PDA

View Full Version : (Langley Moon Sim Pictures) OMG - What do you think of this?



SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Aug-02, 04:46 PM
What do you guys think of the Apollo Reality website showing the how they could have hoaxed Apollo at Langley? The plaster model of the moon and the moon simulations. The camera tracks running around the plaster moon models. Doesn't this show that they could have simulated Apollo?

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

Eta C
2007-Aug-02, 04:58 PM
No.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-02, 05:01 PM
What do you guys think of the Apollo Reality website showing the how they could have hoaxed Apollo at Langley? The plaster model of the moon and the moon simulations. The camera tracks running around the plaster moon models. Doesn't this show that they could have simulated Apollo?

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/ (http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/)


I haven't even seen it since I keep getting the message that the site has exceeded it's limit.

But; there is already enough evidence for me to start forming an opinion.
Biggest of all... why would proof of something that would cause a major stir and media frenzy be presented on geocities?

VPCCD
2007-Aug-02, 05:07 PM
I can't see it.
I'm sure that I'm not missing much though.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Aug-02, 05:28 PM
Yeah, that happened to me also. Try back again. It has some amazing pictures in it.

Tinaa
2007-Aug-02, 05:30 PM
I don't recommend wasting your time. I cannot believe I wasted mine!

SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Aug-02, 05:49 PM
The Apollo Insider section shows how the transmissions were faked. What do you think of this scenerio? Check out the picture of the flatbed truck the mobile LM simulator with the triangular window.

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-02, 05:51 PM
I think the question is what do you think this scenario. This is the conspiracy theory section, do you have a theory you would like to present?

sts60
2007-Aug-02, 06:01 PM
What do you guys think of the Apollo Reality website showing the how they could have hoaxed Apollo at Langley? The plaster model of the moon and the moon simulations. The camera tracks running around the plaster moon models. Doesn't this show that they could have simulated Apollo?

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/Simulated, yes. That was the point. Faked, no.

Simulators and field training areas were publicized by NASA during the Apollo program. There is no "news" here, although HBs like to pretend that these were some sort of hush-hush activities. You would have known this if you'd done more than browse through conspiracist websites.

Moreover, the simulators and field training facilities were hopelessly inadequate for producing the massive, highly detailed still and motion imagery record, let alone the physical and observational record.

I've seen similar plaster models used for training drone operators. The squadron I toured used them, in fact, in Vietnam. Does this show the Vietnam War was faked?

sts60
2007-Aug-02, 06:03 PM
The Apollo Insider section shows how the transmissions were faked.

No, it doesn't. This silliness has been debunked (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1179492255) rather thoroughly.

What do you think of this scenerio?

I think that guy has no clue whatsoever about how such things work, and that thinking such a setup would be used in a "hoax" attempt is asinine.

sts60
2007-Aug-02, 06:12 PM
Here's something else I think, SLF:JAQ SFDJS. If you want to try to say something intelligent, that would be just swell. OTOH, if you simply want to go posting up links to the latest tired, oft-debunked HB web site, with nothing more to say than "OMG! Look @ this!!!11" - without actually making claims on your own and actually trying to defend them - then I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts.

That's what I think.

Swift
2007-Aug-02, 07:08 PM
Here's something else I think, SLF:JAQ SFDJS. If you want to try to say something intelligent, that would be just swell. OTOH, if you simply want to go posting up links to the latest tired, oft-debunked HB web site, with nothing more to say than "OMG! Look @ this!!!11" - without actually making claims on your own and actually trying to defend them - then I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts.

That's what I think.
I will also add SLF:JAQ SFDJS that whenever you have posted anything, you get asked questions and never bother to respond back. So why should we answer your questions?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-02, 07:44 PM
I think someone's trying very hard to live in the land of make-believe. Does the existence of Boeing 767 simulators prove that airline travel is or might be fake?

mugaliens
2007-Aug-02, 07:50 PM
I think someone's trying very hard to live in the land of make-believe. Does the existence of Boeing 767 simulators prove that airline travel is or might be fake?

Definately. Since I used to fly RC planes as a kid, I'm convinced the bigger ones I see in the sky simply use larger glo-plug engines with more powerful radios. I mean, has anyone actually seen a pilot behind the controls while the aircraft is in flight, other than in the movies?

To anser the original poster's question, his use of "OMG" stands for "Oh, My Goodness..."

Fazor
2007-Aug-02, 08:21 PM
I mean, has anyone actually seen a pilot behind the controls while the aircraft is in flight, other than in the movies?

Well, yes. I've been sitting next to the pilot on a number of occasions. However, I never once adequately tested whether he was a real pilot, or an intricate faximilie thereof. Perhapse it wasn't the radio making his voice sound mechanized, maybe that was his robotic larynx. :think:

JayUtah
2007-Aug-02, 08:30 PM
Well, I've been the pilot behind the controls of an aircraft actually in flight. But I'll admit to having only a poor view of myself, and not one that would allow me to verify my identity. And I'll also admit that each entire flight might have been an elaborate deception created by holographic projection and some rampies shaking the plane.

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-02, 08:32 PM
I mean, has anyone actually seen a pilot behind the controls while the aircraft is in flight, other than in the movies?

Well, yes. I've been sitting next to the pilot on a number of occasions. However, I never once adequately tested whether he was a real pilot, or an intricate faximilie thereof. Perhapse it wasn't the radio making his voice sound mechanized, maybe that was his robotic larynx. :think:

It's also quite possible, knowing what we know about the governement's use of psychotropic drugs (hello, Vietnam anybody?) to induce hallucinations, that you only THINK you were flying, when in fact you were drugged and placed into the simulator in order to help the government continue with their coverup of the Apollo missions.


I'm not sure yet how They™ made it so, when I got off the "airplane" in Indiana, it actually looked like Indiana....but I'm sure the Truth™ is out there.

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-02, 08:42 PM
These simulators were shown to the public during the TV coverage of the Apollo 11 mission. The networks had a lot of dead air to fill during the marathon 24 hour a day coverage, and there was a lot of "human interest" in showing footage of the astronauts training.

They ran clips of the astronauts using the Langley simulators dozens of times during the mission. It was no secret to anyone who watched Apollo 11 coverage, including me.

Swift
2007-Aug-02, 08:49 PM
I mean, has anyone actually seen a pilot behind the controls while the aircraft is in flight, other than in the movies?

Well, yes. I've been sitting next to the pilot on a number of occasions. However, I never once adequately tested whether he was a real pilot, or an intricate faximilie thereof. Perhapse it wasn't the radio making his voice sound mechanized, maybe that was his robotic larynx. :think:
Next time you are in that situation, trying hitting the "pilot" in the head with a brick. If he goes unconscious, the plane crashes, and you die, then he was a real pilot. I have similar tests for witches.


Well, I've been the pilot behind the controls of an aircraft actually in flight. But I'll admit to having only a poor view of myself, and not one that would allow me to verify my identity. And I'll also admit that each entire flight might have been an elaborate deception created by holographic projection and some rampies shaking the plane.
my bold

Well that's really sad Jay, since you seem like a very fine fellow; I certainly have a good view of you. You might want to work on these self-esteem issues.
:doh:

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-02, 09:01 PM
I really wish that there was a DVD release of the TV network's continuous coverage of Apollo 11, something on the order of what Spacecraft Films does with NASA video. It would show the HBs exactly what the public SAW in 1969, and put to rest this notion that the public didn't know about simulators and that it would show that the public was shown in detail, at the time, how the MESA worked and how television would be broadcast back to earth.

Personally, I would like to see some of the commercials that were broadcast during Apollo 11. They were like Super Bowl ads - tying in their product or service to the moon landing somehow, like Volkswagen showing how their car, since it was not water cooled, would make a perfect Lunar Rover. (Yeah, I know, but we're talking about advertising here!)

Dave J
2007-Aug-02, 09:28 PM
It would be fun to make a satire movie of hoax theories, Colby's work would fit the bill nicely.
It's a safe bet that our OP doesn't have much familiarity with Apollo, or things space. If he (she) did, she would understand our humor in this "find".

tofu
2007-Aug-02, 09:29 PM
the public was shown in detail

they're in on the conspiracy. duh.

(yes, all of them)

JayUtah
2007-Aug-02, 10:08 PM
It would be fun to make a satire movie of hoax theories...

Any time I have tried to parody a conspiracy theory, one of two things happens: either the parody already exists as an actual conspiracy theory, or someone tries to believe in it. Conspiracy theories are parodies -- parodies of science and investigation.

Matherly
2007-Aug-02, 10:12 PM
I believe this was the sort of thing Dogbert was refering to when he said "Sometimes, no snide comment seems sufficent"

BertL
2007-Aug-02, 11:38 PM
I started laughing when they compared a photograph of an astronaut turned around almost 90 degrees (from what it looks on the picture) to simulate moon gravity, to a still shot from an Apollo 17 video. SLF:JAQ SFDJS (that's one hard to remember name, btw), you're not going to tell me that you think the video from which the Apollo 17 sequence was supposedly faked using the "tilt-it-almost-90-degrees-and-reduce-gravity" technique, are you?

EDIT: To answer the question "What do you think of this?":

I think that website is a compiled load of rediculous statement based on pictures, handwaving, implications and suggested... stuff. Based on (among other things) the "reduced gravity" claim.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-03, 03:48 AM
I got about as far as this statement:

In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine.

Hoo boy. :doh: Sure, nobody has ever seen a controlled rocket. Give me a break.

novaderrik
2007-Aug-03, 06:25 AM
I got about as far as this statement:

In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine.

Hoo boy. :doh: Sure, nobody has ever seen a controlled rocket. Give me a break.

well, I've never controlled a rocket.. it sounds hard, so it must be impossible.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-03, 12:11 PM
well, I've never controlled a rocket.. it sounds hard, so it must be impossible.
Just like it's impossible to resist the "rocket science" pun.

Swift
2007-Aug-03, 01:39 PM
I got about as far as this statement:

In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine.

Hoo boy. :doh: Sure, nobody has ever seen a controlled rocket. Give me a break.
I'm sure the Londoners who were hit by V2 rockets would disagree with that statement.

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Aug-03, 07:36 PM
"In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine."

Who cares if there's intelligent life on other planets?

We should be looking for evidence of it on this planet!

(BAUT readers are obviously extra-terrestrials.)

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-03, 07:41 PM
Who cares if there's intelligent life on other planets?
We should be looking for evidence of it on this planet!
Right; We haven't found it here, so we need to expand the search. :think:

Irishman
2007-Aug-03, 08:06 PM
SLF:JAQ SFDJS said:
OMG - What do you think of this?

I think a descriptive title of the thread content would be useful.

Polite Reasonable Rabid D
2007-Aug-03, 08:27 PM
(BAUT readers are obviously extra-terrestrials.)

I've got my eye on a few of them...

Fazor
2007-Aug-03, 08:29 PM
Nanoo-Nanoo!

captain swoop
2007-Aug-03, 11:04 PM
I'm sure the Londoners who were hit by V2 rockets would disagree with that statement.

Not a good example, the V rockets were unguided and uncontrolled after launch.

Maksutov
2007-Aug-04, 09:23 AM
Well, let's see.

36 posts after the OP, and SLF:JAQ SFDJS has yet to respond to all the real information provided and pertinent questions asked.

There seems to be a pattern revealed here.

Could the key word begin with "t" and end with "l"?

:think:

JayUtah
2007-Aug-04, 04:58 PM
...the V rockets were unguided and uncontrolled after launch.

Not quite true. The V-2 was guided through the boost phase by an azimuth computer. A separate mechanism stopped the engine when the proper state vector had been attained, after which it was purely ballistic. That's the general flight profile of any ballistic missile. It was only after the development of the MIRV concept that in-flight manuevers began to occur after the boost. The V-2 wouldn't have hit London without some form of control.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-04, 10:14 PM
This is one of my favorite (if not particularly useful or practical) controlled rockets: the Rocket Pack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack).

John Jones
2007-Aug-05, 12:25 AM
No.

Count Zero
2007-Aug-05, 03:00 AM
...the V rockets were unguided and uncontrolled after launch.

Not quite true. The V-2 was guided through the boost phase by an azimuth computer. A separate mechanism stopped the engine when the proper state vector had been attained, after which it was purely ballistic. That's the general flight profile of any ballistic missile. It was only after the development of the MIRV concept that in-flight manuevers began to occur after the boost. The V-2 wouldn't have hit London without some form of control.

During powered flight, the guidance system controlled the V-2's course using four movable graphite vanes that were mounted on the rim of the engine nozzle and stuck into the exhaust stream.

nevernose
2007-Aug-05, 04:28 AM
And let's skip the "science" and the hard math. Plus, it's insulting.

Just for the sake of argument:

At its height, the Apollo program (and various subcontractors) employed 250,000 people. Granted, that one weirdo living in Arizona with his genuine imitation space glove who started this whole hoax mess was formerly one of those contractors. That doesn't explain the 249,999 other people who were all directly involved and didn't think it was a hoax. At some point Occam's Razor has to come into effect. And, for he sake of argument, let's say that one percent of the Apollo workers "came clean." What's the rate of alcohol and/or drug adiction in this country? Or serious mental illness?

What I find insulting is the implication that mankind couldn't put a man on the moon with a sliderule; that we, as a species, aren't intelligent enough.

I feel the same way when people claim that the Maya were really aliens, because they weren't smart enough to look up into the sky and say, "You ever notice that every year, about this time, that really bright star comes up in the same spot?" Or that human beings were too stupid to figure out some basic geometry and use a few thousand slaves for brute work, and that therefore the only logical explanation for the pyramids is "Alien Architects."

(sorry to jump in so late, btw)

Grand_Lunar
2007-Aug-05, 05:55 AM
What do you guys think of the Apollo Reality website showing the how they could have hoaxed Apollo at Langley? The plaster model of the moon and the moon simulations. The camera tracks running around the plaster moon models. Doesn't this show that they could have simulated Apollo?

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/


So, what do I think of this?

I think these people have not done sufficent research, nor are qualified to denounce one of the greatest space missions accomplished in human history.

In the "Facts" area, for example, it is stated that computer chips were not invented. That is untrue.
Apollo used Third Generation computers. It was the forerunner of the modern computer chips we use today.
Also, there is a misunderstanding of how computer power is put to use in a simulator and in a real world enviroment.

There is much more that is wrong. Some of it is "not even wrong".

I would like note how the "standards" that are applied to Apollo by people like these are not applied to other space missions. Why don't they pick on Russia's program? Why not the unmanned program? Why?

novaderrik
2007-Aug-05, 06:39 AM
I would like note how the "standards" that are applied to Apollo by people like these are not applied to other space missions. Why don't they pick on Russia's program? Why not the unmanned program? Why?
they figure that if they go right to the top of the heap and prove that the biggest single technical achievement in all of human history didn't happen, then the other stuff starts to look like it was faked, too..
of course, if i wanted to disprove it, i think i'd start at the bottom and work my way up the technical heap and try to pick away at the foundation to get the rest to cave in on itself.
but that's just me.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-05, 04:32 PM
What I find insulting is the implication that mankind couldn't put a man on the moon with a sliderule; that we, as a species, aren't intelligent enough.

I agree. There is an oft-quoted saying: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We often naively apply it only to our advanced technology today as seen by less advanced contemporary humans. We often wrongly believe that technology is a linear progression of quality through time. In fact, the history of technology is a disjoint sequence of kinds of technology developed, used, refined, and finally abandoned in favor of other new kinds of technology -- entirely new ways of solving problems.

The New Age composer Kurt Bestor lives where I live. I've recorded and performed for him. Many of his vocal tracks require a pure, ballast-free tone that I'm good at. It's a tone he calls "monkish," and it's now a running joke among his vocal cadre. He just writes "monkish" in the music above the vocal part and we all just know what to do.

One of his monkish tunes is a piece he wrote for the Innovators album commissioned by a local software company. I've performed it live many times -- it's called "Three Tools." It begins with a single sung note, a pause, then two notes in an interval, a second pause, then a scale of three notes. The pattern repeats and develops into a symphonic tapestry that brings the orchestra to a crescendo of the same tripartite theme. The one-, two-, and three-note glyphs refer to the straightedge, the compass, and the square -- the three classical tools of the medieval masons. The subsequent musical development symbolizes the great cathedrals that were laid out in stunning complexity using only these three drafting tools.

That's the point I'm coming to. In my career I've witnessed just such a shift in paradigms. Back when I was in school, we still drew things on paper. We learned drafting techniques that went by the collective title "geometric construction." That was just a fancy word for making complex shapes like hexagons using clever processes that required only the three basic tools. The ancients we know were experts at this kind of geometry. But today we draw complex shapes on computers, and have the computers help us do it. Very little geometric construction is taught today, although you can still easily find the old textbooks. Computer-aided hexagons (and fasteners and fittings and such) let us work much faster and much more confidently as designers. But they represent a fundamentally different way in which to make designs.

In my mind the ancients weren't hobbled by not having AutoCAD or Pro/ENGINEER. In my mind the ancients are praiseworthy because of what we can see they accomplished using their highly-refined processes incorporating only three tools. (Well, there were more of course. The Egyptions, for example, used simple A-frame levels to level a building site, but you get the point.)

Trebuchet
2007-Aug-05, 09:53 PM
Hear, Hear!

I'm old enough to have done design engineering on a drawing board with a pencil, and old enough (just) to have done the supporting calculations with a slide rule. Most of the engineers I work with now couldn't do that, at least not without a considerable learning curve. They're not any less smart, they've just grown up with a different suite of tools.

Every time I walk up to a 747 I think about the guys who designed it. The last of them are retiring now. No calculators. No CAD systems. Maybe only a couple of computers in the company, for which you had to submit a deck of cards and get the results in the morning. But they produced that magnificent machine, the queen of the skies, with the tools they had. Clearly according to the HB's the 747 cannot exist, because they couldn't have done that.

Davidoc
2007-Aug-13, 01:25 PM
What do you guys think of the Apollo Reality website showing the how they could have hoaxed Apollo at Langley? The plaster model of the moon and the moon simulations. The camera tracks running around the plaster moon models. Doesn't this show that they could have simulated Apollo?

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/


I seriously doubt that it was faked at Langley, take a look at the plaster moon, it looks nothing like the one in the pictures and videos of the moon landings, how could the Astronauts drive the moonrover on that or even walk on it, its tiny.

Drbuzz0
2007-Aug-14, 05:11 AM
I got about as far as this statement:

In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine.

Hoo boy. :doh: Sure, nobody has ever seen a controlled rocket. Give me a break.

Aw.. I was hoping to be first to post that quote. Yes. Controlling a rocket engine is not only impossible: It is so impossible it can only be expressed with capitals.

Also every time a satellite is launched it works the same way... all the engineers get together to watch the launch and then cross their fingers and say "Oh man I hope that ends up in the orbit we want it, just by sheer chance. Because obviously we can't steer it. There's no controlling those damn rocket engines. They just go wherever the hell they want. Anyone with the slightest gumption knows that"

mugaliens
2007-Aug-14, 09:14 PM
I love this quote: "Still not convinced?"

Uh, no.

And this one, from NASA files: "Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space-Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966.

The key here, is "during the actual moon landing."

But I enjoyed the following quote the most: "NASA claim that picture on the right is far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8. Compare this sphere with one shown above in left hand pic. It speaks for itself does it not?"

Uh, yes, it certainly does speak for itself, as the simulated sphere on the left, while good, is of very crude detail, compared to the nearly infinite detail of that sphere on the right, which is commonly called, "The Moon."

Eta C
2007-Aug-15, 12:54 AM
Pardon me for intruding upon the discussion once more, but I feel that the rule of parsimony indicates that my original, one syllable answer was all that was really required here. :)

Serenitude
2007-Aug-15, 04:53 AM
"If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made."

The fool also doesn't realize "King Kong", circa 1930, was done with claymation, and not on a renderfarm :lol:

Serenitude
2007-Aug-15, 05:00 AM
Oh, another gem:

"FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary."

Fact:Rumor has it.... So, a rumor is a fact to an HBer. To quote the Gieco Caveman, "Yeah, I have a response. Uh, what?"

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-15, 05:07 AM
This is so ludicrous that I'm wondering if this one is a parody site, along the lines of "Dark side of the Moon." It's getting hard to believe they're serious.

Maksutov
2007-Aug-15, 05:12 AM
Pardon me for intruding upon the discussion once more, but I feel that the rule of parsimony indicates that my original, one syllable answer was all that was really required here. :)Agreed.

Nicolas
2007-Aug-15, 10:34 AM
NASA simulated moon landings: See! They were faking the landings!
Had NASA not simulated moon landings: See! They didn't even simulate before allegedly going there, missions are ALWAYS trained in simulators first, so hoax exposed!

Give me a boo, give me a hoo, boo-hoo.

Daryl71
2007-Aug-15, 11:19 AM
Oh, another gem:

"FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary."


NASA can't convincingly fake a moon landing, but they can use their powerful mind-control waves to hurdle people from motorcycles 2,000 miles away. :shifty:

JayUtah
2007-Aug-15, 01:17 PM
This is so ludicrous that I'm wondering if this one is a parody site, along the lines of "Dark side of the Moon."

No, unfortunately Sam Colby (the author) is serious. And even less fortunately, a surprising number of people seem to believe him. The last fiasco at IMDB had someone claiming that Colby must be a "NASA insider" in order to have all that information. Apparently he hadn't considered the possibility that Colby just made it all up.

It really has me worried about the intellectual health of society when someone can show a publicly available picture, make up a completely fictional story to accompany it, and have other people insist that the photo is evidence of the story.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-15, 07:59 PM
No, unfortunately Sam Colby (the author) is serious. And even less fortunately, a surprising number of people seem to believe him.


Wow. Given some of the other moon hoax claims, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise, but it's just hard to understand how anyone could take the "impossible to control a rocket" and King Kong claims (among others) seriously.

BertL
2007-Aug-15, 08:19 PM
Reading websites like Sam Colby's with an open mind (and, most of the times, an ignorant mind as well) can quickly lead to being not critical enough, being unable to look further than the issues raised on the website. I had similar troubles originally with this website (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html). It's surprising how easily the average Joe can be 'persuaded' into 'believing' what a website says.

For a few days, I was convinced it was a hoax; however I did not 'close off' my mind for anything debunking claims the landings were hoaxed; I have no desire to be an 'outsider' or someone special, or the 'escaping from the sheeple' scenario often laid out by conspiracy websites.

I think the sheeple scenario is an important factor to persuade people into believing the moon landings were faked. "You're still not convinced? Oh come on, you're not a part of the numb, brainwashed, not-thinking part of the society, are you?" Articles with this attitude generally make people rethink about themselves, with (for conspiracy theorists) positive results.

That's all I have to say about that. For now.

- Spread the Love

gwiz
2007-Aug-16, 12:46 PM
I think the sheeple scenario is an important factor to persuade people into believing the moon landings were faked. "You're still not convinced? Oh come on, you're not a part of the numb, brainwashed, not-thinking part of the society, are you?" Articles with this attitude generally make people rethink about themselves, with (for conspiracy theorists) positive results.
You can use the same argument right back: "Oh come on, you didn't believe that website without checking up on it, did you?"

boppa
2007-Aug-16, 03:35 PM
Other artifacts including the burnt out Apollo 7 capsule which killed Grissom, Chaffe and White.
@
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

gee im glad that Grissom, Chaffe and White survived as they were crewing Apollo 1

maybe Eisele, Schirra and Cunningham were killed by a tragic fire in Apollo 7??

more likely mr sam colby (as per usual) has (maybe) 1 `FACT' in 100 right???





(he seems to be confuzzled about the `first apollo' and the `first manned launch apollo)


but then sam colby seems confused by many things

JayUtah
2007-Aug-16, 04:27 PM
The number of things Sam Colby is confused about would fill a warehouse.

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-16, 04:29 PM
The number of things Sam Colby is confused about would fill a warehouse.

Or even a website :)

NGCHunter
2007-Aug-16, 05:57 PM
You can use the same argument right back: "Oh come on, you didn't believe that website without checking up on it, did you?"

Whereas the cry of the conspiracy theorist is to take every conspiracy claim at face value, the cry of the debunker is for people to objectively verify everything that is claimed (this goes for claims on both sides). Conspiracy theories depend on intuitive but false assumptions, if you dig around too much they fall apart, thus CTers must instill fear in their followers that they should not trust or listen to anyone who disagrees with them (they're all paid shills afterall...) A good debunker knows that no falsehood can stand up to the light of critical scrutiny forever, so there's nothing to fear when it comes to CTers. If someone makes a claim, check it out and find out if it's true or not. A good debunker knows not to believe ANY claim regarding Apollo, JFK, 9/11, or whatever, until it withstands critical scrutiny, and this scrutiny goes for both sides of the argument.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-16, 07:31 PM
BAUT CT forum regulars - PANs in Good Standing :D :lol:

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-16, 07:44 PM
BAUT CT forum regulars - PANs in Good Standing :D :lol:

And now we even have our own Labyrinth (http://www.panslabyrinth.com/) for our Sooper Sekret Meetings™.

Rue
2007-Aug-16, 08:18 PM
These pics were taken at Langley? That is strange. EspeCIAlly considering you know what else is based out of Langley! That spells conspiracy with a capital CON!

Count Zero
2007-Aug-16, 08:36 PM
Wrong Langley, as I'm sure you know. For those who don't, the CIA headquarters is in Langley, Virginia near Wahington DC. NASA Langley Research Center is in Hampton, Virginia - over 200km away.

frenat
2007-Aug-16, 08:54 PM
Wrong Langley, as I'm sure you know. For those who don't, the CIA headquarters is in Langley, Virginia near Wahington DC. NASA Langley Research Center is in Hampton, Virginia - over 200km away.
That's what "THEY" want you to think!

JayUtah
2007-Aug-16, 11:35 PM
Yep, everyone makes that mistake. It's a good half-day's drive from CIA headquarters to the NASA facility.

It's always amusing to hear people talk about the "secret" gantry crane at NASA/Langley, when in fact a major highway runs right past it. Why would anyone try to fake moon landing photography in suburban Virginia in plain sight of thousands of commuters?

korjik
2007-Aug-17, 04:02 PM
Its the perfect cover, hiding it in plain sight. If everyone sees it, no one will think it wierd

01101001
2007-Aug-17, 04:23 PM
It's a good half-day's drive from CIA headquarters to the NASA facility.

Hah! Not when you use the Area 51 element-115 alien space/time warp device.

WHarris
2007-Aug-17, 06:58 PM
Nah, the Asgard teleportation device is a much smoother ride.

JonClarke
2007-Aug-18, 04:50 AM
Nah, the Asgard teleportation device is a much smoother ride.


But it turns you into funny little grey things with big eyes!

jrkeller
2007-Aug-26, 02:41 AM
Here's a report (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670008819_1967008819.pdf) on the Langley facility. Nothing mysterious. BTW published in 1967.