips that were mislabelled giving the impression that they were filmed at different locations and times. In reality the two clips were filmed at the same time at the same place... the audio transcripts prove it. The FOX program intentionally mislead the audience by removing the audio from that footage. If you had been able to hear what the astronauts were saying you would realize they were at the same location in both clips. Yes, it was the same place. It was FOX that lied about it being two different locations, not NASA. Look up the term " parallax". For the short periods of footage where the FOX program demonstrated this is does appear to work. Try watching the entire Apollo footage at double speed and tell me it still looks natural. No, it appears you were suckered by a slick piece of television that was produced by the entertainment division of 20th Century Fox. BTW way, were you aware that Bart Sibrel also had a hand in that program? Yep... it sure is credible. He was actually interviewed in the program, although I think he was going by the name "Bart Winfield" at the time.
|
|