|
Post by zvezdichko on Jun 20, 2009 3:27:33 GMT -4
I'm beginning to believe it has reached its peak and is starting to decline. Perhaps all that government-funded disinformation we've been spreading has done its job. Lol, how much do you get paid for this (kidding)
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 20, 2009 12:28:45 GMT -4
Our reputation is known in the HB world and they don't come here anymore because we're so mean. An HB named Gprime3113 was here a few weeks ago but it turned out to be a hit-and-run.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jun 20, 2009 13:22:42 GMT -4
That's right, in just a few short years we've driven away every HB on the planet to the safety of their own little bizzaro world communities. <cough>YouTube</cough> That's because YouTube doesn't have a working stupid filter.
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Jun 25, 2009 14:38:44 GMT -4
That's because YouTube doesn't have a working stupid filter. It does. It's just that the Common Sense Discrimination system breaker has overloaded and tripped out.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 25, 2009 16:44:11 GMT -4
That's because YouTube doesn't have a working stupid filter. It does. It's just that the Common Sense Discrimination system breaker has overloaded and tripped out. I just thought it worked in reverse.
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Jun 29, 2009 8:15:19 GMT -4
Uh... there should be HBs here Maybe the dozen or so we've driven off is all there is. If so, this doesn't speak well about the amount of support their great cause is receiving. Although the Apollo hoax theory will never go away, I'm beginning to believe it has reached its peak and is starting to decline. My suggestion is that the main reason there aren't a lot of HBs around at the moment is that no one has run a major TV program on the subject recently. The thing that really made the Moon hoax thing mainstream was "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", run on Fox TV in 2001. Prior to this, moon hoax belief was out there in isolated web sites, etc., but it was hardly something that an ordinary person would think about -- somewhat akin to believing that the world is flat (see www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm for details) I've never seen the program in question, but whatever it claimed, it was enough to produce at least gentle doubt in educated co-workers of mine that really should have known better. It got to the point where I had a standard boiler-plate e-mail reply ready for the next time a moon hoax email got forwarded to me. It got to the point where I could tell if the program had been re-run, from the spurt of hoax-related cluelessness that it generated. Fortunately, I think that the moon hoax thing was kind of like the "Elvis is alive" thing from the late eighties -- it had its moment, and then faded away. One thing that high resolution photos of the Apollo landing sites would do is pretty much kill off any of the "doubters". Most people who entertained doubts as a result of claims made on the Fox TV program and elsewhere would probably lose those doubts pretty quickly if they were able to see the Apollo hardware on the moon. It's kind of like the "face on Mars" thing -- Once higher resolution photos of the "face" were available (showing that the location didn't really look like a face at all), 99.9% of the fuss disappeared overnight. I'm sure there would still be a hard core of hoax believers out there, even with high resolution photos of the landing site available. I'm equally sure that this hard core has their views set in concrete, and are not amenable to reason, or being convinced by any means. While their beliefs are not as reprehensible, I lump moon hoaxers in with the holocaust deniers -- Both are trying to deny the reality of two of the best documented events of the 20th century.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2009 11:22:13 GMT -4
I'm not sure if the Apollo landings were ever something the average Joe on the street thought about much.
|
|
|
Post by zvezdichko on Jul 8, 2009 10:06:53 GMT -4
cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lro-and-the-apollo-hoax-believers/Stu making a reference to threads of this type: Inevitably, LRO’s capabilities mean many people are excited about this mission because they believe it will be a knockout blow to the “Apollo Hoax Believer” brigade, you know, the people who insist that NASA faked the Moon landings. Forums and bulletin and message boards are full of posts from Apollo supporters telling Hoax Believers (or “HB”s for short) that their time has come to an end, that NASA is about to prove, once and for all, that they did in fact send people to the Moon, and didn’t just mock the whole thing up on a sound stage deep in the American desert, like the one shown in the classic conspiracy movie CAPRICORN ONE, where NASA faked a post-Apollo manned Mars landing…
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jul 8, 2009 20:53:38 GMT -4
voodoo
What's a boiler - plate email?
Is this an HB claim or something? Is this a reference to an HB claim that the boiler plates were sent to the moon instead of the command modules? All done remotely and then the astronauts just remained in Earth's orbit?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 8, 2009 22:30:20 GMT -4
voodoo What's a boiler - plate email? Is this an HB claim or something? Is this a reference to an HB claim that the boiler plates were sent to the moon instead of the command modules? All done remotely and then the astronauts just remained in Earth's orbit? There's more than one definition for boiler-plate, actually. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilerplate_(text)
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Jul 17, 2009 15:27:19 GMT -4
Part of the Wikipedia article explains pretty much what I meant:
"The word has also come into use for pre-created form letters on the Internet for things such as issues to be broached by a politician based on an issue ad, requesting a cable network be added to a system by a cable or satellite operator, or a pre-written complaint about something such as a program, book, or video game opposed by a group which created the letter, along with online petitions. Usually the greeting and the body of the letter have been pre-written, requiring the person requesting the action to only type or sign their name at the end."
Basically just a form letter that dealt with the claims usually brought up by HBs. I'm pleased to say that I haven't had to send it to anyone in years.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by reecesponder on Jul 20, 2009 12:20:49 GMT -4
One question, no one has managed to mention, how can the photos of the moon landing be so crystal clear, with all that radation flying around.
I worked some years back for a medical equipment manufacter. one of my duties was to over see and check all radation badges,
This is a small plastic badge measuring 2" x 2 1/2" x 1/4" and it had a small square aperture on it face behind this aperture was placed a one single frame of kodak ektrachrome film, the same sort of film used on the moon landings, when this badge comes in contact with a radation source it will fog over more it fogs the more radation you are exposed to. Now if you walked around this planet with this badge clipped to your pants, for a month, and it would not fog that much, but if you where to go to a dentist and have a xray of you teeth, the bagde would fog so much, that question would be asked....
Now the camera used for the moon landing was a standard SLR, the only modification was to the trigger release, and the view finder frame, there was no lead lining to protect the film, from the much high levels of radation flying around in space, and if there was the casing, it would have to be so thick it would be too heavy for one man to lift comfortably.
Now the film was carried back to earth un develpoed it was then developed he on earth and not in space, but yet all the photo came out crystal clear un fogged, which is impossible.
My second point, some time back now, there was a late night chat program re Moon landings, and one of the special guests was Sir Patrick More. who was present at nasa during the moon landings. He explaned the van alan belt, and what would happen if you went un protected, he mentioned that you would have to have the walls of 8" thick, to stop any radation get to the crew, and when the question the photos, and the film stock was mentioned, he didnt have an answer. if fact he sat back, and didnt say any more on the subject. This man is a renoned Scientist. did he suddenly, relise what he had just said.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 20, 2009 12:25:58 GMT -4
reecesponder, may I suggest you do some research into radiation in space and the Van Allen belts? A good starting point would be the discussions on the Clavius Base site.
|
|
|
Post by reecesponder on Jul 20, 2009 12:30:11 GMT -4
firstly, as mentioned, the coment was made by Sir Patrick Moore, and not me, i work with radactive materials for a while, and understand its inter actions with any kind of film, but thank you, i will have a look at the site.. always willing to get both sides of the story
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 20, 2009 12:37:05 GMT -4
firstly, as mentioned, the coment was made by Sir Patrick Moore, and not me, i work with radactive materials for a while, and understand its inter actions with any kind of film, but thank you, i will have a look at the site.. always willing to get both sides of the story Perhaps ... but do you understand the different types of radiation and the different types, strengths and thicknesses of shielding required to keep it away from astronauts flying through space? And you do know that the Apollo missions took a trajectory that meant they only spent a small amount of time traversing the thinner parts of the Van Allan belt on their trips to the moon and back, yes? You should find the Clavius information most enlightening.
|
|