Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 21:20:13 GMT -4
Does NASA ever respond to the hoaxers theories/assertions? It is NASA's policy to not dignify the hoax claims with a response.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 25, 2005 21:43:27 GMT -4
It does. How many astronauts were prepared to swear on the Bible that they had been to the moon? I would be prepared to swear on the Bible that having examined as much evidence as possible and having believed in the Apollo landings for all of my life, that I genuinely no longer believe that men have been to the moon. Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that men have? Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that those who raise the sceptical viewpoint as I do are simply "paranoid delusionalists"? G'day Margamatix Would I be right in guessing that you're a Christian? Would you swear on the Bible, even given Matthew 5:34-37? But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.But out of interest, what has made you change your mind? What evidence do you have that Apollo was faked? Remember that evidence of faked film isn't evidence the missions themselves were faked. You still have to explain the rocks collected on the missions, and the radio signals. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 25, 2005 23:32:01 GMT -4
It does [matter]. How many astronauts were prepared to swear on the Bible that they had been to the moon? That's the wrong question. Why should anyone have to swear on a Bible to something they know perfectly well they did, simply to satisfy an obnoxious, useless, lying dirtbag like Bart Sibrel?
I would be prepared to swear on the Bible that having examined as much evidence as possible and having believed in the Apollo landings for all of my life, that I genuinely no longer believe that men have been to the moon. You may genuinely believe that. But your posts indicate you haven't really come close to studying "as much evidence as possible". That may sound harsh, but it's not meant as an insult. You can't have looked carefully just at all the materials on the WWW alone, let alone the materials that are not online, or the physical evidence.
Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that men have? Yes, but Jesus admonished us not to do such a thing (as peterb already pointed out). And I certainly wouldn't jump through such rhetorical hoops in a discussion about the facts of Apollo. You can absolutely, earnestly believe something, but that doesn't make it true or false. There are people who absolutely, swear-on-the-Bible don't believe the world is round.
Would you be prepared to swear on the Bible that you genuinely believe that those who raise the sceptical viewpoint as I do are simply "paranoid delusionalists"? The skeptical viewpoint looks at the evidence and considers it carefully. Real skeptics don't buy the flimsy claims of con men like Sibrel.
But to answer your question, I think that some hoax believers are "paranoid delusionalists". Others are simply ignorant, or wrong for other reasons, but not necessarily paranoid or delusional.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 26, 2005 0:05:16 GMT -4
Bart Sibrel is not a "researcher". Researchers do research. They uncover things, they inform themselves about the relevant bodies of knowledge and they answer questions. Sibrel does none of these things. His main line of work is making video resumes. He's a guy with an expensive video camera and some talent for the theatrical. Regarding Apollo, he's done nothing more than assemble some old stock footage, harass some astronauts, and concoct a wild speculation for which he'll charge you $35 or so. Sibrel really does have talent for video editing and for telling a story through moving pictures. But he doesn't know diddly-squat about space or space engineering.
Why does he do this? He has backers. We know very little about Sibrel's investors, except that they rejected a scientific analysis of Sibrel's first film and marketed the film anyway. We have no idea who these investors are or what motivates them. (We know about the scientific review because the reviewer -- hired by the investors themselves -- went public about what he had told them. He's right on target; Sibrel's first film is crap. He's absolutely astounded that someone would go ahead and publish it.) But it does sound fun to be paid to do something regardless of whether you're right or wrong.
I'm shifting toward Sibrel's first video, not the one where he follows the astronauts around and goads them into doing stuff he can videotape.
In this video he says he has backstage film that "clearly" shows the astronauts faking the telecasts. He said he was mistakenly sent a roll of film that wasn't supposed to be shown to anyone. He was so convinced of this that he published clips of "backstage" film that was actually part of the 30-minute live telecast that was seen by millions! A real researcher doesn't mistake well-known live television coverage for "secret" footage; he'd know better because he'd be familiar with the existing record. Further, he shows us blue slate frames from the original footage, allowing those of us who are familiar with the primary source materials to know exactly what reel of film he's looking at. And we can look at it too, and see the important parts of the film he didn't show his audience, parts that clearly dispute his conclusions. Real researchers don't hide contrary evidence from their viewers.
Bart Sibrel is not a researcher. He's a man trying to scam the public into thinking the Apollo astronauts were liars and frauds by using tabloid methods.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 26, 2005 4:39:41 GMT -4
There was one statement by Sibrel that I did enjoy: it was in New Scientist's "Quotes of the Week":
"It was one helluve punch: he's pretty strong for an old guy."
After Buzz Aldrin had finally and understandably lost all patience with the dumb $%^%£
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 26, 2005 8:11:27 GMT -4
I'm shifting toward Sibrel's first video, not the one where he follows the astronauts around and goads them into doing stuff he can videotape. In this video he says he has backstage film that "clearly" shows the astronauts faking the telecasts. Speaking of which, I asked a question in one of Turbonuium's massive, subject-changing threads and it went unanswered. Which part(s) of the TV broadcasts did he use to make his claim of fakery? I did transcriptions of the first two TV broadcasts from Apollo 11 and posted them here: apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1120036997Here's the video of Buzz Aldrin giving Bart Sibrel a well-deserved punch: www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/buzz-aldrin-punch-video.mpg
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 26, 2005 8:27:04 GMT -4
I would be prepared to swear on the Bible that having examined as much evidence as possible and having believed in the Apollo landings for all of my life, that I genuinely no longer believe that men have been to the moon. Have you examined JayUtah's and Bob B's own websites among the recommended websites at the bottom of the page? www.clavius.org/www.braeunig.us/space/I've been studying space missions ever since I saw Sputnik 1 pass overhead in 1957 and have also listened to the hoax-promoters' arguments (I have two of their books, plus some videos), and I certainly don't believe that the moonlandings were hoaxed. Stick around here -- maybe we can educate you and guide you back to the truth. You appear to have been sucked in by charlatans and/or the ignorant, who of course want you to spent $35 or so on their "theories."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 26, 2005 11:17:53 GMT -4
Hi Margamatix,
Since you obviously know Apollo so well, here's a few questions for you that I'm sure you won't have any trouble answering.
1) What caused the decent stage fuel lines to freeze shortly after Apollo 11 landed.
2) What single item took Buzz and Neil 10 minutes to get right while getting ready to do their EVA, resulting in a change of design for later missions.
3) Why did the Atmosphere purge for the EVA take over twice as long for Apollo 11 as it did for the later ones.
3) How many LM circuit breakers did Buzz and Neil accidently depress while getting ready for their EVA
4) Why did Neil leave his watch onboard the LM?
5) What was Neil's Heart Rate on landing the Eagle?
6) Which comic/cartoon character was a mascot of the Apollo missions?
I'm betting that most people on this Board could answer these questions within 10 minutes, probably less.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 26, 2005 11:30:11 GMT -4
Hi Margamatix, Since you obviously know Apollo so well, here's a few questions for you that I'm sure you won't have any trouble answering. I have noticed that sarcasm and insult seem to be favoured tools among those who suggest that man has walked on the moon, and have no doubt that it is used for the usual reason.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 26, 2005 12:18:19 GMT -4
Hi Margamatix, Since you obviously know Apollo so well, here's a few questions for you that I'm sure you won't have any trouble answering. I have noticed that sarcasm and insult seem to be favoured tools among those who suggest that man has walked on the moon, and have no doubt that it is used for the usual reason. I've noticed that evasion and refusal to answer questions are the favoured tools of those that suggest man hasn't walked on the moon and have no doubt that it is used for the usual reason. You were the one that claimed that you had "examined as much evidence as possible" hence you are the person claiming to obviously know Apollo well and as such the answers to the questions -should- be easy for you. If you find my questioning of your claims to be sacastic and insulting, well tough bikkies, because until you answer the questions I'm not going to believe that you know anything about Apollo. Your dodging of the questions merely makes your ignorance of the topic all the more blatent.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 26, 2005 12:28:51 GMT -4
I have noticed that sarcasm and insult seem to be favoured tools among those who suggest that man has walked on the moon...
You've been trying to bait us into personal attacks since you got here. You're not the first person to show up and work hard to make someone else lose their cool just so you can complain about how badly you've been treated.
Your arguments have been nothing but begging the question. That gets very old after a while. I suggest you try a different approach.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 26, 2005 12:51:24 GMT -4
No, I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions in a perfectly polite and civil manner. If this is the type of forum which only welcomes those holding one particular view, then just let me know and I'll be gone.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 26, 2005 13:05:51 GMT -4
The entire site is set up to explore disagreements like this. I don't run the site, but I don't see a problem with your being here. Ask all the questions you like, but don't be surprised if you don't get the kinds of responses you're used to. Most of us have been dealing with these hoax beliefs in one form or another for years. With few exceptions, we've heard it all. And we have very little patience for poorly-argued cases. And many of us are professionally qualified in the topics that are covered in these conspiracy theories, so we're not just laymen guessing at what the answers might be.
I pointed out the false dilemma you tried twice to foist off on us: that your questions must either be from the point of view of reasonable suspicion, or that you must be "delusional". This forces us to choose either between accepting your arguments, or calling you names. We don't accept your arguments, but we won't call you names either. Whether you intended it or not, that's a very common tactic for hoax believers. They set up those little rhetorical traps so that they have cause to dismiss their critics on distractionary grounds instead of on content.
You seem intent on declaring our responses to be emotionally unacceptable, regardless of what they actually are. This supports the suggestion that you seem overly willing to style yourself as a martyr to the cause, the victim of pro-NASA bullying. You drop a few arguments supported only by question-begging, and then you take undue offense at the responses so that you can tell others how rude we are.
Part of my job is to rigorously and dispassionately analyze technical arguments and rationales. I'm the chief engineer for an entire division of my company. I have that job because I'm good at it. That means I will occasionally "shut down" a bad argument via an abrupt and perhaps cursory response. It is not intended to offend. My job is to locate and characterize weakness, but with the goal of eliminating it and increasing the overall strength. If I happen to identify a weakness in your argument, don't take it personally.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 26, 2005 13:09:54 GMT -4
No, I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions in a perfectly polite and civil manner. If this is the type of forum which only welcomes those holding one particular view, then just let me know and I'll be gone. You asked questions then ignored answers you didn't like. Sibrel has no idea how many astronauts would swear on the bible as he does everything short of hitting them before asking them to. As far as I know no one here is an astronaut, so they can't say how many would swear, I'd bet that 100% of the Christian ones would. You also claimed to have looked at the evidence, it was pointed out to you that you could not have looked at anywhere near all of the evidence, LoneWolf was overly sarcastic, but at the same time you did come in here and ask, and then proceeded to ignore our answers and insist you were right. (I've looked at the evidence and I'd swear that we didn't go to the moon). Also, before you make statements like the one above look at both sides of the evidence, if you got all of your info from that 'documentary' on FOX then you haven't looked at both sides. If you got your info from Jack White, or Bart Sibrel, or NASAscam, or any others like them then you have not looked at all the evidence. As a rule the people on these forums are more then happy to answer questions, provided you have an open mind and don't simply ignore answers you don't like. Look back at this thread, you offer your opinion that as astronauts wouldn't swear on the Bible after Sibrel accosted them that they didn't go to the moon, we pointed out how silly this is, you then asked how many would swear, clearly showing that you didn't believe a word we had said. You then claimed to have looked at all the evidence and knew that we didn't go to the moon. So, some posters decided to test and see if you had looked at all the evidence, it's fairly clear you haven't, but as I said above, if you have any specific questions first go to www.badastronomy.com , and clavius.org and look up your issues there, if you can't find answers then post specific questions here, but you must come into this with an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 26, 2005 13:38:02 GMT -4
No, I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions in a perfectly polite and civil manner. You've received a number of perfectly, or at least reasonably, polite and civil answers. Mine included. Are you interested in the answers? Or do you wish to simply provoke a hostile response? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know. If this is the type of forum which only welcomes those holding one particular view, then just let me know and I'll be gone.This is a forum for discussing Apollo (and some other) conspiracy "theories", which is frequented by a number of people who have among them a great deal of knowledge about Apollo in particular and spaceflight-related issues in general. So this is the right place for you, if you're interested in learning something. Hoax believers are welcome if they actually intend to engage in a discussion. We spent many pages in this thread, for example, trying to educate "star", for example. (Star believed everything he read by the likes of Sam Colby, despite the many fundamental errors - basically, everything he said - on Colby's web site.) Others, like turbonium, are still active. A couple, like unknown/pierre1985 (same poster), were banned, but not because of their opinions; it was that they never backed up their claims, never acknowledged an error, and merely kept posting childish, insulting diatribes. The way the conversation goes is in your hands. I for one welcome you to keep posting. Please be aware, however, that we've seen darn near every HB claim there is, and so far they have all disintegrated under critical examination. In other words, it's hard to b******t the regulars on this board.
|
|