PDA

View Full Version : [Zvezdichko's LRO / Moon Hoax thread]



Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 07:50 AM
So let me get this straight. You dismiss the validity of photographs taken of Apollo equipment at the landing sites from a few meters away by NASA astronauts, but you would accept the validity of photographs taken of Apollo equipment at the landing sites from a few meters away by NASA robots. Have I got this right?

I think that I can understand the doubters (not the convinced apollo-hoaxers). This conspiracy theory is a direct result of the abrupt end of the Apollo program. We haven't been to the Moon for about four decades... The achievement is real, but it has happened so long ago that it's covered in a shroud of mysticism.

Yes, there is proof that people really went to the moon, but we're talking about proof that was brought on Earth years ago... I guess that many of those who witnessed the burns of the translunar stages, those who saw the descend of the landing modules have already perished. The rocks are here, of course, but putting aside the mirror on the Moon (which the Apollo doubters call no hardcore proof that men went to the Moon - Lunokhods carried similar mirrors) there is no recent proof that people really went to the Moon. And the fact that nobody is going to leave Low Earth Orbit for years, even decades to come, is more than disturbing.

Come on, NASA and American politicians, do something. The greatest miracles of the sixties are already too ancient. The witnesses have perished or will perish in the next few years.

Van Rijn
2011-Sep-12, 08:36 AM
I think that I can understand the doubters (not the convinced apollo-hoaxers). This conspiracy theory is a direct result of the abrupt end of the Apollo program. We haven't been to the Moon for about four decades... The achievement is real, but it has happened so long ago that it's covered in a shroud of mysticism.


What do you mean by a "shroud of mysticism"? The landings aren't any more mystical than the Vietnam war. Should there be any doubt that happened? What about WWII?



Come on, NASA and American politicians, do something. The greatest miracles of the sixties are already too ancient. The witnesses have perished or will perish in the next few years.

Well, they did - there's LRO and other lunar missions. I will say, though, specifically because of what happened with Apollo, I'm very much against flags and footprints missions. Build infrastructure, or don't go. Anyway, whether or not resources are put to that again has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence of Apollo.

chrlzs
2011-Sep-12, 08:40 AM
I think that I can understand...
Well, I CAN'T understand your logic. For a start, you quoted Jay, then your 'point' had absolutely nothing to do with the quote. Could you explain that to me?


This conspiracy theory is a direct result of the abrupt end of the Apollo program.
While I agree that it is a factor, it is by no means a 'direct result'.
Q - How have you determined it is a 'direct result'?


We haven't been to the Moon for about four decades...
And World War II happened even further back... So where's the analogy? (See next para..)


The achievement is real, but it has happened so long ago that it's covered in a shroud of mysticism.
Only by those pushing their little denier barrows... There is no 'mysticism' apart from the wonder of humankind's greatest achievement, that it involved space (=aliens and mystery to the ignorant) and that it happened to be done by the USA. To those who don't like the US, who cannot envisage a largely gov't based authority achieving such an extraordinary task so well, who think astronauts are part of a greater conspiracy hiding alien visitation, and/or any combination thereof, it's a perfect target for them to vent their anger at their own lack of achievement and what they think the world owes them.


Yes, there is proof that people really went to the moon, but we're talking about proof that was brought on Earth years ago...
there is no recent proof that people really went to the Moon.
So you appear to be saying, quite clearly, that you do not regard the LRO images as 'proof'. Is that correct? Or did you just accidentally leave that out for effect?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 08:49 AM
So you appear to be saying, quite clearly, that you do not regard the LRO images as 'proof'. Is that correct? Or did you just accidentally leave that out for effect?


No, I'm leaving that out on purpose. The LRO photos are "proof", of course, but I can understand that the public wants closeup images of the debris, not some orbital Google Earth-like satellite photos. Something awesome, something new, something beautiful..

I hope that some of the private rovers will be able to reach some remains of Apollo hardware

Jason Thompson
2011-Sep-12, 09:26 AM
The achievement is real, but it has happened so long ago that it's covered in a shroud of mysticism.

Only if people can't be bothered to do some work. Apollo is a comparatively recent event. No-one doubts things like World War 1, and that happened almost a hundred years ago, or the balck death, of the American War of Independence. It's amatter of historical record. There's nothing 'mystical' about an event supported by literally millions of pages of documentation.


I guess that many of those who witnessed the burns of the translunar stages, those who saw the descend of the landing modules have already perished.

Um, it wasn't that long ago....


there is no recent proof that people really went to the Moon.

And when dealing with any historical events, why would there be?

The conspiracy theory has nothing to do with some 'shroud of mysticism' covering past events, and everything to do with ignorance and unwillingness to learn from some quarters. There is no shroud over Apollo. Almost all of it is in the public domain and freely available. Even the fact that every picture and bit of tv and film footage can now be streamed to your computer at home hasn't stopped some people from claiming things about the record that simply are not true. That's not a shroud, that's wilful blindness.

Jim
2011-Sep-12, 12:04 PM
... I guess that many of those who witnessed the burns of the translunar stages, those who saw the descend of the landing modules have already perished. ...

Hey! Still alive here.


... The witnesses have perished or will perish in the next few years.

Hey again!! I'd appreciate it if you didn't start writing my obit just yet.

Swift
2011-Sep-12, 02:14 PM
I think that I can understand the doubters (not the convinced apollo-hoaxers). This conspiracy theory is a direct result of the abrupt end of the Apollo program. We haven't been to the Moon for about four decades... The achievement is real, but it has happened so long ago that it's covered in a shroud of mysticism.
Do you feel a similar "shroud of mysticism" about humans' exploration of the Mariana Trench?

Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench#Descents)

Only three descents have ever been achieved. The first was the manned descent by Trieste in 1960. This was followed by the unmanned ROVs Kaikō in 1996 and Nereus in 2009. These three expeditions directly measured very similar depths of 10,902 to 10,916 m.

So it has only had one manned exploration, over 50 years ago, and two unmanned explorations, both relatively recently. It is much less explored than the moon. Frankly, I find the Mariana Trench much more mysterious than the moon.

While I share your desire for humans to revisit the moon, associating any of that desire with the hoax believers seems kind of strange to me.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-12, 04:02 PM
The witnesses have perished or will perish in the next few years.

I'm with the others; this is extremely hyperbolic. Perhaps you mean the astronauts themselves? But as we've been emphasizing, there were far more witnesses than that. My mother is old enough so that she was of an age to actually work on Apollo (she didn't, but she's the right age), and she hasn't even reached average US life expectancy for a woman born when she was. I would imagine she'd get a little upset if you told her she was going to perish in the next few years. And of course, witnesses don't have to have been old enough to work on the program, if we're including--and we should--people who saw the Saturn V launch and especially all those millions and millions of people who saw the first footage live on TV.

CJSF
2011-Sep-12, 04:08 PM
The achievement is real, but it has happened so long ago that it's covered in a shroud of mysticism...(and more nonsense)


The entire moon program (including Gemini) was one of the most open and documented endeavors in human history. I find your statements above to be insulting and cheap. There are plenty of people alive today who were witnesses, and not just children, to Apollo. Many of them are only in their 50s and 60s now. They have decades to live. And even if they did not, as myself and others have said, there are millions and millions of pages of documentation, hours and hours of film and TV footage, thousands of photographs.

You purport to be a journalist, and you should know this. Yet you act like some sensationalistic hack writer.

Just when I think I understand where you're coming from, Zvezdichko, you throw out these ridiculous curveballs.

CJSF

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 04:13 PM
I can understand that the public wants closeup images of the debris, not some orbital Google Earth-like satellite photos. Something awesome, something new, something beautiful...

Although not "new", the images you describe already exist...and they are awesome and beautiful.

I agree with Swift...eventually we will return to the Moon, but we won't be doing it to satisfy HB "demands".

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 04:17 PM
I think that I can understand the doubters (not the convinced apollo-hoaxers)...snip...but putting aside the mirror on the Moon (which the Apollo doubters call no hardcore proof that men went to the Moon - Lunokhods carried similar mirrors)

These seem to be different opinions, and I fail to understand which you hold...please clarify.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 04:26 PM
I'd appreciate it if you didn't start writing my obit just yet.

Agreed...off hand I don't know how old Jim is, but I have every intention (banning unforeseen circumstances) to live at least another 30 years.

Which hardly qualifies as "the next few".

Luckmeister
2011-Sep-12, 04:59 PM
Zvezdichko, I have seen numerous Moon hoax believers come here and initially state they think we went to the Moon but they wish we had better proof. Then, through subsequent posting, their true desire that the missions be proven fake become obvious. Am I seeing that again? Or perhaps just a deep-seated dislike for anything done by the US generally and NASA specifically?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 05:44 PM
No. I am convinced that people went to the Moon and I'm not anti-USA basher.

My point is ... that going to the Moon shouldn't be history. It should be a top priority for NASA's/ESA's/Russian/Chinese space programmes. We were supposed to have lunar bases by now, as the sci-fi promised us. There are too many Apollo deniers and their number is reaching a point when we can't ignore them.

So yes, I still think that this fact alone should make the USA politicians recreate a lunar landing programme that aims to send a man to the Moon within 10 years.

With regards to your ages, you may intend to live at least 30 more years, but I'm only 24 years old and I already think that was too young to have seen the first giant leap, but I will be too old to see the second giant leap.

It's a great shame that noone goes to the Moon these days and this should change as soon as possible...

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 06:00 PM
We were supposed to have lunar bases by now, as the sci-fi promised us.

?? Science fiction imagines "possible" future worlds...it is predictive "to a point", but you can't really rely on it as you have proposed.


There are too many Apollo deniers and their number is reaching a point when we can't ignore them.

I don't understand...do you think the arguments for the authenticity of Apollo, unconvincing? Once an argument has been debunked, is there really any reason to re-visit it just because some people will NEVER accept Apollo as real?


I'm only 24 years old and I already think that was too young to have seen the first giant leap, but I will be too old to see the second giant leap.

I of course feel very fortunate to have lived in those times, and am sorry you did not witness it personally, but do you really think we should return to the Moon just to satisfy those who were to young to witness Apollo?

Be realistic...

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 06:12 PM
..and I don't mean to "promote" spacecraftfilms, (but I will, hi Mark), but it is actually better today then it was in those days...I can go to my bookshelf and pull A17 and watch all available video from that time...something I couldn't possibly have done back then.

Consider yourself luck to have that option.

Zapman
2011-Sep-12, 06:26 PM
Come on, NASA and American politicians, do something. The greatest miracles of the sixties are already too ancient. The witnesses have perished or will perish in the next few years.

There are still thousands of people alive who worked on the NASA programs of the sixties. In fact, this past spring, I had a great conversation in Pasadena with the former Tecnical Librarian for JPL for most of the sixties. She lit up when speaking of her experiences working during that time period and what it was like working with the likes of Von Braun and the other scientists involved. She downplayed her role in the bigger picture but it was obvious that she was proud to have contributed to her efforts.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 06:39 PM
I don't understand...do you think the arguments for the authenticity of Apollo, unconvincing? Once an argument has been debunked, is there really any reason to re-visit it just because some people will NEVER accept Apollo as real?


Even we, who believe in the reality of Apollo should admit that not everything that is presented as proof sounds convincing.

For example... the silence of Russia and the fact that Apollo landings weren't televised live on TV in the Eastern Bloc is quite a convincing argument, the TLI ignitions, the launches of the rockets, the independent evidence from observatories... Those are convincing examples.

But things like the Kaguya photos are not convincing at all... White blast zones can only make the deniers shake their heads once again, then they will compare those photos to LRO photos and scream Photoshop... And when you tell them that the Kaguya cameras aren't that good, they say.. .A-ha and you want to do what Buzz Aldrin did to Bart Sibrel



I of course feel very fortunate to have lived in those times, and am sorry you did not witness it personally, but do you really think we should return to the Moon just to satisfy those who were to young to witness Apollo?


Yes... This was called the Apollo effect, there could be a similar Apollo effect today.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 06:46 PM
As for those who say: "Why should we offer proof that the Apollo was real", I can think of a clear example why this strategy is wrong, but I could earn an infraction... This is why I will paraphrase it that way: Once upon a time a Very Bad Man existed on Earth and he caused a Very Bad Disaster to a country... Years later the government of the country announced that the Very Bad Man was killed, but the governmen officials said: "We won't give you proof because even with proof there will be deniers"..

So no photos... no proof... I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-12, 07:00 PM
...

It should be a top priority for NASA's/ESA's/Russian/Chinese space programmes.

But it isn't, and your personal space policy objectives don't matter at the national and international level.

We were supposed to have lunar bases by now, as the sci-fi promised us.

"Fi" stands for "fiction." Why are you trying to equate it with real-life space policy?

There are too many Apollo deniers and their number is reaching a point when we can't ignore them.

Really? We just got done talking about how few Apollo hoax proponents there seem to be compared to ten years ago. Where is your evidence that the number of hoax proponents and believers is increasing?

The belief in conspiracy theories, Apollo-related or otherwise, has next to nothing to do with the objective historical validity or credibility of any targeted historical event. People believe in conspiracy theories for psychological reasons that have no rational basis. Throwing more or better evidence at them doesn't change their beliefs.

Swift
2011-Sep-12, 07:02 PM
No. I am convinced that people went to the Moon and I'm not anti-USA basher.

My point is ... that going to the Moon shouldn't be history. It should be a top priority for NASA's/ESA's/Russian/Chinese space programmes. We were supposed to have lunar bases by now, as the sci-fi promised us.
Which makes me seriously wonder why you hijacked a CT LRO thread. Frankly, it is borderline on an infraction, both for the hijack and for the fact that you appear to be using the CT forum to promote your beliefs about space exploration goals that have nothing to do with any conspiracy.


There are too many Apollo deniers and their number is reaching a point when we can't ignore them.
Given this, I've split off your previous post and all the responses to it into their own thread and left it in the CT forum.

As for those who say: "Why should we offer proof that the Apollo was real", I can think of a clear example why this strategy is wrong, but I could earn an infraction... This is why I will paraphrase it that way: Once upon a time a Very Bad Man existed on Earth and he caused a Very Bad Disaster to a country... Years later the government of the country announced that the Very Bad Man was killed, but the governmen officials said: "We won't give you proof because even with proof there will be deniers"..

So no photos... no proof... I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
You are right, this is VERY close to earning you an infraction. Don't think you are fooling anyone with how you phrased this. If you bring it up again, you will be seriously infracted.

And to everyone else - no responses to the "hidden" message in that post.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 07:12 PM
Even we, who believe in the reality of Apollo should admit that not everything that is presented as proof sounds convincing.

No...I need do nothing of the sort...why would you think that?


...the silence of Russia and the fact that Apollo landings weren't televised live on TV in the Eastern Bloc is quite a convincing argument...

??? A convincing argument that eastern block countries controlled access to information. Not a convincing argument that Apollo was faked.

Space Chimp
2011-Sep-12, 07:13 PM
We were supposed to have lunar bases by now, as the sci-fi promised us.


Science Fiction promised me a flying car and a personal robot valet. Somehow I've survived without them.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 07:16 PM
No...I need do nothing of the sort...why would you think that?



??? A convincing argument that eastern block countries controlled access to information. Not a convincing argument that Apollo was faked.

Yes, this is why it's a convincing argument that Apollo was real... Admitting that NASA sent people to the Moon = admitting defeat

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 07:19 PM
Yes... This was called the Apollo effect, there could be a similar Apollo effect today.

Do you have a better reason to think that other than "I want it to be so"?

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 07:22 PM
Admitting that NASA sent people to the Moon = admitting defeat

How is that any concern of ours??

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 07:23 PM
Really? We just got done talking about how few Apollo hoax proponents there seem to be compared to ten years ago. Where is your evidence that the number of hoax proponents and believers is increasing?



Youtube... I don't know if they're just a vocal minority, but it seems there are quite many hoax believers...

Do you have any evidence that the number is decreasing? This is quite interesting if it turns out to be true

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 07:29 PM
Youtube...

Compared to 10 years ago when there was no youtube.

Please explain just how that is a fair comparison.


I don't know if they're just a vocal minority, but it seems there are quite many hoax believers...

You "don't know" if hoax believers are a "minority"?..really??

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 07:33 PM
What's so strange? Even if we have about 10% of hoax believers, it could be a minority, but the number isn 't that small if we say there are about several thousands of hoax believers...

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 07:42 PM
What's so strange? Even if we have about 10% of hoax believers, it could be a minority...

Yes...my point exactly...you posted that "you didn't know if they were a vocal minority", when obviously they are.


...but the number isn 't that small if we say there are about several thousands of hoax believers...

Where did you get the several thousand number from?

Even if I were to admit that number as verified, several thousand vs. more than 6 billion?

Seems like a very small number to me.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 07:43 PM
OK... I guess it's enough... Can't participate anymore, beer party here... It looks like I have personal preference that humans should return to the Moon as soon as possible and people won't agree with me if it's not sustainable... Well... I guess we'll never agree with each others then...

End...

Swift
2011-Sep-12, 07:48 PM
Do you have any evidence that the number is decreasing? This is quite interesting if it turns out to be true
The number of threads started on BAUT by believers of a lunar landing hoax. Even in the years that I've posted on BAUT, there has been a huge drop in such threads.

There is not a log of independent poll data, but what there is shows no trend.
ABC news (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Apollo11MoonLanding/story?id=8104410)

Just six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings according to a 1999 Gallup poll, the most recent data available. A similar poll by Time/CNN, conducted in 1995, also revealed that six percent believe the moon landings were faked.

Swift
2011-Sep-12, 07:52 PM
OK... I guess it's enough... Can't participate anymore, beer party here... It looks like I have personal preference that humans should return to the Moon as soon as possible and people won't agree with me if it's not sustainable... Well... I guess we'll never agree with each others then...

End...
No, you don't get to just drop the conversation. Go off to your party. Tomorrow morning you make it very clear what exactly your beliefs are. If you refute any conspiracy beliefs, that can be the end of the thread. If not, you address all the questions that have been put to you in this thread.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-12, 07:54 PM
Well... regardless of my condition, I am quite sure I won't turn into a hoax believer tomorrow...

Gillianren
2011-Sep-12, 08:00 PM
I read a book about conspiracy theories recently wherein the author spent a lot of time talking to actual conspiracy theorists. Apollo isn't mentioned in the book once. Who wrote Shakespeare's plays is, but not Apollo. The hoax theory isn't dead, but it's certainly dying.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Sep-12, 08:10 PM
I've noticed that when people say things like, "They should be able to make a sewing machine with a better needle guard. After all, if they can put a man on the moon..." they are less often adding, "assuming they did, of course, and it wasn't all faked." Probably because they realised it's both boring and wrong.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-12, 08:13 PM
I read a book about conspiracy theories recently wherein the author spent a lot of time talking to actual conspiracy theorists.

Would that be Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers?

Gillianren
2011-Sep-12, 08:23 PM
That would, yes.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-12, 08:27 PM
Jonathan is in my town today. Hoping to get to meet with him.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-12, 08:51 PM
Youtube...

I had hoped for some quantitative evidence behind your claim. In my interpretation, YouTube remains the last bastion of Apollo hoax belief because they've been effectively laughed off most other venues.

I get far fewer emails asking questions. On all the written forums I either read or write, fewer hoax claims are being made.

Qualitatively, people are pointing to "Mythbusters" as the end of the hoax. "What, you still believe in that? Didn't you see Mythbusters?"

Donnie B.
2011-Sep-12, 09:00 PM
Zvezdichko, if I'm reading your posts right, you seem frustrated at the lack of ongoing, aggressive manned space exploration. You feel that the Apollo hoax crowd is taking that lack as evidence that there never was such an aggressive program, and you're bemoaning the fact that we've given them that opening.

Well, I agree in general. I think a lot of us would prefer to see more progress in space (especially us BAUTers and SF fans). And I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

But the sad fact is that the American people, though their elected officials, determined that there was no need to put vast resources into such a program, when the resources were badly needed elsewhere. You and I may disagree with those priorities, but that doesn't change the fact that the decisions that were made, were made. And unless you have a few billion dollars lying around to fund a re-energized space program, there's little hope that the trend will change anytime soon.

Does that mean we're giving an opening to the Apollo doubters? Yes. It's a shame, but that's how it is. Complaining about it here isn't going to change anything -- even if every American BAUT member and casual reader wrote their congressmen every day and considered no other issue when casting their votes, it wouldn't make a gnat's worth of difference. You are, as we say, "preaching to the choir", and it's a very small choir in a very large cathedral.

I am glad that at least we have continued with unmanned exploration, with considerable success. Opportunity rocks!

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 09:09 PM
...I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

Not to be a "disagreeing Darrell" (hey, I just picked the name out of a hat :)), but I'm not so sure of that.

Oh they would be less in number, but I've read some amazing justifications for belief, and there's some who simply will never concede and admit defeat.

Swift
2011-Sep-12, 09:16 PM
And I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.
A very minor disagreement with an excellent post... I suspect even when we have a hotel on the moon and a base on Mars, there will still be doubters. There are still a few flat-Earthers around, among other fringe beliefs.

Garrison
2011-Sep-12, 09:37 PM
Categories of HB as I see it:

Trolls: couldn't care either way if its real as long as they get to wind people up

Professional HBs: those who essentially promote the idea of a hoax with a view to making some money with a book/DVD.

True Believers: the kind of people who want to think they've penetrated some great secret the rest of us are too dumb to see

Anti-authoritarians: those like Ong who simply reject anything associated with government or 'The Powers That Be'

Anti-Americans: a subset of the above who reject Apollo out of resentment/distaste for the USA.

I'm curious to know which of the above Zvezdichko thinks would be convinced by the additional evidence provided by a new moon landing?

Swift
2011-Sep-12, 09:47 PM
I'm curious to know which of the above Zvezdichko thinks would be convinced by the additional evidence provided by a new moon landing?
I don't know Zvezdichko's answer, but I would guess none of them. The only category that might be swayed is one you haven't included: Fence-sitters. Often, these are people who are just not well informed on the topic, often not even well informed about space exploration, and are often younger (were not alive during Apollo). They see the Fox special or someone sends them a YouTube link from one of those in the above categories, and they get confused. They also seem to be the only category that ever get convinced by a discussion on BAUT (and thus don't need a new moon landing to convince them).

PetersCreek
2011-Sep-12, 09:50 PM
...I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

Yet there remains a segment of the HB population who think the shuttle missions were faked, in spite of their number and documentation. I think at least some of the Apollo doubters would remain unconvinced even with bases on the Moon and Mars. "Sure, we figured things out later but Apollo was still faked! Notice how they didn't build any bases within walking distance of Tranquility Base!!!"

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 10:32 PM
The only category that might be swayed is one you haven't included: Fence-sitters.

It is actually people like the fence sitters who will determine [b]WHAT THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY WILL BE!]

Suddenly, I'm philosophical....who would have thunk it. :)

Donnie B.
2011-Sep-12, 11:00 PM
Well, RAF, Swift, and PetersCreek... you may have a point there. But if the number of HBs is small today, I say it would be virtually nil if Apollo had been continued and expanded.

In case it wasn't clear, I intended to suggest not a recent return to the Moon but a continued, ongoing, and increasingly ambitious program from the 70s to the present. But of course I wouldn't argue that even that would have produced a total HB population of zero.

One thing I would have loved to see -- a launch of the proposed (but never built) Nova booster. Imagine nine F1 engines in the first stage! Florida might have sunk from the sound pressure alone.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 11:24 PM
I say it would be virtually nil if Apollo had been continued and expanded.

Emphasis mine...You are 100 percent correct... "people" take for granted "aspects" of everyday life...such as cell phones...

..so "if' Apollo had continued until...well, right now, then it wouldn't seem so unrealistic to that portion of the population.

So I agree and disagree with you...hey, that's kinda "philosophical", too.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-12, 11:29 PM
One thing I would have loved to see -- a launch of the proposed (but never built) Nova booster. Imagine nine F1 engines in the first stage! Florida might have sunk from the sound pressure alone.

Oh hell yeah...(can I say, hell?)

Gillianren
2011-Sep-13, 01:27 AM
The key word, of course, is "virtually." There is no stance you can find so stupid that there isn't someone taking it.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-13, 01:42 AM
There is no stance you can find so stupid that there isn't someone taking it.

That would make a good "sig".

Tensor
2011-Sep-13, 03:57 AM
Imagine nine F1 engines in the first stage! Florida might have sunk from the sound pressure alone.

Ah, I would prefer not.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-13, 08:28 AM
I know a professional HB-er who refused to debate me on TV, because he claims he's not a convinced hoax believer... Yet he has made a pro-hoax movie, very famous in my country...

Perhaps many people, like him, are aware that the Apollo missions are not faked, yet they make movies for money...

As for the trolls and anti-americans, no chance here... A girl told me: "Your arguments are convincing, but I still hate the Americans and I can't believe they are able to do good things"



Categories of HB as I see it:

Trolls: couldn't care either way if its real as long as they get to wind people up

Professional HBs: those who essentially promote the idea of a hoax with a view to making some money with a book/DVD.

True Believers: the kind of people who want to think they've penetrated some great secret the rest of us are too dumb to see

Anti-authoritarians: those like Ong who simply reject anything associated with government or 'The Powers That Be'

Anti-Americans: a subset of the above who reject Apollo out of resentment/distaste for the USA.

I'm curious to know which of the above Zvezdichko thinks would be convinced by the additional evidence provided by a new moon landing?

Daggerstab
2011-Sep-13, 09:12 AM
I know a professional HB-er who refused to debate me on TV, because he claims he's not a convinced hoax believer... Yet he has made a pro-hoax movie, very famous in my country...

Who's that? (I admit not following the local cranks.)

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-13, 10:32 AM
Private message sent. He's indeed a famous person here.

iquestor
2011-Sep-13, 12:11 PM
HBers are annoying to me but I see no point in spending any enery in convincing them that we went to the Moon.

I wish we would go back and beyond. Robert Zubrin has given us a well defined, technologically feasible path to send Humans to Mars (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315915851&sr=1-1), which I would love to see happen, but I doubt I'll live to see it. :( Perhaps my son will.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Sep-13, 04:50 PM
For example... the silence of Russia and the fact that Apollo landings weren't televised live on TV in the Eastern Bloc is quite a convincing argument, . . .
For people who don't know history perhaps.

This was one of the enemy's most impressive propaganda victories of the cold war, do you really think the Soviet regime would think it was a good idea to show live?
Remember that this was a time where television was 100% government controlled.

Garrison
2011-Sep-13, 05:51 PM
I don't know Zvezdichko's answer, but I would guess none of them. The only category that might be swayed is one you haven't included: Fence-sitters. Often, these are people who are just not well informed on the topic, often not even well informed about space exploration, and are often younger (were not alive during Apollo). They see the Fox special or someone sends them a YouTube link from one of those in the above categories, and they get confused. They also seem to be the only category that ever get convinced by a discussion on BAUT (and thus don't need a new moon landing to convince them).

Yeah I deliberately left them out because of that last point, the genuine fence sitters generally just need a proper explanation of the existing evidence to persuade them.

Garrison
2011-Sep-13, 05:53 PM
I know a professional HB-er who refused to debate me on TV, because he claims he's not a convinced hoax believer... Yet he has made a pro-hoax movie, very famous in my country...

Perhaps many people, like him, are aware that the Apollo missions are not faked, yet they make movies for money...

As for the trolls and anti-americans, no chance here... A girl told me: "Your arguments are convincing, but I still hate the Americans and I can't believe they are able to do good things"

So given that why would you propose that a new landing would persuade HB's in the first place?

JayUtah
2011-Sep-14, 05:28 PM
It was clear to me that Zvezdchiko intended all along to talk about fence-sitters as opposed to committed conspiracists. Conspiracism is irrational, and you can't propose some rational system that will or would have alleviated the belief. So having a progressive program of manned planetary exploration would not have made a bit of difference. Conspiracism, according to the author Gillianren and I discussed previously, is the process of evading any sort of meaningful test of the central propositions. That author also proposes his own taxonomy of conspiracists that overlaps significantly with the one presented here.

Fence-sitting is a putatively intellectual condition. That is to say the fence-sitter is pulled into sincere doubt by hearing the pseudo-rationale of the conspiracists, and lacks the insight to detect its flaws. But he may be satisfied by a rational debunking, if someone is so kind as to provide one. So Zvezdchiko's question seems to be whether a continued program of manned planetary exploration would have resulted in fewer fence-sitters by normalizing the experience and putting its facts into the realm of common belief and understanding. By normalization I mean the demystification of the concept. We normalize to risks, advantages, and other conditions that confront us over time and accept them as the status quo. We have, for example, normalized the concept of manned space flight in general. We no longer look on astronauts as national heroes so much as just men and women doing their jobs.

Whether a continued manned planetary exploration program would have put at everyone's disposal the facts needed to rebut the Apollo hoax theory is highly debatable. Most people today know little about manned space flight, even as it stands. Further, a hypothetical alternate history in which lunar exploration continued unbroken to the present time would not rebut a line of reasoning that could claim we can do it now, but could not do it in 1969. Arguments such as the lack of computing power might instill doubt in fence-sitters, even though it is factually unsupported.

There is no validity to the argument that an event in history must be repeated in order to be authentic, even if the event in question is theoretically repeatable. We don't have to continue doing something in order to have once done it, and so any line of reasoning that supposes that continuation should be more credible is automatically suspect. Nor do we need to keep refreshing the evidentiary record. Authenticity does not inevitably grow stale, and events do not unhappen.

The LRO photographs do not "finally" prove the authenticity of Apollo. We can add evidence to the case without having to admit that the case was unconvincing beforehand. However the LRO photographs require an explanation from the hoax claimants. When the only explanations they can come up with are those unsubstantiated affirmative claims that they preformulated years ago, or HighGain's handwaving protests that the photos simply "aren't good enough, then the factual bankruptcy of their beliefs is clearly shown. The LRO photographs are significant not because what they reveal about Apollo but because of what they reveal about hoax claimants.

Someone intent on believing that the initial Moon landings were faked will always find a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific, and pseudo-historical argument that will ensnare fence-sitters. Yes, the controversy would have evolved differently, but it will probably have arisen anyway. In the realm of absurd beliefs there are few sure bets. Even in a field as pedestrian as vaccination and inoculation, which has been practiced continuously for centuries, there are still fringe claims about pharmaceutical malfeasance and government mind control. Normalization of the core concepts does not evade conspiracism, which is about evading a meaningful test no matter what the landscape of available evidence may be.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-14, 05:45 PM
So Zvezdchiko's question seems to be whether a continued program of manned planetary exploration would have resulted in fewer fence-sitters by normalizing the experience and putting its facts into the realm of common belief and understanding. By normalization I mean the demystification of the concept. We normalize to risks, advantages, and other conditions that confront us over time and accept them as the status quo. We have, for example, normalized the concept of manned space flight in general. We no longer look on astronauts as national heroes so much as just men and women doing their jobs.

Excellent point. My take on this...I have occasion to fly from here to there, and the whole concept of Jet flight astounds me no end. Oh, I'm completely familiar with the concepts of flight, but when I look at that big metal structure, my mind can't help thinking, "it'll never get off the ground".

No the reality of jet flight is taken for granted by, well, everyone who flies, it is so ingrained into us, (took my 1st jet flight when I was 16...in 1970.) that people (in general) never question "if" the jet can fly.

kamaz
2011-Sep-15, 11:54 PM
I suspect even when we have a hotel on the moon and a base on Mars, there will still be doubters.

Moon Hoax is much more dangerous than other conspiracy theories. HBs not only assert that we didn't go to the Moon in 1969. They assert that it is objectively impossible to fly humans to the Moon (due to van Allen belts or something).

The last thing human civilization needs is a mass delusion that BEO spaceflight is impossible.

kamaz
2011-Sep-16, 12:05 AM
The LRO photographs do not "finally" prove the authenticity of Apollo.

LRO photographs alone are quite weak as evidence. The problem is that LRO was sent by NASA. If you believe that NASA organized a giant conspiracy to fake moon landings, then they are obviously able to photoshop some images... Besides how do we know that LRO even exists? LRO could be another conspiracy to cover an earlier (Apollo) conspiracy.

kamaz
2011-Sep-16, 12:19 AM
LRO could be another conspiracy to cover an earlier (Apollo) conspiracy.

Ummm.... I have just noticed that there is a proof that LRO exists. Even better, I have produced this proof myself :D Recipe: superimpose LRO data on Kaguya data. They match (http://moonmapper.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/light-and-darkness/).

Tensor
2011-Sep-16, 03:57 AM
Ummm.... I have just noticed that there is a proof that LRO exists. Even better, I have produced this proof myself :D Recipe: superimpose LRO data on Kaguya data. They match (http://moonmapper.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/light-and-darkness/).

I would point out that since the Kaguya data has been available since late 2007, matching the data shouldn't be all that hard if they were trying to fake the LRO data. Not claiming they are, just pointing out that if one set of data is available, a second set can be manufactured based on the first set.

Obviousman
2011-Sep-16, 05:30 AM
Moon Hoax is much more dangerous than other conspiracy theories. HBs not only assert that we didn't go to the Moon in 1969. They assert that it is objectively impossible to fly humans to the Moon (due to van Allen belts or something).


That is an excellent point. I cornered one HB regarding this, asking them if they would admit they were wrong regarding the VABs when the next round of manned exploration took place on the lunar surface, and confirmed the existence of Apollo artefacts. In order to maintain their position, they were forced to pre-emptively say that the next manned lunar explorations would be faked.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-16, 01:38 PM
Moon Hoax is much more dangerous than other conspiracy theories.

I politely disagree. If I may veer slightly into non-astronomy topics for a second, I think conspiracy theories surrounding vaccination and other medical services are probably more dangerous because they have a more profound, direct, and proximal effect on the human experience. Medical science provides a truly stunning array of vaccines and treatments that are being unfairly and ignorantly assaulted by conspiracy theorists, the result of which is that fewer people are willing to care for their health that way.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-16, 02:16 PM
Medical science provides a truly stunning array of vaccines and treatments that are being unfairly and ignorantly assaulted by conspiracy theorists...

Most recently, not only CT's, but any discussion of that would have to be on another board.

...or via PM.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-16, 04:35 PM
Most recently, not only CT's, but any discussion of that would have to be on another board.

It's still a CT, so far as I'm concerned, even if it doesn't fit into the ones we normally see. After all, think of all the people who would have to know and not care what the vaccines are capable of.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-16, 06:28 PM
Thanks for helping me find my mistake...I had meant to say CTers, as in, "not only CTers", but it came out of my fingers as "CTs"

Sorry about that...

Gillianren
2011-Sep-16, 08:15 PM
It would be "CTists," wouldn't it? But I use the abbreviation for both.

Luckmeister
2011-Sep-16, 08:45 PM
It would be "CTists," wouldn't it? But I use the abbreviation for both.

Or "CTizers" ;)

Usher
2011-Sep-16, 11:11 PM
Or "CTizers" ;)

Or "CTizens"

ravens_cry
2011-Sep-16, 11:34 PM
How about conspiracy theorist, it's not that long to type.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-17, 12:04 AM
"Conspiracist" is the commonly accepted contraction.

Obviousman
2011-Sep-17, 12:18 AM
How about antivaxer?

Weltraum
2011-Sep-17, 12:22 AM
"Conspiracist" is the commonly accepted contraction.

Or kook :D We don't consider that an insult, do we?

ravens_cry
2011-Sep-17, 12:25 AM
"Conspiracist" is the commonly accepted contraction.
Going by the suffixes, I personally don't see that being much different from conspirator, id est what they are accusing NASA and/or others of being.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-17, 06:37 PM
The difference in my mind is that a conspirator is someone who acts as part of a conspiracy while a conspiracist accuses others of perpetrating them.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Sep-17, 11:03 PM
Or kook :D We don't consider that an insult, do we?
I normally go for baby killer, it describes them by the result of their actions.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-18, 09:24 PM
The difference in my mind is that a conspirator is someone who acts as part of a conspiracy while a conspiracist accuses others of perpetrating them.

I thought that a conspiracist is a general term for a supporter of a conspiracy theory

ravens_cry
2011-Sep-19, 09:32 AM
The difference in my mind is that a conspirator is someone who acts as part of a conspiracy while a conspiracist accuses others of perpetrating them.
The trouble is that the suffixes (http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/comsuffixes.htm) -ist and -or both seem to have the same meaning: "one who". In fact, in the full version, "conspiracy theorist", it is used in this way.
English has no central authority; it's something I like about it in fact.
But it still feels wrong if, as I said earlier, we are going by literal use of suffixes.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-19, 02:01 PM
Yes, "conspiracist" can refer to either a proponent of or a believer in a conspiracy theory.

And no, there's no supreme court of English; it's a democratic (small 'd') process to extend and modify the language Toward that end, we authors who write about conspiracy theories are responsible for consistent usage. My dictionary defines "conspiracist" precisely as Zvezdchiko has above, and tells me I may also use "conspiratorialist," which to my ear multiplies syllables unnecessarily. The suffixes -ator and -itor have more narrowly-defined meanings as the agent or perpetrator of some action. The suffix -ist, in addition to usage such as "flautist" (one who plays the flute), also conveys adherence or belief, such as in "Buddhist" or "racist." Implied in these is an -ism, and I think the attention we pay to the patterns of though that generate conspiratorial beliefs warrants "conspiracism" and "conspiracist" as reasonable words.

ravens_cry
2011-Sep-19, 07:28 PM
Nice, thank you. While I will continue to use conspiracy theorist primarily, I withdraw general objections.

Ong
2011-Sep-24, 07:34 PM
"It was clear to me that Zvezdchiko intended all along to talk about fence-sitters as opposed to committed conspiracists. Conspiracism is irrational bla bla bla"


You pompous phonies don't even know what the word "conspiracy" means, you and your phony forum with its bevy of politically correct little internet policemen all with their fat little fingers hovering above the ban button and oh so eager to invoke your so-called rules upon anyone who deviates even one iota from the Party Line.

They have taught them to squeal "conspiracy theory" when confronted by arguments that have not been pre-approved by the ruling kammissariat.

When two or more people get together to plan something, that can be called a "conspiracy". There ya go, geniuses, now you know what "conspiracy" means.

FDR: "Everything in politics is a conspiracy."




Ong

tusenfem
2011-Sep-24, 07:36 PM
"It was clear to me that Zvezdchiko intended all along to talk about fence-sitters as opposed to committed conspiracists. Conspiracism is irrational bla bla bla"


You pompous phonies don't even know what the word "conspiracy" means, you and your phony forum with its bevy of politically correct little internet policemen all with their fat little fingers hovering above the ban button and oh so eager to invoke your so-called rules upon anyone who deviates even one iota from the Party Line.

They have taught them to squeal "conspiracy theory" when confronted by arguments that have not been pre-approved by the ruling kammissariat.

When two or more people get together to plan something, that can be called a "conspiracy". There ya go, geniuses, now you know what "conspiracy" means.

FDR: "Everything in politics is a conspiracy."




Ong


Okay, then conspiracy this.
One infraction for ong

Ong
2011-Sep-24, 07:36 PM
Your mod, Swift, knows where to find me in case any of you ever want to engage in real debate on a level playing field.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-24, 11:17 PM
"Conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are two different things. I know Ong is banned and won't be reading that, but I think it's worth noting. After all, I have a mild fascination with certain crimes from 1969 which undoubtedly involved a conspiracy. We know this, because evidence has been presented which shows that as not merely the most logical solution but the only one supported by the facts. That's different from a claim that there's a government cover-up hiding the existence of extraterrestrial life!

Garrison
2011-Sep-25, 10:56 AM
"Conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are two different things. I know Ong is banned and won't be reading that, but I think it's worth noting. After all, I have a mild fascination with certain crimes from 1969 which undoubtedly involved a conspiracy. We know this, because evidence has been presented which shows that as not merely the most logical solution but the only one supported by the facts. That's different from a claim that there's a government cover-up hiding the existence of extraterrestrial life!

And we even know of real political conspiracies, mainly because politicians are really bad at keeping their mouths shut.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-25, 04:46 PM
Indeed. Contrary to what some people think, we are none of us so stupid as to claim that conspiracies, political or criminal, never happen. We are claiming that a certain kind of conspiracy is proposed with no evidence and therefore not worth taking seriously.