|
Post by BertL on May 27, 2007 17:06:48 GMT -4
You shouldn't "Believe" in anything. Is it ok for me to believe in love?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 27, 2007 17:32:43 GMT -4
Look good, I'll check it out! And ask questions about it. ...because the reflection in the astronauts visorThe answers are in that 25-page thread where you first posted. But to save you some trouble, the conspiracy theorists say the reflections should always appear the same size. The question you want to ask yourself is how they know that, and whether it's really true. If you're feeling particularly scientific, think of some ways you can test that yourself. ..and reflections on the back of there air supply.I don't know quite what you mean by this so I'll let you fill in some more details.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 27, 2007 18:42:53 GMT -4
Apollo is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of empirical fact. Either it happened or it did not. The vast majority of evidence says it did. What s mall minority of evidence says it didn't?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 27, 2007 18:46:07 GMT -4
Find out for 80 bucks.
|
|
|
Post by apollo13 on May 27, 2007 18:59:50 GMT -4
Look good, I'll check it out! And ask questions about it. ...because the reflection in the astronauts visorThe answers are in that 25-page thread where you first posted. But to save you some trouble, the conspiracy theorists say the reflections should always appear the same size. The question you want to ask yourself is how they know that, and whether it's really true. If you're feeling particularly scientific, think of some ways you can test that yourself. ..and reflections on the back of there air supply.I don't know quite what you mean by this so I'll let you fill in some more details. What I mean with the backpacks is that Bart Sibrel said that wires reflected from the astronauts backpacks.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 27, 2007 19:13:08 GMT -4
What I mean with the backpacks is that Bart Sibrel said that wires reflected from the astronauts backpacks.
Okay I know what you mean now.
First, the wires we use in film and theater for "flying" are carbon-coated and/or anodized. They don't reflect like that. In order for Sibrel's interpretation to be true, NASA would need to have been very stupid and not have used the standard theater equipment.
Second, what's reflecting is the astronauts' radio antenna. It's on top of the backpack, right where we see the flashes of light. The antenna is like a thin blade. It's like a section of a metal tape measure; normally it will stand up stiffly, but it can also bend to keep from being broken off. When that blade antenna is turned just right, it catches the sunlight.
Sibrel is deceiving you. He's telling you that the flashing is a theater problem, when in fact theater technicians know how to keep wires from flashing in the light. And he "forgets" to tell you about the radio antenna to keep you from choosing between the obvious explanation and his conspiracy theory. He tells you only about his conspiracy theory so you think that's the only possible answer. That's how Bart Sibrel works. He tells you only part of the story: the part that fits his theory. He leaves out the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 27, 2007 19:30:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 27, 2007 19:56:27 GMT -4
Apollo is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of empirical fact. Either it happened or it did not. The vast majority of evidence says it did. What s mall minority of evidence says it didn't? I have not examined the entirety of the Apollo record, therefore I do not feel comfortable stating categorically that all the evidence points unquestioningly to the reality of Apollo (just as I berate those who make sweeping ststements such as 'all the pictures are too perfect'). It is also the case that some evidence does not help either way unless it is taken along with other evidence. A Saturn V launch video proves only that a Saturn V was launched, for instance. it says nothing about what happened after that.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 27, 2007 20:14:37 GMT -4
One does not have to examine the entirety of the Apollo record in order to come to a defensible conclusion. If one has examined a substantial portion of it, or those elements that are qualitatively more important than others, then one can say that the chances of finding something in the remaining undiscovered portion that completely undermine or rescind the known parts diminish rapidly.
To consider otherwise is essentially to buy into the conspiracy-theory demand that everything be consistent and unassailable in order to be true. Conspiracists emphasize the "smoking gun" scenario -- that one pesky detail by which the whole official story is said to unravel -- because it saves them having to examine and explain the majority of evidence.
It's perfectly okay to state a belief based on the amount of evidence on has examined, and to qualify that with some measure of the extent of the examination. In this particular case we can extend that examination to the union of all that done by all researchers, especially those whose attention includes the conspiracy theories. I am not aware of any conspiracy theory argument that has not been addressed in some way according to the existing evidence and shown to be poorly argued, factually unsupported, or subjectively interpreted. There are no questions I'm aware of that are "on the bubble" and could fall either way. Therefore it's not indefensible to say "all" the evidence lands in favor of Apollo being authentic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 27, 2007 20:22:03 GMT -4
It is possible, though to say that nearly all of the hoax-believer's "evidence" relies basically on ignorance. Ignorance of how objects really behave in space and a vacuum, ignorance of photography, ignorance of just what is required in a government program of Apollo's scale, ignorance of engineering, even ignorance of how some things work on Earth.
Anyone who does serious research will quickly be overwhelmed by the amount of material available to support the reality of Apollo. Unfortunately real research abilities are sadly lacking in most people these days.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on May 27, 2007 22:43:21 GMT -4
Look good, I'll check it out! And ask questions about it. ...because the reflection in the astronauts visorThe answers are in that 25-page thread where you first posted. But to save you some trouble, the conspiracy theorists say the reflections should always appear the same size. The question you want to ask yourself is how they know that, and whether it's really true. If you're feeling particularly scientific, think of some ways you can test that yourself. ..and reflections on the back of there air supply.I don't know quite what you mean by this so I'll let you fill in some more details. What I mean with the backpacks is that Bart Sibrel said that wires reflected from the astronauts backpacks. In addition to JayUtah's answer, there's something else involved. The glare from the antenna creates a sort of lens flare in the camera, so another glint of light above the antenna's height appears. A man named David Percy seems to forget this, and so makes a big deal about it too. Nice to see an openminded person, BTW. Have you ever visited Cape Canaveral? Seeing the hardware there, I can not imagine Apollo being faked.
|
|
|
Post by apollo13 on May 27, 2007 23:59:10 GMT -4
Yeah I've been there 3 times I saw the ENORMUS Saturn V, my jaw dropped I could even talk I saw the inside of the LM and that cockpit was full of switches!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 28, 2007 0:46:51 GMT -4
For me, going there would be bittersweet. The last time I was there, I saw Apollo 11 sitting on the pad. Maybe when the moonship start flying again, I'll go back.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 28, 2007 1:07:33 GMT -4
Yeah I've been there 3 times I saw the ENORMUS Saturn V, my jaw dropped I could even talk I saw the inside of the LM and that cockpit was full of switches! It sounds like you're on the right path. The reality of Apollo really isn't that difficult to grasp, as long as you are able to let yourself absorb the event with no preconceived notions, and allow the science behind it to unfold before you as your knowledge of the program increases. Hoax believers allow their perceptions of Apollo to be colored by political and sociological biases that were burned into them at an early age. Don't let your opinion of NASA or the Apollo program be influenced by how much you dislike Bush, or capitalism, or U.S. foreign policy, or how "connected" you feel to Rosie O'Donnell. Just see it and appreciate it for the magnificent achievement it was.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 28, 2007 2:33:46 GMT -4
What s mall minority of evidence says it didn't? I have not examined the entirety of the Apollo record, therefore I do not feel comfortable stating categorically that all the evidence points unquestioningly to the reality of Apollo (just as I berate those who make sweeping ststements such as 'all the pictures are too perfect'). It is also the case that some evidence does not help either way unless it is taken along with other evidence. A Saturn V launch video proves only that a Saturn V was launched, for instance. it says nothing about what happened after that. I understand what you're saying. I thought you were implying that you'd seen some evidence which you felt didn't support Apollo and couldn't be explained. I don't pretend to have seen every last nugget of data relevant to the Apollo missions either, but my general sense is that there are no questions left unanswered by the scientific community, as they relate to the validity of Apollo. From the info I've gathered over the past few years, I haven't found a single pro-hoax argument or piece of "evidence" which has left PhD scientists, physicists and geologists scratching their heads. They've answered them all, and they've answered them conclusively and thoroughly.
|
|