ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Zakalwe on May 04, 2013, 05:40:39 AM
-
Is the Apollo lunatic fringe gradually dying out? There's a thread over on the UK Yahoo site called "Visions of the Universe".
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/photos/visions-of-the-universe-1367509568-slideshow/
now the UK Yahoo site is, IMHO, infamous for the poorest quality of reporting going. It also seems to attract comments from the hard of thinking (ie, any mention of politics seems to result in a flurry of posts about UKIP :-[ ). This particular item has the usual time-worn rubbish about dust, shadows, blast craters, yet most of these seem to get pounced on. To me, it looks like the Apollo conspiracist is a dying breed?
-
It is now very much relegated to the tin foil hat wearing element. That tends to diminish its credibility so that even those who are sympathetic to the message won't touch it with a barge pole.
-
The Apollo program was over 40 years ago is so removed from the modern generation that it doesn't factor into their world view. If a new race to the moon ever starts I predict the ApolloHoaxers will grow in number again.
On the subject of hoaxers, it's becoming quite common to accuse the SpaceX videos of the Grasshopper as been faked. I wonder why?
-
On the subject of hoaxers, it's becoming quite common to accuse the SpaceX videos of the Grasshopper as been faked. I wonder why?
It seems to be that, for some people, the default position is "its a fake". They adopt that position and then seek out what they call anomalies that they they use to support their original position. Its confirmation bias gone crazy for people with almost zero critical-thinking skills.
-
Oddest comment was from the woman who asked "I thought everyone agreed these photos were fake?" You've got to wonder what sort of circles she moves in.
-
If a new race to the moon ever starts I predict the ApolloHoaxers will grow in number again.
I don't know...perhaps initially, but I can't imagine returning to the moon without taking even higher resolution images of the landing sights.
Not to "prove" anything...just out of curiousity...
edit to add...of course "higher res images" won't convince those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence...so I do agree with ICR.
-
I read a book not long ago about conspiracism, and while it mentioned Pearl Harbor and anti-Stratfordianism (still going strong after four hundred years!), Apollo wasn't mentioned in the book once.
-
Their numbers do seem to be waning. There was a recent poll by Public Policy Polling (an up-and-coming polling company rat cheer in Nawth Ca'lina) on the subject of Conspiracy Theories.
Surprisingly (to me), only 7% of those polled believed in the moon hoax, putting it way behind most of the other common CTs.
Full Results here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html)
Oh, and by the way... Jay, you and the others of your ilk have been caught out! I suggest that you slink away before this unimpeachable source visits more humiliation on your heads!
From Youtube:
Apollo 14 Mission To Fra Mauro (1971)
AIRBOYD
Uploaded on Apr 14, 2011
Courtesy: NASA/JSC
hunchbacked 14 hours ago
There are no real aerospace engineers at Apollohoax
So There!
-
If a new race to the moon ever starts I predict the ApolloHoaxers will grow in number again.
I don't know...perhaps initially, but I can't imagine returning to the moon without taking even higher resolution images of the landing sights.
Not to "prove" anything...just out of curiousity...
edit to add...of course "higher res images" won't convince those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence...so I do agree with ICR.
Of course, upon return to the moon with astronauts of all nations taking part and with HD video and live feeds from the old Apollo landing sites, the true HB's will just say that the Apollo sites were "set up" just prior to arrival, by secret NASA missions.
If I were were a high-up in NASA, and I knew the Apollo missions were faked, I'd be just a bit worried about all these other countries sending high resolution imaging satellites and possibly manned missions to the moon. Wouldn't you?
-
If I were were a high-up in NASA, and I knew the Apollo missions were faked, I'd be just a bit worried about all these other countries sending high resolution imaging satellites and possibly manned missions to the moon. Wouldn't you?
And I'd be cursing my predecessors for their short sightedness and wondering why they didn't bother just landing on the bloody moon and save us all this trouble.
-
And I'd be cursing my predecessors for their short sightedness and wondering why they didn't bother just landing on the bloody moon and save us all this trouble.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)
-
Their numbers do seem to be waning. There was a recent poll by Public Policy Polling (an up-and-coming polling company rat cheer in Nawth Ca'lina) on the subject of Conspiracy Theories.
Yes, I remember discussing that poll on what I still stubbornly call BAUT. I'd really like to know more about their methodology. Especially given the "alien" question.
-
Their numbers do seem to be waning. There was a recent poll by Public Policy Polling (an up-and-coming polling company rat cheer in Nawth Ca'lina) on the subject of Conspiracy Theories.
Yes, I remember discussing that poll on what I still stubbornly call BAUT. I'd really like to know more about their methodology. Especially given the "alien" question.
I think - not certain - that I've fielded one of their surveys before, and it so happened that I had the time and inclination to answer a few questions. It was a computerized voice response "Say 'Yes' or 'No' or 'Not Sure'" type thing.
I don't know much about polling methodology but their website seems to have a pretty detailed account of their process, FWIW.
-
If a new race to the moon ever starts I predict the ApolloHoaxers will grow in number again.
I don't know...perhaps initially, but I can't imagine returning to the moon without taking even higher resolution images of the landing sights.
Not to "prove" anything...just out of curiousity...
edit to add...of course "higher res images" won't convince those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence...so I do agree with ICR.
Of course, upon return to the moon with astronauts of all nations taking part and with HD video and live feeds from the old Apollo landing sites, the true HB's will just say that the Apollo sites were "set up" just prior to arrival, by secret NASA missions.
If I were were a high-up in NASA, and I knew the Apollo missions were faked, I'd be just a bit worried about all these other countries sending high resolution imaging satellites and possibly manned missions to the moon. Wouldn't you?
That seems to sum up the hopelessness of ever changing the mind of the committed HB. All evidence is "faked" or "planted", all witnesses are "lying" or occasionally "brainwashed". If they can make up a story - no matter how far-fetched - to account for something (like, oh, 380kg of 'moon rocks' collected from Antarctica or by robotic probes) they think that proves the hoax. Oh, someone who was about to blow the whistle mysteriously died just before they could go public.
ETA: I was watching the interview that Neil Armstrong did for the Australian CPAs last night and I still get a chuckle when the interviewer asks him about the CTs and he says "I'm not worried. I'm certain someone will eventually return to the moon and pick up the camera I left there." Class act, that one was.
-
I was watching the interview that Neil Armstrong did for the Australian CPAs last night and I still get a chuckle when the interviewer asks him about the CTs and he says "I'm not worried. I'm certain someone will eventually return to the moon and pick up the camera I left there." Class act, that one was.
For it not being "planned" that way, he was the perfect person to be the first...his almost complete lack of ego has always empressed me.
But your post inspired a notion...I imagine the camera was handled before the gloves were put on, so shouldn't Neil, and Buzz's fingerprints be all over that camera?
Although as irrational as Moon hoax bats are, it would mean nothing to them...
-
I was watching the interview that Neil Armstrong did for the Australian CPAs last night and I still get a chuckle when the interviewer asks him about the CTs and he says "I'm not worried. I'm certain someone will eventually return to the moon and pick up the camera I left there." Class act, that one was.
For it not being "planned" that way, he was the perfect person to be the first...his almost complete lack of ego has always empressed me.
Too right. Can you imagine how it would have been if 11 had had to 'wave off' and 12 had made the first landing? No that Pete Conrad was egotistical, but he was certainly more colorful....
But your post inspired a notion...I imagine the camera was handled before the gloves were put on, so shouldn't Neil, and Buzz's fingerprints be all over that camera?
Although as irrational as Moon hoax bats are, it would mean nothing to them...
I believe that the skin oils that form fingerprints degrade and evaporate fairly rapidly in a hot environment - I seem to remember hearing that fingerprints inside a closed car in hot weather will be gone, or at least unusable, in a fairly short time.
And you're absolutely correct. The HB nutjobs would just cry 'fake' as they always do when they don't have an answer.
-
That seems to sum up the hopelessness of ever changing the mind of the committed HB. All evidence is "faked" or "planted", all witnesses are "lying" or occasionally "brainwashed". If they can make up a story - no matter how far-fetched - to account for something (like, oh, 380kg of 'moon rocks' collected from Antarctica or by robotic probes) they think that proves the hoax. Oh, someone who was about to blow the whistle mysteriously died just before they could go public.
To sum it up more succinctly.... there is no cure for stupid!
-
Of course, we are all well aware of the HB talent for shifting the goalposts. They say they want evidence but fail to ever define what they won't just dismiss as fake.
-
To sum it up more succinctly.... there is no cure for stupid!
Oh darn! And I just bought a cure on ebay. Maybe when it arrives I'll put it on Craigslist and make a profit.
Hey, that would show I'm cured. ;D
-
Is the Apollo lunatic fringe gradually dying out? There's a thread over on the UK Yahoo site called "Visions of the Universe".
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/photos/visions-of-the-universe-1367509568-slideshow/
now the UK Yahoo site is, IMHO, infamous for the poorest quality of reporting going. It also seems to attract comments from the hard of thinking (ie, any mention of politics seems to result in a flurry of posts about UKIP :-[ ). This particular item has the usual time-worn rubbish about dust, shadows, blast craters, yet most of these seem to get pounced on. To me, it looks like the Apollo conspiracist is a dying breed?
I know this is off topic but I think that holds true for all of Yahoo. IMO they do I on purpose. They make money through hit counts on the ads. What gets more hits, a well written article that is visited once? Or a badly written article with typos and blatant mistakes that people make comments on and return to make more comments?
-
Too right. Can you imagine how it would have been if 11 had had to 'wave off' and 12 had made the first landing? No that Pete Conrad was egotistical, but he was certainly more colorful....
Before the flight the NASA Administrator told the crew not to take any chances and to abort at the slightest sign of trouble and he would put them on the next flight back to the Moon. He also told this to the Apollo 12 crew. He did not, however, tell this to the Apollo 13 crew.
-
I was watching the interview that Neil Armstrong did for the Australian CPAs last night and I still get a chuckle when the interviewer asks him about the CTs and he says "I'm not worried. I'm certain someone will eventually return to the moon and pick up the camera I left there." Class act, that one was.
Even better would be if someone could return to the Apollo 12 site, pick up and process the film magazine that Conrad and Bean left there accidentally. Problem is, even if it somehow survived many decades of exposure to lunar conditions, would anybody still have the ability to process it?
-
I don't see why not. There are people who know how to process pictures taken on glass plates.
-
I worry that 40 years would have washed out any exposures. Still, it would be something if they could.
-
I worry that 40 years would have washed out any exposures.
I don't know...betcha Jay has a pretty good idea one way or the other...I'll PM him and ask...
-
Whether or not the emulsion has been fried/fogged/what-have-you, you'd also have to question whether the film substrate itself has survived the radiation environment and the extreme heating/cooling cycle. We know that the nylon flags have survived, in some fashion, so perhaps the film is intact as well. Of course, that doesn't mean that either the flags or the film have retained any useful structural integrity.
-
Whether or not the emulsion has been fried/fogged/what-have-you, you'd also have to question whether the film substrate itself has survived the radiation environment and the extreme heating/cooling cycle. We know that the nylon flags have survived, in some fashion, so perhaps the film is intact as well. Of course, that doesn't mean that either the flags or the film have retained any useful structural integrity.
40+ years of being subjected to a monthly frying and freezing cycle of +115°C to -150°?
That film will be FUBAR; totally and utterly heat fogged. Even if it survived physically, if you developed it, it would be an ink-black strip of film substrate with no image on it whatsoever.
-
The base is thin polyester, which will harden with long exposure to vacuum. The magazine has sufficient UV protection to avoid photochemical degradation, but the emulsion will also dry out. Since this will likely cause them to expand and contract at different rates over the many thousands of thermal cycles, I expect the base to be essentially hardened into the roll shape and the emulsion to be a pile of flakes and powder at the bottom of the magazine.
-
The magazine has sufficient UV protection to avoid photochemical degradation...
I thought that might be the case, but wasn't sure...thanks, Jay.
-
Following on from the camera discussion, there's an interesting side issue here given NASA's reported requests for private ventures to stay away from Apollo sites in order to avoid disturbing their historical value.
In my view, they represent valuable research sites, given that we know exactly how long the objects have been there. The condition in which they exist now would give important insights into the behaviour of materials in the lunar environment. Apollo 12's site in particular would be useful as we already have a record of the Surveyor 3 probe's condition after just a few years.
I don't think we should be pandering to the idiots by deliberately picking out Apollo sites to go "See? Told ya", but their value as sources of data is huge.
-
Following on from the camera discussion, there's an interesting side issue here given NASA's reported requests for private ventures to stay away from Apollo sites in order to avoid disturbing their historical value.
In my view, they represent valuable research sites, given that we know exactly how long the objects have been there. The condition in which they exist now would give important insights into the behaviour of materials in the lunar environment. Apollo 12's site in particular would be useful as we already have a record of the Surveyor 3 probe's condition after just a few years.
I don't think we should be pandering to the idiots by deliberately picking out Apollo sites to go "See? Told ya", but their value as sources of data is huge.
I remember reading that on... Apollo 17, I think it was, they deliberately made provisions for long term study. They made microscopic and other very detailed studies of the surface of several of the instruments - I think there may even have been special coatings involved - and put the information into archives, hoping that it would still be around when those instruments were someday recovered and could be compared with the original data to determine the effects of long-term exposure.
Yeah, that's really specific, I know. I'll try to find that source and fill in the blanks a little.
-
As I understood it, the A11 & A17 sites are the ones NASA really wants to protect. A11 for its obvious historical significance, and A17 because it contains numerous long-term environmental exposure tests that should be examined in a carefully controlled way when the opportunity comes. The other sites are open, but you should still not touch individual artifacts.
I think that if a robotic lunar mission starts to become real, you'll see some serious discussions between them and NASA over which Apollo site to visit and exactly how to visit it. NASA won't want to give up the opportunity to see what has happened to those sites either.