A Very Disappointing Encounter

[bazbear]

I had four college students tell me today how foolish I was to believe a man could land on the moon. Yet these 4 idiots coudn't explain fact one about the satelite radio or GPS in their car; or even a very basic idea how they worked GRRRRR
... then again one of them was as bald a billiard ball and had a swatstika tattoed on his arm.

I think even Sibrel would be wary of kids like these.

[colinr]

The mind set being , I guess, "Dud I don't know how they did it , so its can't be done", as you said disapointing...

It als server to re-enforce my belief that Hoax Belief is a generational thing, those of us who lived through the Apollo know it didn't just spring fully formed into life ..

[Kiwi]

It occurred to me a few days ago that the one distinguishing feature of Apollo hoax-believers is ignorance. Most of them know little or nothing about the entire space programme. I sometimes wonder if they think Apollo 11 was the eleventh manned U.S. space flight.

Take Margamatix. In his second post
apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1121890190
he asked, "...is it true that the daytime temperature on the moon is 250 degrees celsius?"

Bob B. explained: "There is no air on the Moon so the only thing that can heat up is the ground. The 250-degree figure that is so often quoted is the maximum temperature that can be achieved. The Apollo landings all occurred during lunar morning when the Sun was low in the sky and the ground had not yet heated up to those kinds of temperatures."

And Margamatix (who still seems to believe that there must be some sort of ambient temperature on the moon) replied, "But surely they were there for three days?"

Amazing! He didn't even know that a lunar "day" lasts for two earth weeks. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or astronomer to know that -- just observe the moon with your naked eyes or binoculars.

One encounter I had on a New Zealand bulletin board went something like this:

HB: I reckon the moonlanding was faked.

Kiwi: Which moonlanding?

HB: The moonlanding!

Kiwi: Which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17?

HB: Ummm... I didn't know there were that many.

[twinstead]

kiwi said:

Amazing! He didn't even know that a lunar "day" is two earth weeks. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or astronomer to know that -- just observe the moon with your naked eyes.

What is amazing to me that so many people who don't understand basic things like that still--without batting an eye--consider themselves to be enough of an expert to claim the landings were hoaxed.

[nomuse]

It's more disappointing than that. I've had a conversation or two with hoax believers and the format is more or less:

"You know the moon landings were faked, of course." (As if it were an obvious fact known to most intelligent people.)

You, politely, ask why they hold this belief.

"Hah. Idiot. The radiation would have fried them." (And a little more probing uncovers that the sum total of their knowledge is a couple of the more lasting hoax claims; usually radiation, maybe something about "And they even killed some of the astronauts.")

You might point out that even in the claims of the more outrageous HB proponents the radiation is far from a setting of "fry." You might even mention something as simple as the fact that Van Allen himself has no problem with the moon landings. Unfortunately, this seems to be far too complicated for this HB. They've heard some buzz words that sounded good, and they are a nice little parrot with them. Half the time, if you ask them why they thought the flag was waving, you discover they aren't even clear what kind of flag or where it was located. But of course the moment you push a little, asking them to actually come up with a clear statement of what they believe and why;

"Aw, it doesn't matter that much. It was twenty years ago and who cares anyhow."

And that is the most annoying response of all. Because it does matter. They brought up this stupidity in the first place because it supports the view they wish to hold of the world; that science isn't important, that scientists lie, and that one man's opinion is worth as much as another man's. You are tempted to ask them if they would prefer their next surgical appointment be with a doctor with a completed residency or an opinionated layman... but you know from experience all you'll get is the sad shake of the head and the "Man, some people just don't know when to lighten up." (Or they'll wander off into some other unconnected pseudo-scientific claptrap about how echinecea heals cancer but the big drug companies are covering it up with the collusion of the Surgeon General).

You know, maybe Buzz had the right idea. Maybe opening with a punch might make them realize this might be cocktail chatter to them but it _matters_ to some people.

[LunarOrbit]

I don't understand why people still think the Van Allen radiation is proof that the Moon landings were impossible. To me it is proof that they really happened.

NASA can't control the Van Allen radiation, it's either safe to travel through like they claim or it's not. Lying about it is like saying it's daytime when it's really the middle of the night. Other countries (even enemies) can study the radiation belt and determine if NASA is lying about it... if they are lying it would only be a matter of time before they are caught, which means the hoax would be 100% guaranteed to fail.

If you were going to lie about something and you were guaranteed to get caught, why would you bother?

That is how I usually respond to hoax believers who bring up the radiation. It doesn't require knowledge of radiation, I don't have to supply any numbers to back me up... just logic.

[nomuse]

Logic might work had they made its aquaintence once. Logic doesn't help much when they can't even articulate the problem or even the parameters. When the sum total of their belief is "I heard something was wrong with the thingy they used sometime," there isnt exactly a hook to challenge them on it.

I'm just thinking, now, of a little HB conversation I had recently that still gives me the shakes. Jay has been in the same line of work, and he will probably share a shudder with me that the fellow spouting some nonsense about how steel doesn't weaken in the temperatures of a house fire -- was the TD (technical director) of my current theater! (Then again, there's probably a reason why I won't let him rig.)

[JayUtah]

The TD I work with could get a job as an engineer in any company in this country. Sorry you have to work with people of lesser qualifications.

[scooter]

I just spent a long time going to several sites and associated links...it's just all the same.
No response to valid questions/evidence concerning their "arguments". Absolutely no apparent attempt at research, visiting the links, thinking for themselves...
...and an apparent trend to "change the subject"...or invoke irrelevant political issues. These folks do not, will not listen...to anything. Perhaps it means actually researching something they have no background in (though the sites supporting the Apollo landings go to great lengths to express the evidence in "laymans terms", quite successfully I will add).
So much of their argument lies in "interpertation" of the photographic record, often carefully selected if not manipulated. They accept this unquestionably, it supports their "belief". Loose Kapton becomes photographs, a Photoshopped 4th generation image becomes a "hauler".
I am so impressed by those here and elsewhere who, unceasingly, patiently rebutt the same "arguments" over and over, ad infinitum. My limited patience would not allow it.
Again, I am a somewhat educated believer in the American space program, having watched it from the early days.. A basic exposure to life experiences (and an enthusiasm for spaceflight)
allows me to understand and realize the reality of what happened. I can only attribute the blind allegiance of the HBs as "chosen ignorance"...they seek no truth but their own. They sometimes appear to invite our evidence...this is a facade.
If they would only click on a link or two...and open their eyes ever so briefly...
Why do they choose this "path"?
Dave in Colo

[twinstead]

scooter said:

Why do they choose this "path"?

It's all about ideology, not about facts. The Evil Red White and Blue Empire could never have accomplished such a feat, it just had to be a lie.

Watch closely; that theme is repeated as a mantra by fully 2 thirds of all HB's.

Unless there's money to be made. Then it's more about that.

[jaydeehess]

nomuse said:

I'm just thinking, now, of a little HB conversation I had recently that still gives me the shakes. Jay has been in the same line of work, and he will probably share a shudder with me that the fellow spouting some nonsense about how steel doesn't weaken in the temperatures of a house fire -- was the TD (technical director) of my current theater! (Then again, there's probably a reason why I won't let him rig.)

I have been told that same thing by some people. I relate my story of going to help clean up after a forest fire burned a friend's cottage to the ground. I found one of his rifles and aside from the missing stock and blackened metal it looked like it could be cleaned up and brought back to use. He told me that the metal would have lost its strength so I decided to check it out. With my bare hands I folded the barrel in two! This was of course a day or two after the fire and everything was cold.

[Glom]

nomuse said:

When the sum total of their belief is "I heard something was wrong with the thingy they used sometime," there isnt exactly a hook to challenge them on it.

That's really annoying as well because how are you supposed to offer a refutation to an argument that isn't even defined. It just leads to classic bait 'n' switch. If this particular "thingy" is what is the root of their conspiracism, then no generalised ranting about stars and shadows is going to do it.

I once had an encounter with HBers who were talking about the ratty fiducials. Of course, they were referring to "some picture". I didn't know which one so I couldn't offer a specific response, I could only trot out the standard response about brightly lit objects. Their response was "no the object wasn't brightly lit". That's what I mean by bait 'n' switch. They can simply change the parameters on you randomly since they were never clearly defined in the first place and they make you look like you can't respond.

[nomuse]

I'm noticing a nice little loop among the Jack Whites and similar; they present a compressed, cropped, overcopied photograph and say "See, see this problem here?" You withhold comment until you can see a better version of the picture at, say, the Apollo Archives -- and until you have the number to track down the original negative if need be. The HB responds with "Ah, yes, but NASA edited the original. Only the copy I showed you still shows the evidence."

The longest loop of this sort was the second photograph of the Cydonia region. Of course Hoagland would argue that now that NASA realized they "goofed" in releasing the earlier photograph, they were careful to touch up the more recent ones.

[JayUtah]

But then their argument is only valid if they can show that their overcropped, compressed, overcopied photograph is NASA's. The data shows only that the photos are different. You know one came from NASA. If the other one can't be proven also to have come from NASA then they have nothing.

Conspiracists do not get to enjoy the presumption that their copy of the data is the one that is accurate and pristine. If there is a difference in version, they have the burden of proof to show that theirs is authentic, if they're the ones arguing a problem based on it.

[nomuse]

The only thing sillier than the "anomolies" that come of scanning, cropping, magazine photo editor touch-up, for-web compression, multiple JPEG recompresses, and HB-applied PhotoShop actions, is the idea that some evidence of a NASA/Pentagon/PTB touch-up would be still clearly visible below all this other junk. "Oh, but you see, Siebrel painted out the second astronaut, but NASA painted out the Alien Dome that was behind him...."

Say, if these guys are so good at their photo analysis skills (not!) then why don't they tackle pristine scans of NASA's negatives? Are they afraid they aren't good enough to detect a modern forgery? And yet, Jack White seems perfectly confident that he can detect forgeries in the 9-11 Pentagon photographs. Perhaps NASA has a more recent version of PhotoShop than the Pentagon does....