|
|
Post by henke on Jul 29, 2009 3:06:04 GMT -4
Ok, thank you everyone. Interesting reading. Find it amusing to read all the ridicule. :-)
However, I think focus should be put on the diverging answers among them (Kaysing, Sibrel, René et al) than every technical details instead. Now, we've covered that and debunked that. There's only so much milage you can make out of those technical things. I think, one has to have a much more detailed answers to what happened instead. One, just can't say "they splashed into the pola sea..." or "they went up the elevator and down again" and just leave it at that and make it up to "us" to choose whatever to believe in. Will not do for me. You can very easy play those three persons out against each other. Would be fun to put them in a room with closed doors and see how they manage to "discuss" which answer they should agree upon, and view them with a hidden camera. Now, as 2 of them are dead, we know very well that the living one would win the argument, don't we? Of course, you have quite a few more hoax theorists that are still alive that can be put in the same scenario.
But I didn't believe in my wildest imagination, that it had taken such a spin! As if it's the most important thing in peoples life! Turned into a religion and nothing else. It seems that the internet - which is probably the main cause as someone already pointed out - is the only sole filed left for them to roam free on. Where they can state anything without getting a lawsuit. Sure, anything for freedom of speech, but do not ever claim that it is scientifically proven.
In Europe, we have several countries and laws, that prohibits freedom of speech, inasmuch as it is forbidden to publicly deny the holocaust. Now, eerie thought, that the same would happen to the moon landings, that it should be prohibited to publicly deny that it has happened? I hope it would never reach that far. But as it is right now, things seems to go in that direction, rather than the opposite. A cultural decline if you'd ask me. But when all things are taken into consideration, this may very well be a consequence of allowing free speech at all levels. Thus, these things happen, and we just have to deal/live with it. But it is a bit tragic that people have to devote and spend their lives, defending their hoax beliefs, or the opposite, debunking them all of the time. Isn't it time to move on?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 29, 2009 13:25:23 GMT -4
I don't think they want to work together because that way they'd have to split the profits made by peddling the hoax. Profits and attention. The latter seems to be a greater motivator. But competition is indeed why they don't work together. This is what greatly separates real researchers from conspiracy theorists. For a conspiracist it's "all about me." In real research, the answer is what counts and collaboration is the norm. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 29, 2009 15:20:48 GMT -4
Profits and attention. The latter seems to be a greater motivator. But competition is indeed why they don't work together. Yes, I suppose you're right about attention being the bigger motivator. I doubt any of these guys have ever made serious money from peddling the hoax theory. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 29, 2009 15:22:16 GMT -4
Bart's ex-wife said it kept him in a style he would not otherwise be able to afford. Apparently that's not doing it for him anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 29, 2009 16:58:24 GMT -4
This is a major difference between them and us. They get angry and hateful when someone "steals" their idea because it decreases the attention they get. We feel a sense thrill when we see other debunkers use our ideas.  |
|
|
|
Post by henke on Jul 30, 2009 2:37:43 GMT -4
Hmm, as you spoke of Bart, JayUtah, it reminds me of the documentary on which Bill Kaysing lived in something that looked like a white trash trailer park, and took care of homeless cats.
Wonder what Kaysing spent all his money (from his books) on? If there ever was any. Or he got screwed as well, from his publicist, management?
|
|
|
|
Post by henke on Jul 30, 2009 2:49:01 GMT -4
But - by and large - do you think such a law is the only thing left to silence the HBs?
That it should be restricted by law, to publicly deny that moon landings did occur should be prohibited?
I know very well, that there are hundreds if not thousands of other conspiracy theories of other things, but this is about the moon hoax, only.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 30, 2009 3:00:44 GMT -4
But - by and large - do you think such a law is the only thing left to silence the HBs? That it should be restricted by law, to publicly deny that moon landings did occur should be prohibited? I know very well, that there are hundreds if not thousands of other conspiracy theories of other things, but this is about the moon hoax, only. No, there shouldn't be a law to stop denail of the landings. It would only convince more people that there was something to hide. Debate is good, these discussions have taught me a lot I didn't know about the technicalities of Apollo, and re-awakened an interest in Physics that had lain dormant for a while. I'm sure the same is true for others. And it gives people practise in formulating arguments, collecting evidence in support and so on, useful skills to have. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 30, 2009 3:29:42 GMT -4
I think any laws preventing freedom of speech are a step too far and I do disagree with the laws already in place as mentioned by henke but that is for another place to discuss.
As mentioned, let them talk about it and peddle the videos but it is able to be countered. I was initially surprised when I found out about the denial but in order to counter I had to learn but more importantly you have to learn the sneaky ways things can be presented. Look at the ways attempts are made present info, this would all be underground if there was a law. It could catch the well informed out if it was dumped on your lap last minute and asked to refute. This way the approach is understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 30, 2009 5:49:59 GMT -4
... these discussions have taught me a lot I didn't know about the technicalities of Apollo, and re-awakened an interest in Physics that had lain dormant for a while. I'm sure the same is true for others. ^^^^^ This is me too.  |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 30, 2009 8:30:54 GMT -4
... these discussions have taught me a lot I didn't know about the technicalities of Apollo, and re-awakened an interest in Physics that had lain dormant for a while. I'm sure the same is true for others. ^^^^^ This is me too. My interest in and study of the physics of Apollo pre-dated my awareness of the hoax theory. It was already an interesting enough subject without the hoax knuckleheads getting involved and mucking it up. Debunking the hoax claims was a natural extension of what I was already doing. Nonetheless, I've learned much about the intricacies of the Apollo missions that I probably never would have had it not been for the hoax claims. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 30, 2009 13:04:41 GMT -4
As I've said before, I do have to thank these guys in a way. I'd never heard of hoax ideas until, ironically enough, I read Phil's first book, which debunked them. Then, I read his entire website. (It's the hazard of introducing me to a new website.) Then, after a bit of debating HBs on the official MythBusters site, I ended up on what was still then the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. From there, I ended up here.
Or, in short, I have a lot of friends I would not have otherwise had because of those idiot, ignorant (or con artist!) HBs.
|
|
|
|
Post by henke on Jul 31, 2009 3:13:48 GMT -4
Tedward, I think I agree on that one. It's a step too far, but it had to be done in the other case (the holocaust) alas, but that's another thread/forum/debate. I think this will peter out in the long run, mostly because most people doesn't think it's of any significance anymore. Like, they will pick on both sides, "now, time to move on...stop bickering" and skip trying to convincing the other side over, which will never happen anyway. It will boil up again, at the 50th anniversary again, no doubt.
I am the only one who is kind of opposite to HB's AND the NASA at the same time! The only way I can stretch my view to, if someone points a gun to my head, that I think NASA in some ways deserves this, in hindsight, considering their company culture, and what came out in the investigations after the Challenger disaster. And that I think it's a tad overhyped - the moon landings - from a scientific and technological standpoint. It was more of a symbolic act and political statement.
I am - perhaps - the only one thinking it was not such a big deal.
The big deal, and main scientific, technical advancement was getting something out of the atmosphere altogether. To get a man into space. THAT was monumental! And do a spacewalk in EVA suits. Once in space, space behaves the same way on the moon, as it does during a space walk while orbiting the world. There's just a little bit of more fuel and oxygene needed to get there. If you can do a spacewalk without problems, outside the world, you sure as hell can walk on the moon, it's even easier, and safer. I see no difference. Sun, radiation, vaacum behaves the same.
There's nothing that they did on the moon by hand, and in person, that couldn't be done with robots, drills, taking tests and so on and put it in capsule and send it back. Which they did too, prior to the manned landings. It was a tiny bit technical show off, if anything.
I wouldn't say it was "just a piece of cake" getting man to the moon - once they got out into space - but the SCIENTIFIC importance is of less value than anything else. However, getting any man out into space is of greater SCIENTIFIC value. It was a tad a bit technical show off, nothing else. But, that's the only thing I can stretch into if I nitpick big time, and when threatened to life. I e contrary to both HB's and NASA's views! :-) So now, both HBs and NASA have something in common, they hate, me and will hunt me down... ;-) :-)
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 31, 2009 5:10:36 GMT -4
Henke, I would have to disagree with some of your last comment. Particularly about work that could be done by robots. Lunar samples returned by robots amounts to grams. Returns by Apollo is in kilograms, a tremendous difference. Also, Apollo smaples were selective, rather than just being at the point where they happened to set down. The astronauts were given some training as to what t look for, and went out and sought samples. This is the main advantage of the man-on-the-spot approach.
I would also suggest that getting someone to the Moon, as opposed to just into orbit, is a Big Deal. Agreed, getting into orbit and down again safely is a task in itself. But I suggest that pales into insignificance (nearly) compared to getting someone to the Moon and back safely. It's not just a case of a little more air, water and food.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 31, 2009 6:23:49 GMT -4
I think it is a big deal all the way when people are trying to belittle it and use it to push an agenda. Keeping three men alive for that distance, extravehicular activities and docking procedures and all that goes on behind it to get that far. The communication set, the usefulness and requirement for mission control among the bigger reasons. Not forgetting the training leading up to the landing and the training prior to entering NASA of the crews.
These achievements are effectively challenged and denied. One of the problems is that people with no real leaning might take the easy route and, for example, get waylaid by the "no stars" argument. I think this should be challenged back. But the flip side is in doing so you do not have to rely on physics and maths twisted and bent to your ken. More importantly completely got it wrong, which is where sites like this are a gold mine of information. You can ask a real scientist not one who passes himself off as one.
Re Rocks, I think there were a few issues with cores? I would imagine that there may have been a few stuck drill bits in the surface if a robot had attempted it and the human eye came in very handy with orange soil.
|
|
