kgmcneil, the thing with conspiracy theories is that if you do provide a plausible explanation for point A, they start parroting about points B, C and D. Then, when you have explained those, they will come up with some new brilliant "observation" E, F and G. Then when you've explained those, they will say "Aha! Then how do you explain H, I, J, and K"?
When you politely tell them that they are in fact points A, B, C and D but in different order, they will come back with "There is this *other* theory we have about this *other* stuff that's also untrue (completely unrelated to the one we just proposed), and here are the points from L to Z which tells us this is fake. Explain that!". And so we are back to square one.
For eg, when the initial Fake Moon Landing conspiracy theory came out, NASA and other folks went to great technical depths to answer every single point made by the conspiracy theorists. Some explanations here .
Unfortunately, using real world physics to explain the real world turns out to be harder when the party you're trying to explain it to is busy playing dumb.
kgmcneil, the thing with conspiracy theories is that if you do provide a plausible explanation for point A, they start parroting about points B, C and D. Then, when you have explained those, they will come up with some new brilliant "observation" E, F and G. Then when you've explained those, they will say "Aha! Then how do you explain H, I, J, and K"?
When you politely tell them that they are in fact points A, B, C and D but in different order, they will come back with "There is this *other* theory we have about this *other* stuff that's also untrue (completely unrelated to the one we just proposed), and here are the points from L to Z which tells us this is fake. Explain that!". And so we are back to square one.
For eg, when the initial Fake Moon Landing conspiracy theory came out, NASA and other folks went to great technical depths to answer every single point made by the conspiracy theorists. Some explanations here .
Unfortunately, using real world physics to explain the real world turns out to be harder when the party you're trying to explain it to is busy playing dumb.
kgmcneil, the thing with conspiracy theories is that if you do provide a plausible explanation for point A, they start parroting about points B, C and D. Then, when you have explained those, they will come up with some new brilliant "observation" E, F and G. Then when you've explained those, they will say "Aha! Then how do you explain H, I, J, and K"?
When you politely tell them that they are in fact points A, B, C and D but in different order, they will come back with "There is this *other* theory we have about this *other* stuff that's also untrue (completely unrelated to the one we just proposed), and here are the points from L to Z which tells us this is fake. Explain that!". And so we are back to square one.
exactly...instead of wasting time on conspiracy theories they could be earning a nice wodge being lawyers!
The journeys to the Moon and Mars did happen, the evidence to prove they did is overwhelming.
Absolutely. Given a powerful enough telescope you could see the astronauts footprints on the moon for Christ's sake. I think Brian Cox got it right on Stargazing Live a few years ago when asked about the fake landings. It was something the lines of "if you think they were faked f**k off to another TV channel." :-)
Why rely on photos for evidence when you can point a radio telescope at Mars and pick up the telemetry coming from it? Nasa aren't the only ones who can pick up those signals, there are amateurs who do it too.
Subliminal messages in loading noises. When you load up the Horizons tape you can clearly hear "the earth is flat... Elvis is alive... the lizard people are controlling you from their underground bunker..."
Absolutely. Given a powerful enough telescope you could see the astronauts footprints on the moon for Christ's sake.
No you couldn't. That's not how telescopes work.
Ah, it looks like you're correct. I think I'd convinced myself that Hubble had taken those footprint photos a few years ago whereas it was a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 20-odd km's above the moon.
However the photos were taken, those landing sites are there.
Absolutely. Given a powerful enough telescope you could see the astronauts footprints on the moon for Christ's sake.
No you couldn't. That's not how telescopes work.
Ah, it looks like you're correct. I think I'd convinced myself that Hubble had taken those footprint photos a few years ago whereas it was a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 20-odd km's above the moon.
However the photos were taken, those landing sites are there.
Yet GUARANTEED in any discussion on the subject some arsehole will chip in with "If they really went to the Moon why are there no satellite photos of the landing sites?"
Absolutely. Given a powerful enough telescope you could see the astronauts footprints on the moon for Christ's sake.
No you couldn't. That's not how telescopes work.
Ah, it looks like you're correct. I think I'd convinced myself that Hubble had taken those footprint photos a few years ago whereas it was a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 20-odd km's above the moon.
The lunar reconnaissance orbiter couldn't focus anywhere near enough to identify individual footprints. here's the pic
the closest it gets to a footprint is the arrow pointing to Astronaut Footpath, which obviously from a conspiracy theorist PoV is just a random dark line drawn on in photoshop or something, and to a 'believer' is perfectly conclusive evidence of a manned landing on the moon.
My comment there was 100% neutral. I'm just telling it like it is. Tin foil hats won't buy that stuff, even if you do...Don't let me stop you discussing anything, lol
Why don't we send someone to the moon and get them to take a photo of the footprints?
Well one of the bonuses for the Google X-prize is to go and take photos of an Apollo landing site. The intended mission for the PTScientists/Audi rover is to do exactly that and visit the Apollo 17 site.
Of course even if they do, that won't appease anyone because obviously a bunch of German scientists, engineers, and automobile company are all part of the NASA/CIA/NSA global conspiracy.
the closest it gets to a footprint is the arrow pointing to Astronaut Footpath, which obviously from a conspiracy theorist PoV is just a random dark line drawn on in photoshop or something, and to a 'believer' is perfectly conclusive evidence of a manned landing on the moon.
It's clearly a shop, you can tell by the pixels, and I've seen a lot of pixels in my time ;)
" At the end of the day, I don't believe this should be a question of conspiracy theorists Vs Official-story-believers, but rather a question of open minded people who simply want to know the Truth, whatever that turns out to be...".
kgmcneil, the thing with conspiracy theories is that if you do provide a plausible explanation for point A, they start parroting about points B, C and D. Then, when you have explained those, they will come up with some new brilliant "observation" E, F and G. Then when you've explained those, they will say "Aha! Then how do you explain H, I, J, and K"?.
Well, this did help me to see that open minded people in fact are a third group.
These are government agencies, nobody denies all of their expensive feats but that some media could have been dramatised for ecomomic, political, war reasons.. remember the Colin Powell's slideshow in UN? I'll always praise a con man who's been creative enough to not end up left to dry on a tree branch. Statistics is also a science and you can "sense" how elections polls are often twisted.
If people believe we went to the moon it gives them a big head,prideful.
I think China,Russia and India would have gone there by now.
People still climb Everest even though it's been done.
Going to the Moon is staggeringly expensive, and even though we have exponentially better computing power than we had in 1969, most of the cost and trouble of going to the Moon (a safe, habitable space-craft, the fuel necessary to get the craft to the Moon, then stop the craft, then the return journey), etc, is pretty much the same as before, or at least not that much cheaper.
Going up Everest, by comparison, is free (relatively speaking), and even can be attempted by one person or a small group of friends. Going to the Moon requires government support (for the cash, though I'd imagine a very small number of companies or individuals might be rich enough to finance a trip to the moon), teams of very clever and well educated people, and you're going to see little enough in return for the money. Being first to the Moon was and is a huge achievement, but going decades later won't excite the world in quite the same way.
Comments
When you politely tell them that they are in fact points A, B, C and D but in different order, they will come back with "There is this *other* theory we have about this *other* stuff that's also untrue (completely unrelated to the one we just proposed), and here are the points from L to Z which tells us this is fake. Explain that!". And so we are back to square one.
For eg, when the initial Fake Moon Landing conspiracy theory came out, NASA and other folks went to great technical depths to answer every single point made by the conspiracy theorists. Some explanations here .
Unfortunately, using real world physics to explain the real world turns out to be harder when the party you're trying to explain it to is busy playing dumb.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Absolutely. Given a powerful enough telescope you could see the astronauts footprints on the moon for Christ's sake. I think Brian Cox got it right on Stargazing Live a few years ago when asked about the fake landings. It was something the lines of "if you think they were faked f**k off to another TV channel." :-)
It probably had a bit less swearing though...
Subliminal messages in loading noises. When you load up the Horizons tape you can clearly hear "the earth is flat... Elvis is alive... the lizard people are controlling you from their underground bunker..."
None of this affects me, I had a Spectrum + ;)
Ah, it looks like you're correct. I think I'd convinced myself that Hubble had taken those footprint photos a few years ago whereas it was a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from 20-odd km's above the moon.
However the photos were taken, those landing sites are there.
Good idea! I nominate Frank ;)
Yet GUARANTEED in any discussion on the subject some arsehole will chip in with "If they really went to the Moon why are there no satellite photos of the landing sites?"
http://en.es-static.us/upl/2011/09/apollo_17_landing_site_LRO.jpeg
the closest it gets to a footprint is the arrow pointing to Astronaut Footpath, which obviously from a conspiracy theorist PoV is just a random dark line drawn on in photoshop or something, and to a 'believer' is perfectly conclusive evidence of a manned landing on the moon.
Well one of the bonuses for the Google X-prize is to go and take photos of an Apollo landing site. The intended mission for the PTScientists/Audi rover is to do exactly that and visit the Apollo 17 site.
Of course even if they do, that won't appease anyone because obviously a bunch of German scientists, engineers, and automobile company are all part of the NASA/CIA/NSA global conspiracy.
It's clearly a shop, you can tell by the pixels, and I've seen a lot of pixels in my time ;)
JSpeccy-win32-portable
Going to the Moon is staggeringly expensive, and even though we have exponentially better computing power than we had in 1969, most of the cost and trouble of going to the Moon (a safe, habitable space-craft, the fuel necessary to get the craft to the Moon, then stop the craft, then the return journey), etc, is pretty much the same as before, or at least not that much cheaper.
Going up Everest, by comparison, is free (relatively speaking), and even can be attempted by one person or a small group of friends. Going to the Moon requires government support (for the cash, though I'd imagine a very small number of companies or individuals might be rich enough to finance a trip to the moon), teams of very clever and well educated people, and you're going to see little enough in return for the money. Being first to the Moon was and is a huge achievement, but going decades later won't excite the world in quite the same way.