PDA

View Full Version : A funny little thread about how we 'never went to the Moon.'



ladyattis
2006-Mar-11, 05:23 PM
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=765.0

I actually tried to get the guy to come over and debate his argument, but when I read all of his stuff in the first few pages, I found it lacking. Anyone else ever encountered this guy? Cause I find it quite odd that such an individual can't even refute the most basics of rocketry.

-- Bridget

MrClean
2006-Mar-11, 05:31 PM
Like all moon hoax threads, they are not funny, they are pathetic.

ladyattis
2006-Mar-11, 05:37 PM
I just don't understand how folks still call science a 'religion.' That part really boils my blood. I think it's often the case such folks either have no basic mental primer for science, or they feel threatened by technological and scientific knowledge. So, really, I think the thread speaks more about the mentalities of such individuals rather than their logic, which often seems lacking.

-- Bridget

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Mar-11, 05:49 PM
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=765.0
Warning: Extremely vulgar language (at least on the first few pages).

snabald
2006-Mar-11, 06:15 PM
I think I just lost 40 IQ points just looking at that.

It goes from "we never went to the moon" to "I slept with your mom and U R teh virgen... PWNED!!!1!1!!!"

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Mar-11, 06:34 PM
I actually managed to reach page 14, and I'm half expecting awakenfree to babble something about the Time Cube... :lol:

ladyattis
2006-Mar-11, 06:48 PM
Yeah, I gave up on the fellow already. Another board member, a young kid but rather bright, made a valid connection of the person's logic to a fallacy...

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=5603.0

-- Bridget

antoniseb
2006-Mar-11, 06:58 PM
I'm moving this to the Conspiracy section. This is not an ATM topic. I'm also a little dubious about the link to the other forum, but I'll leave that for another mod to deal with.

Faultline
2006-Mar-11, 11:03 PM
He's a troll, and an angry one at that.
I've known some people like that. Even in person, they'd argue with anyone over anything at all. I tend to think that internet forums give some people a sense of anonymity (beg pardon for spelling if I got it wrong) and brings out the troll in folks who wouldn't otherwise argue.

ktesibios
2006-Mar-11, 11:14 PM
Wow, it's every troll I've seen in the last five years, all rolled into one. That guy is one of the most perfect examples of syndromism I've ever seen.

("Syndromism" is the tendency to adopt opinions like they were snack foods- "betcha can't swallow just one".)

After reading four pages of that thread, I feel... dirty.

I need to disinfect my brain. Perhaps washing it with alcohol will do the trick.

ladyattis
2006-Mar-11, 11:21 PM
Np about the thread move, I just found the fella amusing so I thought I share'em among you, that's all.

-- Bridget

Maha Vailo
2006-Mar-12, 02:51 AM
You know, if all you have to support your CT is a bunch of ad hominem, then it's time to go pick another CT. This one's been done to death.

- Maha "beating a dead moon" Vailo

Graham2001
2006-Mar-12, 03:33 AM
I don't know whether(sic?) or not I find Awakenfree interesting or disturbing,

I mean anyone who can link Holocaust Denial, 11 September 2001 CTs, the Moon Hoax CT and present an extremely dubious definition of the term 'cult' (see post 5 of the thread linked to in post 7 of this thread), is either genuinely disturbed or extremely insensitive.

Thanatos
2006-Mar-12, 08:54 AM
It is refreshing to see such a pristine example of an internet cry for help.

Donnie B.
2006-Mar-12, 03:13 PM
I'm sure the fellow would appreciate your saying so. Maybe you should post that comment over there and await his thoughtful, gracious reply? :doh:

I think what I find most disturbing about this sort of CTist is the truly vicious anti-science mindset it displays. Indeed, it seems to go beyond anti-science to a more general anti-rationality bias. I'd hate to think that attitude was common in the general public. Talk about a culture war!

Doesn't a guy like awakenfree understand that his very life depends on the accuracy of our understanding of the natural world, every single day? If he's so unable to accept the validity of various experts' opinions, how does he dare start his car without fear of blowing up, or turn on his computer without worriying about electrocution?

Edit to add: I find it almost as sad/scary that there have been several answers to the effect that it doesn't matter whether the Moon landings were hoaxed or not.

snabald
2006-Mar-12, 05:38 PM
I think what I find most disturbing about this sort of CTist is the truly vicious anti-science mindset it displays. Indeed, it seems to go beyond anti-science to a more general anti-rationality bias. I'd hate to think that attitude was common in the general public. Talk about a culture war!

I seem to be running into a lot of this out in the "real world" these days, there is a lot of apathy twords exploration of space, then there are those who seem to be vehemently against it because it's findings conflict with their religious dogma.

3 out of 5 people I talk to have no idea that we have two fully operational rovers presently on Mars, even less know we have landed a probe on Titan - heck many of them don't even know what or where Titan is!!!

twinstead
2006-Mar-12, 11:10 PM
I seem to be running into a lot of this out in the "real world" these days, there is a lot of apathy twords exploration of space, then there are those who seem to be vehemently against it because it's findings conflict with their religious dogma.

3 out of 5 people I talk to have no idea that we have two fully operational rovers presently on Mars, even less know we have landed a probe on Titan - heck many of them don't even know what or where Titan is!!!

Yup, 3 out of 5 is about it for me too. It's sad. The nation-wide thrill of discovery that I remember even as a child during the moon landings is all but gone, replaced by a deep, cynical complacency about science and academia in general.

Who wins American Idol is MUCH more important than the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. This is a different nation than the one that landed a human being on the moon and brought him back safely almost 40 years ago.

turbonium
2006-Mar-13, 05:43 AM
Who wins American Idol is MUCH more important than the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

And that fact somehow disappoints you, twin? http://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

ladyattis
2006-Mar-13, 02:03 PM
Who wins American Idol is MUCH more important than the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

SINNER!!!! *smites turbonium*

-- Bridget wuvs space probes... :lol:

twinstead
2006-Mar-13, 02:06 PM
Who wins American Idol is MUCH more important than the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

And that fact somehow disappoints you, twin? :lol:

LOL ;)

Gillianren
2006-Mar-14, 12:16 AM
I tend to think that internet forums give some people a sense of anonymity (beg pardon for spelling if I got it wrong) and brings out the troll in folks who wouldn't otherwise argue.

Spelling correct, Faultline. Good job!

I don't know about percentages around here, but at least pretty much everyone I've ever met believes a) the evidence is sufficient to prove humans have landed on the moon, and b) big frickin' airplanes took down the WTC. I'm willing to put up with a lot as long as they believe that much.

Then again, my scientific knowledge is way below average around here, and you guys are very tolerant of that. Probably because you know I'm not the sort of person watching American Idol instead.

nomuse
2006-Mar-14, 05:13 AM
Ouch. I am very sorry I read that thread. I feel I could take a dip into GLP to wash off the crud; it would feel like a clear Alpine stream by comparison. However, Awakenfree only manages to beat the low-water mark of a few of ApolloHoax's latest guests because that board will not permit foul language and personal abuse.

I am sorry to respond to Gillianren that I do know someone who thinks airplane impact and fire did not bring down three buildings of the World Trade Center complex: and he is my boss. In a technical field. Where human safety is involved.

BertL
2006-Mar-14, 08:26 PM
On the "3 out of 5 doesn't know about the lunar rovers"; a possible explanation for it is that they simply don't care.

Gillianren
2006-Mar-14, 08:36 PM
I am sorry to respond to Gillianren that I do know someone who thinks airplane impact and fire did not bring down three buildings of the World Trade Center complex: and he is my boss. In a technical field. Where human safety is involved.

Oh, dear. I'm sorry . . . and kind of scared.

WhyNot??
2006-Mar-15, 08:14 PM
So why in the footage of the moon landing is the flag moving like on a windy day on earth? I thought the moon had no atmosphere?

Hamlet
2006-Mar-15, 08:46 PM
So why in the footage of the moon landing is the flag moving like on a windy day on earth? I thought the moon had no atmosphere?

The only time the flag is moving is when the astronaut is setting it up. After this initial movement has damped out, the flag is quite motionless.

Do you have video that shows the contrary?

WhyNot??
2006-Mar-15, 08:50 PM
not on my pc. But i will see what i can do. Im talking of the b/w footage originally broadcasted on tv. There are also shadows being cast in contrary angles suggesting more than one light source, other than the sun.

nomuse
2006-Mar-15, 08:52 PM
A) Is the flag moving like a windy day on Earth? Supply a video in which that characteristic rippling is observed.

B) Rule out other possible causes for rippling; aka, that an astronaut is twisted or has just twisted the flagpole.

C) Explain how a wind strong enough to ripple a flag makes its way into a closed movie set, and why the scenes in which it is observed were not re-shot.

D) Explain the lack of any other rippling, dust blowing, or any other evidence of a strong wind in either video or stills.


Until you understand these basic questions, you must consider that you are as yet unfamiliar with discussion on the subject. What I posted above were not intended as answers to the "rippling flag" problem; they are intended to educate you as to the current state of "rippling flag" arguments.

twinstead
2006-Mar-15, 08:52 PM
not on my pc. But i will see what i can do. Im talking of the b/w footage originally broadcasted on tv. There are also shadows being cast in contrary angles suggesting more than one light source, other than the sun.

Wouldn't more than one light source cast more than one shadow?

Hamlet
2006-Mar-15, 08:54 PM
not on my pc. But i will see what i can do. Im talking of the b/w footage originally broadcasted on tv. There are also shadows being cast in contrary angles suggesting more than one light source, other than the sun.

These are old Moon Hoax arguments that have been refuted many times before. Have a look at JayUtah's Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) web site. Also have a look at the BA's Apollo Moon Hoax (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) page.

WhyNot??
2006-Mar-15, 08:54 PM
Wouldn't more than one light source cast more than one shadow?

yes. In a photo of two or more images, each having there own shadow.

nomuse
2006-Mar-15, 08:55 PM
Oh, working our way down Sibrel's list again, are we?

Sorry. These are just such familiar questions it is a bit tiring to see them yet again.

Two simple tests you can make at home. First, can you take a picture in which the shadows cast by a single source are not parallel? Second, can you set up two lights in such a way that two objects close together cast only one shadow each? Please take photographs, and if you produce one of the latter, post it here.

twinstead
2006-Mar-15, 08:57 PM
yes. In a photo of two or more images, each having there own shadow.

Well, yea, but multiple light sources will produce multiple shadows from a single object.

nomuse
2006-Mar-15, 08:58 PM
Oh, while you have your camera out, you might want to take a picture of a night game at the nearest convenient baseball park -- one showing both the players on the field and stars in the night-time sky. Occupy yourself with making this photograph and we may be able to skip the next item in your "hoax evidence" list.

WhyNot??
2006-Mar-15, 09:01 PM
A) Is the flag moving like a windy day on Earth? Supply a video in which that characteristic rippling is observed.

B) Rule out other possible causes for rippling; aka, that an astronaut is twisted or has just twisted the flagpole.

C) Explain how a wind strong enough to ripple a flag makes its way into a closed movie set, and why the scenes in which it is observed were not re-shot.

D) Explain the lack of any other rippling, dust blowing, or any other evidence of a strong wind in either video or stills.


Until you understand these basic questions, you must consider that you are as yet unfamiliar with discussion on the subject. What I posted above were not intended as answers to the "rippling flag" problem; they are intended to educate you as to the current state of "rippling flag" arguments.

1) ok, sure. should have the time on the weekend.

2) Was not touching the flagpolw, the flag itself was moving

3)Who said it was a closed movie set? Scenes were filmed by the government not hollywood in the 21st century.

4) Dust? I never see dust blowing, not in the desert, outback, or most places when the wind is just "heavy". What other evidence would there be? Since when does wind have to be heavy to make a flag flap?

twinstead
2006-Mar-15, 09:08 PM
Whynot?? do you have any idea how many dozens of people have come on this board making the same arguments? It would probably be helpful to peruse the forum a bit.

There is NO evidence the moon landings were a hoax. Any so-called evidence presented in all the years I've been studying can easily be explained by anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of photography, astronomy, geology, the Apollo program, and the space program in general.

Of course if you have some new evidence, I would welcome it ;)

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Mar-15, 09:26 PM
3)Who said it was a closed movie set? Scenes were filmed by the government not hollywood in the 21st century.
Could you tell us a few of the obstacles the government would have to overcome to film such scenes outdoors? No atmosphere on the moon was obviously well-known, so why would the government release footage that "obviously" shows the effect of an Earth-like atmosphere?

See the thread "If not on the Moon, where was it filmed? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35258)" for some ideas.


4) Dust? I never see dust blowing, not in the desert, outback, or most places when the wind is just "heavy".
What a crock. If this is any indication of your observational skills, this discussion is going to be quite short...


What other evidence would there be? Since when does wind have to be heavy to make a flag flap?
To make it flap? Not too much. To make it flap and remain horizontal, never showing the signs of gravity? A decently strong and constant wind...

nomuse
2006-Mar-15, 09:40 PM
Ah, one of those finely metered winds. Strong enough to ripple a flag but gentle enough not to stir up any of that fine, talcum-like dust. Aw, come on. What was the weather like on Earth last time you saw a flag with a good ripple? I don't know where you live, but I see clothing blowing around, dust, dirt, dry leaves, paper cups....

Okay. Let's at least admit the presence of the horizontal rod. So we can at least keep this gale below twenty-five knots.

sts60
2006-Mar-15, 09:59 PM
Hi, WhyNot??

1) ok, sure. should have the time on the weekend.

2) Was not touching the flagpolw, the flag itself was moving

What you need to do is show imagery from a mission time where the flag was not recently bumped or manipulated. The flagpole, horizontal rod, and flag will wiggle for a little while after somebody stops touching it.

Remember, it's essential to provide the correct mission time for whatever imagery you reference.

3)Who said it was a closed movie set? Scenes were filmed by the government not hollywood in the 21st century.

You are correct in that the Apollo landings were filmed by the government. NASA filmed them on the Moon.

But the conspiracy idea that the landings were somehow staged in the open somewhere is contraindicated by several facts, including but not limited to:
1. The lunar surface does not closely resemble any place on the surface of Earth. Even the simulated lunar landing areas prepared for training didn't look that much like the Moon.
2. The observed motion of dust kicked up by astronauts and the rover is completely incompatible with the presence of an atmosphere.
3. The observed motion of the astronauts is incompatible with a 1-G environment.
4. The lighting is all wrong.

4) Dust? I never see dust blowing, not in the desert, outback, or most places when the wind is just "heavy".

I fear your observation of the world around you is... inadequate. I grew up in the American Southwest. Oh, my, yes, I have certainly seen plenty of dust blowing in the desert. And other, wetter, places, too.

Astronot
2006-Mar-15, 10:02 PM
So why in the footage of the moon landing is the flag moving like on a windy day on earth? I thought the moon had no atmosphere?
Why is there footage of the flag being completely still? Event the smallest amount of air movement will cause a supported flag to move. If this were not in a vacuum, then the astronauts own movement would stir the air causing a noticeable movement of the flag. Yet there is none.

Short compressed clips are not a good source for observation.

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-15, 11:00 PM
Hi WhyNot?? and welcome,


1) ok, sure. should have the time on the weekend.

You will need to ensure that the footage has not been deliberately cropped, for example, to commence the frame after an astronaut (who had just adjusted the flag) stepped back out of the FOV. Footage treated this way is out there, specifically edited to try to support a bogus case, by people trying to either stir up controversy or take your money (or both). I would recommend therefore that you search the ALSJ, the Project Apollo Archive, etc, or especially (if you are truly interested) the Mark Grey DVDs, rather than conspiracy websites for your evidence.


2) Was not touching the flagpolw, the flag itself was moving

See above. Bear in mind also that the flagpole was aluminium and retained some flexion after it had been adjusted, which would have caused residual motion for a period before it damped out. Also, once moving, the nylon flag itself takes a while to damp because there is no atmosphere on the moon to retard it's motion.

Also, are you aware that the flag is not 'flying' as such, but has a rod inserted along the top of it to extend it out?


3)Who said it was a closed movie set? Scenes were filmed by the government not hollywood in the 21st century.

I'm not sure you get the point of this comment. If hoaxed, the footage had to be shot either inside or outside. If outside, you are going to encounter severe problems including unpredictable wind gusts. Look at the footage again - every step the astronauts take, they kick up the finely powdered lunar 'soil'. The slightest breeze would cause this fine powder to billow up. Your suggestion that a breeze will not cause this dust to blow up is simply not correct - even here in Australia! Here's an experiment for you to try - take a few bags of Portland cement and empty them onto a open space outdoors. Watch it for a few seconds when any sort of breeze springs up...

The fact that the extensive footage looks nothing like any location on Earth is also a bit of an issue if you are going to film it outside.

If it was filmed inside (on what must have been the biggest studio in history, and rigged up with a massive vacuum chamber and reducto-gravity devices), where is this breeze supposed to have come from? Someone left the door open? A cameraman sneezed? When you actually think about the implications of the claim, it just doesn't add up.


4) Dust? I never see dust blowing, not in the desert, outback, or most places when the wind is just "heavy". What other evidence would there be? Since when does wind have to be heavy to make a flag flap?

When the flag is nylon (as the Apollo flags were), the gentlest breeze will make it move. Try it sometime.

Try this as well - there are photographs clearly taken some time apart on all the missions, which show creases & folds in the flag in exactly the same positions. Try and replicate that here on Earth! Here's a tip - I hope you have a lot of time at your disposal!

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-15, 11:08 PM
yes. In a photo of two or more images, each having there own shadow.

No - each object in the photograph will have multiple shadows. Here's another experiment for you to try - go out at night and stand midway between a pair of street lights. See how many shadows you have. Now go to a carpark or tennis court lit by multiple lights - how many shadows now?

Multiple lights must cause multiple shadows from a single object. There is no evidence of this in ANY of the Apollo lunar surface photographs.

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-16, 06:19 AM
The only time the flag is moving is when the astronaut is setting it up. After this initial movement has damped out, the flag is quite motionless.

Do you have video that shows the contrary?

Yup, from Apollo 14. ;)

AGN Fuel
2006-Mar-16, 11:12 PM
The only time the flag is moving is when the astronaut is setting it up. After this initial movement has damped out, the flag is quite motionless.

Do you have video that shows the contrary?

Yup, from Apollo 14. ;)

:lol: The ascent stage exhaust doesn't count either!

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-17, 01:54 AM
Buuuuuuuuuut..... The astronauts aren't touching it.

Meanie. :( :( ;)