HB Contradictions

[Bob B.]

mrgorsky said:

Incidientally (and off-topic) is conspiracy theorism a predominantly male sport?

I asked this same question once before and I believe the conclusion was: the Apollo hoax is predominately male but there are plenty of female conspiracy theorists, they just seem to be drawn to different types of conspiracies. There may be an old thread about this somewhere.

[alex04]

don't know if this is a contradiction as much as it is an inaccuracy, but i didn't want to start a new thread just for it - bit of a giggle btw - off the ATS board

Originally posted by Badge01
Why can no one admit that for EVERY other expedition independent verification is REQUIRED? You can not get in Guiness record book without this.

It's as though people's brains go to sleep in this one area. I think the Pro-NASA side thinks that having a subsequent mission by the USA proves the first missions. LOL_ROFLMAO.

Case Closed for this mission. Apollo 16 was faked

*Ahem*

Moon's-struck

The lunar speed record was set by the manned Apollo 16 Rover, driven by John Young... .

Excerpt from Guinness World Records 2002, page 180, ISBN 0-85112-124-1

-------------
(^^as posted on the ATS board)

heh

[JayUtah]

Guiness write a fine book, but they are no more authoritative than the relevant governing bodies for aerospace and exploration. The U.S. and Soviet Union subscribed to the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) for standardization and certification of space records. FAI supplied the rules by which attempts would be made, and certified success. The Apollo missions are FAI-certified, as was Yuri Gagarin's orbital flight.

It's amusing to hear conspiracists complain about the alleged inscrutability of the Apollo missions when they often take for granted the Soviet successes a decade earlier, undertaken in true secrecy. That's especially galling when those comparatively unverified successes are set up as the yardstick against which NASA's "surprising" 1960s success is measured.

In addition to FAI certification, Gemini missions employed a sensational method of verification: a U.S. dollar bill was sealed in a compartment in the spacecraft by a U.S. Treasury official just prior to launch, then recovered just after splashdown by the same official who would verify the authenticity of the bill and its serial number to certify it was the same bill.

[alex04]

Thanks for that fai.org link Jay

Good points, interesting info there!

Just amazing how they pinned their argument on 'the Guiness book of records' .. and then they didn't actually bother to have a look in it and see if they were correct ;D ... i mean, there's a clearly marked 'space exploration' section in the book

[JayUtah]

Yes, that's deliciously poetic justice. I'm quoted elsewhere saying, "There is no wedgie so painful as that which comes from being hoisted on one's own petard." (Yes, "by" would have been more correct.)

[BertL]

Just ran across this on YouTube. It's not really related to the discussion, more to the persons discussing. It's still a contradiction though.

1. "svector" is Jay Windley.
2. "svector" is Phil Plait.

That would (most probably) mean that Jay Windley and Phil Plait are the same person. We all know it's not true because both have shown themselves in the media. Maybe the conspiracy theorists think svector is actually shared between the two.

[JayUtah]

Ooh, nice new avatar pic.

Yeah, every debunker is either Phil or me just the same way that every rocket scientists is Wernher von Braun and every astronaut is Neil Armstrong.

[nomuse]

...And every critical thinker on GLP is Duncan Kunz.

[BertL]

Thanks about the avatar.

[svector]

bertls said:

Just ran across this on YouTube. It's not really related to the discussion, more to the persons discussing. It's still a contradiction though.

1. "svector" is Jay Windley.
2. "svector" is Phil Plait.

That would (most probably) mean that Jay Windley and Phil Plait are the same person. We all know it's not true because both have shown themselves in the media. Maybe the conspiracy theorists think svector is actually shared between the two.

The poor HBs don't seem to be able to wrap the concept of multiple persons defending Apollo, around their tiny walnuts. Many of them truly believe that every pro-Apollo online identity can be traced back to one person.

Speculating about my identity has become one of their primary pastimes, now that all their "theories" have been blown up. It provides them with a means of bonding together against a common foe, and provides them with some small measure of hope I suppose.

The fact that I was engaging both Jay and Phil in public forums before all the silly accusations began, naturally carries no weight with them. It's simply another cumbersome fact they must summarily dismiss to make their fantasy work. All in a day's work for an Apollo conspiracist!

[nomuse]

There's a different way of looking at it. To the HB's, and many of the general conspiracy believers, there is no such thing as a scientific method. What there are, are facts -- correct facts or lies, but essentially unique and disconnected statements that can be used to advance a political/emotional agenda. To them, the only way someone could answer a question about the Apollo Program is to find an authority who can supply the needed facts. Either the "true" facts as supplied by Sibrel et al, or the "lying" facts as supplied by Phil Plait and Jay Whindley.

They simply don't understand the process of trying to find a solution by identifying the question, finding ways in which it can be tested and/or verified, and otherwise working towards an understanding out of one's own base of experience and available references. A question of Apollo Surface photography must be "answered" by a quote from a web site, or out of the official booklet of "The Brainwashed NASA Sheep's Answers to Common Questions," as annually handed out to the members of this forum. It is never a subject for individual experiment.

[ishmael]

An awful lot of the arguments I read here have a lot of the "I didn't shoot the gun, and besides I missed anyway" quality about them.

[macapple]

I have to say im a bit new to this.

I'm a real Apollo fan since my dad sat me down at 3 and said this is history here.

Since joining the forum ive "chased" a few post that mentioned youtube and i checked the videos and have been caught up in what i can only say is the Bermuda Triangle of intelligence.

Its a "ill post some stuff on this " and if you agree your my friend and if you disagree your a Govt facist who is focused on detail!!

I was Having a great debate with a Greenmagoo who uses Youtube Videos to support his theories. The sad thing is that most of the evidence i have is on old film, Betamax, video or DVD which I have no facility to change format easily.

For example he is showing a cut version of the Apollo 17 SIm bay EVA and the Televised Apollo 16 sim bay EVA and stating that Kubrick help fake it. I have both versions of the 16 EVA TV and 16 mm film and they are very different.

Do i give up and let stupidity rule or challenge it.?

[macapple]

Wow im even having my comments here copied onto you tube!!!!!!!

[AtomicDog]

HBs love to roll off a list of Soviet space achievements as evidence that, "If the Russians did all of this and couldn't get men on the Moon, the Americans sure couldn't with inferior technology,"

Then then turn around and postulate technology that is SUPERIOR to the Russians, developed and deployed in secret, (secret automated sample return missions) in order to support the Hoax Theory.