|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Apr 24, 2007 14:48:13 GMT -4
I suspect that showtime tried to re-register so he could delete his messages....destroying the evidence, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Apr 24, 2007 15:20:08 GMT -4
I suspect that showtime tried to re-register so he could delete his messages....destroying the evidence, so to speak.
It's too late. We have already erected a showtime statue in ApolloHoax Hall.
In the future, conspiracy theorists will ask, "Hey, didn't we used to argue that Venus could not be found in the Apollo photos? What happened to that argument? And the answer will be, "Yes. We used to, but showtime was responsible for ruining it for all of us."
"We went all the way to the moon only to discover Venus."
|
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 24, 2007 17:10:42 GMT -4
"I landed on the Moon and all I got was this lousy picture of Venus. And dusty boots."
|
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Apr 24, 2007 18:52:41 GMT -4
What saddens me about all this is, showtime dug up evidence that (s)he thought would show Apollo was faked, and when shown that it actually favoured Apollo, did a runner. Why not objectively try to reassess his viewpoint?
For some people, Apollo has to be a fake at all costs, they have too much emotional investment to change their opinion. It must be awful to inhabit a world like that.
If anyone is writing a thesis or book on what drives some conspiracy theorists, this would be a fascinating behaviour mode to analyze.
|
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 25, 2007 12:05:30 GMT -4
Apollo has to be a fake at all costs, they have too much emotional investment to change their opinion. I hate to threadjack, but I happened to find a great example of exactly what you're talking about here on usenet. That guy, Warhol, posted a thread on BAUT and did the normal CT hit and run tactics. Finally, the mods hit him with the (totally awesome) "answer this question in 48 hours or you are banned" thing. So he got banned. Then he goes to usenet and just has a complete meltdown. In that thread, he reveals that his real problem is that he hates jews. So that was it. The evidence of apollo didn't matter. He believes that "the jews" were involved so it just has to be fake. I think that the majority of HBs (not just apollo HBs) are like that, and if they stick around long enough they usually let their real motives slip. They hate the US or they hate Bush or they have religious beliefs they need to support. Like you said, it's sad. I've been in a few threads arguing that humans might not be causing global warming, and I have to keep stepping back and asking myself if I'm doing the same thing the HBs do. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 25, 2007 13:16:06 GMT -4
I hate to threadjack...
Someone has to.
In that thread, he reveals that his real problem is that he hates jews.
Anti-Semitism is a popular, but by no means universal, undercurrent in a lot of conspiracism. That is, if one is anti-Semitic, there seems to be a greater chance that one will espouse variants of the classic conspiracy theories that argue the conspirators were Jews.
He believes that "the jews" were involved so it just has to be fake.
If we don't already have this in the list of contradictions, it should be there. Why would the Jews conspire to fake Apollo by hiring ex-Nazis to do it? I'd love to see the verbal gymnastics required to get around that one.
I think that the majority of HBs (not just apollo HBs) are like that, and if they stick around long enough they usually let their real motives slip.
I think so too, although of course not every conspiracist has the same ulterior motive. Interestingly there was a thread on this at BAUT in which someone proposed ulterior motives for the Apollo hoax. Candidates included anti-Americanism, and anti-authority. One poster JonClarke disagreed and argued that thin-skinned Americans were the ones who brought nationalistic concerns into the picture, projecting their own insecurities onto irrelevant questions. After his escalating demands for empirical proof of alleged anti-Americanism and redefining terms ad hoc, the discussion was dropped, but not before he let slip that he didn't seem to care much for Americans himself. That's fine, of course, but it illustrates that even meta-issues can be affected by such biases.
If it weren't human nature to make judgments based on irrelevant properties, we wouldn't need to have laws and such to keep it from happening in important situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 25, 2007 19:34:26 GMT -4
If we don't already have this in the list of contradictions, it should be there. Why would the Jews conspire to fake Apollo by hiring ex-Nazis to do it? I'd love to see the verbal gymnastics required to get around that one.
Pwerhaps we could host a debate between the "Apollo was faked because it was done by Nazis" crowd and the "Apollo was fake because it was done by Jews" crowd.....
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 25, 2007 19:54:47 GMT -4
Pwerhaps we could host a debate between the "Apollo was faked because it was done by Nazis" crowd and the "Apollo was fake because it was done by Jews" crowd.....
<egon> I think that would be extraordinarily dangerous. </egon>
|
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Apr 25, 2007 20:26:20 GMT -4
Pwerhaps we could host a debate between the "Apollo was faked because it was done by Nazis" crowd and the "Apollo was fake because it was done by Jews" crowd.....<egon> I think that would be extraordinarily dangerous. </egon> Don't let the Threads cross...  |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Apr 25, 2007 20:44:49 GMT -4
Hate to say, but I've already seen this gymnastic exercise. One result of this is the ...interesting.. term "Zionazi."
It doesn't take much preparation for this exercise, unfortunately. If someone already buys into the "global Jewish conspiracy" then it is an obvious step to also believe the Holocaust was faked. From there is only one more leap into assuming that the Nazi's collaborated with their victims to create this hoax, and have continued to cooperate since. The major hurdle is having to drop an emotional affinity for the Nazi's, or at least the admiration for some elements of their philosophies. But you get a gravity assist on the way down, as the Nazi's are already far top easy to demonize.
Anything is possible if you argue only in emotional terms, and don't try to get into niggling little details like who signs the paychecks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 21, 2007 22:57:36 GMT -4
This is my first experience using an astronomy program. I think I did this right. Venus could be behind the dish or exactly where Data Cable suggested. Location: Moon LAT: 3.57 S LON: 17.48 W FRI Feb 5, 1971 15:20:00  I used a clone tool and transperancy on the photo Data Cable linked to. It is hard to get the right dimensions for the scale to match in both pictures, but it came out like this:  I realize if the scale of one is too small, then Venus could be a little bit more right or left, or higher or lower from what I got. There it could be the 'dot' Data Cable pointed out or behind the dish itself. EDIT:The 'Venus" in the Data Cable photo has been enhanced - just made a little bigger so that you can see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 21, 2007 23:32:39 GMT -4
I found two faint dots on one of the linked photos of Data Cable's, AS14-64-9191HR It could be my imagination, but I found two faint dots to the upper right of Earth. I enchanced Venus, and those two dots, Here is a comparison of the Stellarium and the photo:  I'm pretty amateur at this, but it was fun to experiment with. EDIT: BTW to find the two 'dots' on the right, I zoomed in really close on the photo so that I couldn't tell where I was very good. Maybe someone else can confirm the existance of those dots from www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9191HR.jpgThey would correspond to Mars and Jupiter I guess, but it might just prove that you can see anything even if it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 23, 2007 18:10:15 GMT -4
Well Venus can actually be seen on the HR image without any enhancement, it's a dot beside the dish. I can't see the others though, at least without enhancing the image, which I'm not planning on doing. Perhaps you could check other images in the sequence and see if they are in them as well. Also check the magnitude against what was required to capture them on the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 23, 2007 19:55:28 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Oct 23, 2007 20:23:51 GMT -4
Hate to be daft and lazy, but...
Does Venus really show up in the Apollo photos?
I ask, because during my "talk" with HBer GreenMagoo, he made a big deal about Venus showing up in the images, yet no stars.
Then again, he did argue that a shuttle image that showed an auroa shows stars, even though the "stars" are cleary below the horizon of Earth (he claims the Earth itself isn't visible at all).
|
|
