ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Ishkabibble on August 28, 2015, 11:56:51 PM
-
I've followed the hoax debate for a long time in lurk mode, on YT, on various fora, here, Clavius, Cosmoquest, and other places, and it suddenly occurred to me...
All of the threads I've read, (and some of them were huge!) all of the arguments I've witnessed, all of the "debates" (I use that term loosely) all seem to end up with the HBs, CTs, Deniers, etc.. all saying some variations of the same thing: "There is nothing you can tell me that will change my mind! I know it was a hoax!" (usually followed by some observation regarding the parentage of the person debunking the hoax)
My question is, knowing that I have not seen all possible discussions, are there any known instances of a hoax believer (or their cousins) saying anything along the lines of, "Up until now, I had been firmly convinced that it was a hoax, but you've presented me with enough believable evidence that disproves my theory, that I've changed my mind!"
Has that actually ever happened? Can anyone post links to a disbeliever ever having their mind changed?
-
This very forum is one example.
The original owner of this site was a "dyed-in-the-wool" Apollo Hoax Believer, he actually examined the evidence, and discovered he was wrong.
He is in a very tiny minority, of a very tiny minority.
Phil
-
In the spirit of the multitude of posts I have read on this and many other fora: "Do you have any evidence to support that claim? I won't believe it without some incontrovertible evidence!" ;D
All joking aside, I didn't know that.
Any others?
-
Well, I was able to convince one CT that the LM ascent stage rocket should not produce a visible flame except briefly at start-up.
-
The only other one that I can think of is Vincent McConnell (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=102), though he seems to have just been a young misguided teenager who eventual saw the error of his ways.
-
There's that fella Alan over on Infowars who says he used to be a hoax believer, but our good friend Adrian/awe130's behavior convinced him otherwise.
-
The only other one that I can think of is Vincent McConnell (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=102), though he seems to have just been a young misguided teenager who eventual saw the error of his ways.
Vince was the one I thought of, for someone who was a good friend of Kangaboy it was a huge turnaround for the lad. I speak to him regularly, his conversion was due in no small part to Astrobrant2. But in general it is hard to convince most HB to change their opinion, because they like to think they are "some way" separate from the rest of the sheeple. I am convinced that most Hoax Believers have brains that condition them into readily believing conspiracy theories, it is common for most of them to have multiple beliefs, be it NWO, 9-11, Chem-Trails, UFO's, etc, etc. With such ingrained acceptance of wild notions it is hard to make them waiver in their opinions. When faced with overwhelming evidence that a particular piece of evidence is wrong, rather than reconsider the whole premise of their belief, they switch to the "But what about this!" mode.
-
I've seen a couple of folk over at YouTube accept reasoned explanations of various aspects of the missions .. but not much more than that. I'll post links if I spot them.
-
Can't offer names off the top of my head, but I have seen a few, eg at 'Unexplained Mysteries", including one well known regular. The more common type just pops up from lurking, usually late in a thread, to say they were once undecided (mainly because they hadn't studied the evidence at all), and then thank the posters for tipping them into the believer camp.
And I would have to observe that around the 40th Anniversary of Apollo 11 there were quite a few folks popping up to (very ignorantly) deny Apollo, but they were largely run off the forums (often banned as they exploded in angry ad hominems) and are now dwindling to almost zero these days. Maybe they still hang out at Godlike or ATS, but those places have lost my interest completely.
-
Can't offer names off the top of my head, but I have seen a few, eg at 'Unexplained Mysteries", including one well known regular. The more common type just pops up from lurking, usually late in a thread, to say they were once undecided (mainly because they hadn't studied the evidence at all), and then thank the posters for tipping them into the believer camp.
And I would have to observe that around the 40th Anniversary of Apollo 11 there were quite a few folks popping up to (very ignorantly) deny Apollo, but they were largely run off the forums (often banned as they exploded in angry ad hominems) and are now dwindling to almost zero these days. Maybe they still hang out at Godlike or ATS, but those places have lost my interest completely.
In my small part of reading many threads here, CosmoQuest, Education and YT I never run onto one that changed except for the young man named by Bryanpoprobson. Most are viral use abusive, foul and aggressive language (as some that believe in Apollo) to assert their beliefs. I have tried to inject a few logical or technological statements to a few, but with no converts. They know more than learned individuals because we are "programmed" or sheeples and (un)paid shills.
-
There are degrees of skepticism about the Apollo landings. There are some people who just go through a momentary period of doubt when they've seen or read the hoax rubbish for the first time and don't know to how to debunk it. These people often do their research and are soon turned around when they realize it's all a bunch of hokum. We rarely hear from these people because they're not the ones that typically go join web forums to spew a bunch of hoax nonsense. They're certainly out there, however, because I occasionally receive emails of thanks from those who have found my web site.
There are others who, for some reason or another, completely buy into the hoax theory and become emotionally invested in it. Once it becomes an emotional thing, it's virtually impossible to get them to change their minds. These are the hoax believers that we typically run into at Apollohoax, YouTube, and other places. Although they are clearly the most vocal and visible group, I suspect they are just a small minority (at least I hope so).
-
My question is, knowing that I have not seen all possible discussions, are there any known instances of a hoax believer (or their cousins) saying anything along the lines of, "Up until now, I had been firmly convinced that it was a hoax, but you've presented me with enough believable evidence that disproves my theory, that I've changed my mind!"
There were two at YT once the LRO pictures were published, NASANAZI and one use whose tag evades my memory.
-
I'm ambivalent reading this thread, mostly because I am totally dumbfounded as to why people would rather believe it was all faked, than acknowledge and revel in the knowledge that we actually did something so amazing. That kind of mixed-feeling really makes me wonder about the future of humanity.
I'm also amazed that there haven't been more converts, given the incredible amount of technical and scientific knowledge I see here on this and other fora.
I've also pretty much given up on YT, because of Hunchbacked and Batmannn. Those two guys, I'm convinced, are taking contrarian positions just because they can.
I really hate this "ask a question, get an answer, and then but yes, what about this?" type responses that they do. Moon Man and Awe both do the same thing.
Thanks for the responses, and keep the thread going, we might end up with more converts along the way! That is what this is all about, isn't it?
-
The Apollo Hoax has always surprised me for the form it takes. But I think I just this moment, re-reading this thread, figured out why it takes this form.
On the face of it, this is what you have; a group of people (the hoax believers) who generally have a poor understanding of science and engineering and almost without qualification have no background in aerospace engineering or space sciences, suggest a conspiracy theory, and chose as the strongest support for their claim technical and scientific arguments!
This is what primarily attracted me. I'm no scientist. To really understand how Apollo was achieved and what motivated some of the choices really does require the proper education and training. And to properly critique those choices -- well, you should really have credentials in the field to do that.
However, the specific arguments the hoaxies make are often wrapped in misunderstandings that can be tested on the level of kitchen-table science. I'd want to be a Hassleblad engineer to really discuss the thermal properties of the camera, but I only need to be a self-taught cartoonist, or a weekend photographer, in order to show the "converging shadows" arguments of the hoaxies are utter nonsense.
So why do the hoax promoters lead with claims that are so easy to dismantle? Why are they going into science and logic when their strengths are perhaps more in emotional argument and the murky haze of political, social, behavior speculations?
And the reason that just came to me is this; they aren't a rocket scientist, but they play one on YouTube. They reach for what appear to be mistakes in basic science and logic because those are easy to illustrate and sound intelligent. They fight fire with fire; confront the entire idea of the cadre of rocket scientists who managed these feats with what look to be scientific blunders.
And they succeed because their target audience is no better at science or logic then they are, and in any case is uninterested in disagreeing.
And there is another, closely-related reason. Many of the things the hoaxies like to point at and claim violate science, do indeed violate something. But that something isn't science; it is intuition, the "common sense" formed of of a lifetime of experience at the bottom of a gravity well swimming in a blanket of compressed gas at almost exactly the triple point of water; a most peculiar environment indeed by the standards of the universe.
So they have their little videos and their sound-bite quotes of "no stars were visible" and "it got very cold on board" and they are easily able to point and gibber, "This doesn't make sense! This is obviously scientifically wrong!"
Oh, yes. And once they've found one of these killer observations (like "no stars"), they'll hold on to it with sheer emotional doggedness. This I am convinced is why we get ever more esoteric discussions with some hoaxies about whether a specific astronaut on a specific mission meant exactly what he said when he described seeing or not seeing extra-lunar objects. Because somewhere down there in the hoaxies emotional makeup is that treasured "aha!" moment when they realized there were no stars in the backgrounds of the Apollo Surface Record, and they are unwilling to finally let go of that first love.
-
The only other one that I can think of is Vincent McConnell (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=102), though he seems to have just been a young misguided teenager who eventual saw the error of his ways.
Vince was the one I thought of, for someone who was a good friend of Kangaboy it was a huge turnaround for the lad.
I didn't know they used to be buddies. Quite the reversal indeed. I asked him once what was the one proof that convinced him the most that the landings happened and he said it was the "Apollo 11: Fingerprints in Deep Space" video from Lunar Tuner. I hadn't seen it at that time and found it quite informative. I've linked it often but nobody has admitted that they changed their viewpoint because of it yet. Does shut a lot of them up however. Same as the "Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity" video by amontaiyagala.
-
...
And the reason that just came to me is this; they aren't a rocket scientist, but they play one on YouTube. They reach for what appear to be mistakes in basic science and logic because those are easy to illustrate and sound intelligent. They fight fire with fire; confront the entire idea of the cadre of rocket scientists who managed these feats with what look to be scientific blunders.
And they succeed because their target audience is no better at science or logic then they are, and in any case is uninterested in disagreeing.
And there is another, closely-related reason. Many of the things the hoaxies like to point at and claim violate science, do indeed violate something. But that something isn't science; it is intuition, the "common sense" formed of of a lifetime of experience at the bottom of a gravity well swimming in a blanket of compressed gas at almost exactly the triple point of water; a most peculiar environment indeed by the standards of the universe.
So they have their little videos and their sound-bite quotes of "no stars were visible" and "it got very cold on board" and they are easily able to point and gibber, "This doesn't make sense! This is obviously scientifically wrong!"
Oh, yes. And once they've found one of these killer observations (like "no stars"), they'll hold on to it with sheer emotional doggedness. This I am convinced is why we get ever more esoteric discussions with some hoaxies about whether a specific astronaut on a specific mission meant exactly what he said when he described seeing or not seeing extra-lunar objects. Because somewhere down there in the hoaxies emotional makeup is that treasured "aha!" moment when they realized there were no stars in the backgrounds of the Apollo Surface Record, and they are unwilling to finally let go of that first love.
That is exactly what the early Hoax crowd did and does to this day. Their subtle and slick videos/books can suck in the unsuspecting novice people that have viewed their surroundings here on Mother Earth. Then when they hear "this can't possible be ...". We have seen this over and over with stupid statements that are close enough to trap the unsuspecting.
-
...
I've also pretty much given up on YT, because of Hunchbacked and Batmannn. Those two guys, I'm convinced, are taking contrarian positions just because they can.
...
Hunchbacked seem to be prolific a few years ago, but seems like he ran out of ideas. I posted a bunch of debunks on his video concerning Apollo 12 and the photo mosaic around the Surveyor 3 lander. I quit debunking around the 5 minute mark and that was perhaps 2 weeks ago and I've not been notified of a comment.
His "anomalies" were just too easy to pick apart.
-
I've seen the "Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity" video by amontaiyagala, and I found it really great. My problem with Hunchbacked, Batmannn and a couple of the others is that even when you completely trap them in something that is absolutely and totally irrefutable, they immediately go into "spin mode" and say, "yes, but what about?" which is a complete and total sidestep of the premise of needing information to accept. If a hoaxer says "I need X as irrefutable proof" and then you give them X, they then always say "Yes, but what about A? That's obviously fake!" in such a way that no one can ever make them admit they're wrong.
There's a pathology for this, but for the life of me, I can't remember exactly what the name of it is. I really don't like it when I can't remember something like this. I guess when one gets old, the memory really is the second thing to go...
Hunchbacked seemed to have the wind taken out of his sails by Lunchpacked and GoneToPlaid, to the point that he pretty much wound down. I guess that's the reason why GoneToPlaid shut his page down. I wish he hadn't done that. There were some fantastic refutations and rebuttals on it, and I had most of them bookmarked. Wish I'd copied them now. ::) There was one post where someone told Hunchbacked something along the lines of "if there is no piece of evidence that will ever convince you, then what are you even doing? If your mind is that closed, why do you even bother?" and he went all ballistic over it. I guess they can't deal with it when their delusions come crashing down around them....
There are a few on YT who have had to have made a concerted effort to completely ignore pages like Clavius, Braeunig, Cosmoquest, and Bad Astronomy, (and this one, too) because like Moon Man, AwE, and Neil Baker, they all seem to just regurgitate all the old, tired, worn out things. I know how frustrating it is to have to see that, I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to have to refute them over and over and over again.
I saw something on the 'net the other day on one of the groups I follow, and with a minor alteration, I think it made a fantastic addition to my sig.
The original statement was "You don't "believe" in evolution. You either understand it or you don't." So I changed it to fit. Heh...
Thanks for the great discussion! This is a superb forum.
-
There is another member here too who has realised the reality of Apollo from having once been a Hoax Believer.... Dr.Acula.
Perhaps LunarOrbit and/or Dr.Acula might like to give us an idea what it was that made them rethink their positions; was it a gradual realisation or was there a "watershed moment"?
-
The only other one that I can think of is Vincent McConnell (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=102), though he seems to have just been a young misguided teenager who eventual saw the error of his ways.
Vince was the one I thought of, for someone who was a good friend of Kangaboy it was a huge turnaround for the lad. I speak to him regularly, his conversion was due in no small part to Astrobrant2. But in general it is hard to convince most HB to change their opinion, because they like to think they are "some way" separate from the rest of the sheeple. I am convinced that most Hoax Believers have brains that condition them into readily believing conspiracy theories, it is common for most of them to have multiple beliefs, be it NWO, 9-11, Chem-Trails, UFO's, etc, etc. With such ingrained acceptance of wild notions it is hard to make them waiver in their opinions. When faced with overwhelming evidence that a particular piece of evidence is wrong, rather than reconsider the whole premise of their belief, they switch to the "But what about this!" mode.
Vincent went on to claim that the Chinese missions were hoaxes (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=126.0). It seems that hoax belief has to do with a way of thinking (or not thinking!) and possibly a whiff of xenophobia thrown in.
-
Vincent went on to claim that the Chinese missions were hoaxes (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=126.0). It seems that hoax belief has to do with a way of thinking (or not thinking!) and possibly a whiff of xenophobia thrown in.
I know that Marcus Allen did a bit on the Chinese" "hoax" during one of his recorded seminars. No geographic or ideological barriers to HB's.
-
Perhaps LunarOrbit and/or Dr.Acula might like to give us an idea what it was that made them rethink their positions; was it a gradual realisation or was there a "watershed moment"?
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure LunarOrbit was not the original owner of this site and hence was never an HB.
-
Vince was the one I thought of, for someone who was a good friend of Kangaboy it was a huge turnaround for the lad.
Yes, and I remember when Vince jumped on the other fence and began chucking rocks at Jarrah's glasshouse. If I recall he smashed enough windows with DMCA abuse to have Jarrah's account closed for a little time. They were at each others throats with video, counter-video, counter-counter-video, counter-counter-counter-video. It was quite pathetic from both sides really.
-
Thread hijack.
I was looking at the pro-boards archives and ran across a thread that dealt with double recitals. So I Googled double recitals and came up with this piece of work.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Anybody know anything about this(ese) guy(s)? There are a lot of claims that have been debunked so I'm not there. Just who are they are?
-
Anybody know anything about this(ese) guy(s)? There are a lot of claims that have been debunked so I'm not there.
I have no idea who they are, but it's the same old regurgitated rubbish. It's a compendium of Aulis and popular hoax theories. It even has the C-rock, so I'm going to fall about in fits of laughter straight away. The 33 questions, if I can debunk each of those, then it's hardly the holy grail of hoax material.
-
Anybody know anything about this(ese) guy(s)? There are a lot of claims that have been debunked so I'm not there.
I have no idea who they are, but it's the same old regurgitated rubbish. It's a compendium of Aulis and popular hoax theories. It even has the C-rock, so I'm going to fall about in fits of laughter straight away. The 33 questions, if I can debunk each of those, then it's hardly the holy grail of hoax material.
I know it looks so "old" nothing new. Did you see the post:
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did. Would have been good in the Baker thread!
-
Thread hijack.
I was looking at the pro-boards archives and ran across a thread that dealt with double recitals. So I Googled double recitals and came up with this piece of work.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Anybody know anything about this(ese) guy(s)? There are a lot of claims that have been debunked so I'm not there. Just who are they are?
Oh yes, Dave Cosnette (Cosmic Dave as he liked to be known, or Comic Dave as we called him) has a long and amusing history among HBs. For a long time, along with the article you linked, he also had an article about the alien encounters Apollo astronauts had when they went to the Moon. So, yes, he simultaneously promoted the ideas that the astronauts couldn't go to the Moon, and found aliens when they went there. I can't see the astronaut-alien encounter page there with a quick search, so he may have finally realised the two theories were mutually incompatible.
IIRC he visited Cosmoquest and this board, both in earlier incarnations, and generally had his arguments torn to shreds by people like JayUtah.
ETA: I remember debunking most of the 33 questions in around 2002...
-
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did. Would have been good in the Baker thread!
It's Ralph Rene's claim, and I think Baker expects to see vapour discharges the video test he demands, except he won't as (a) he doesn't understand sublimation (b) he hasn't carried out the calculations to validate his claim/expectation.
However, this conversation belongs at Baker's thread, so we need to stop here and keep the discussion of the PLSS at the Baker thread.
-
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure LunarOrbit was not the original owner of this site and hence was never an HB.
Correct, LunarOrbit took over the site from the original owner. It was the original owner that's the reformed HB. LunarOrbit has always been on the right side.
-
Oh yes, Dave Cosnette (Cosmic Dave as he liked to be known, or Comic Dave as we called him) has a long and amusing history among HBs. For a long time, along with the article you linked, he also had an article about the alien encounters Apollo astronauts had when they went to the Moon. So, yes, he simultaneously promoted the ideas that the astronauts couldn't go to the Moon, and found aliens when they went there. I can't see the astronaut-alien encounter page there with a quick search, so he may have finally realised the two theories were mutually incompatible.
IIRC he visited Cosmoquest and this board, both in earlier incarnations, and generally had his arguments torn to shreds by people like JayUtah.
ETA: I remember debunking most of the 33 questions in around 2002...
Being a newbie has a few drawbacks. Thanks
It's Ralph Rene's claim, and I think Baker expects to see vapour discharges the video test he demands, except he won't as (a) he doesn't understand sublimation (b) he hasn't carried out the calculations to validate his claim/expectation.
However, this conversation belongs at Baker's thread, so we need to stop here and keep the discussion of the PLSS at the Baker thread.
I agree and will quit the thread hijack.
-
I'm following that thread (and have absolutely zilch to contribute...) and I'm waiting with rapt anticipation for Baker to come in and say, "you got me"...
Somehow, I doubt he will.
-
Perhaps LunarOrbit and/or Dr.Acula might like to give us an idea what it was that made them rethink their positions; was it a gradual realisation or was there a "watershed moment"?
As others have already mentioned, I'm not the original owner of the forum and I've always believed Apollo really happened. I'm actually the third owner of ApolloHoax, believe it or not. I've been a member of the forum from the beginning, but I was not very active so I might be remembering some of the details incorrectly.
The original owner, whose name was Jonathan if I remember correctly, was a hoax believer but eventually converted. I think not long after 9/11 he lost interest in running the website and more or less abandoned it.
The second owner (whose name was John Witts, I think) inherited the admin role of the forum but wasn't given the information he needed to properly maintain the website. I remember there was one time when the forum was hacked or damaged in some way and I helped restore it. Eventually the domain name expired. John didn't know how to recover it, and we had no way to contact Jonathan. So I registered the .net domain and created a ProBoards forum as a temporary measure which ended up becoming permanent.
-
Oh yes, Dave Cosnette (Cosmic Dave as he liked to be known, or Comic Dave as we called him) has a long and amusing history among HBs. For a long time, along with the article you linked, he also had an article about the alien encounters Apollo astronauts had when they went to the Moon. So, yes, he simultaneously promoted the ideas that the astronauts couldn't go to the Moon, and found aliens when they went there. I can't see the astronaut-alien encounter page there with a quick search, so he may have finally realised the two theories were mutually incompatible.
IIRC he visited Cosmoquest and this board, both in earlier incarnations, and generally had his arguments torn to shreds by people like JayUtah.
ETA: I remember debunking most of the 33 questions in around 2002...
I just finished reading one of the threads in CosmoQuest:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?1573-The-artful-dodges-of-Cosmic-Dave-Cosnette
In which Jay and a lot of the members, including you if your have the same handle at both locations. His arguments seemed rather common to the likes of White, Fetzer, Blunder. Being a rather newbie I surmise it must be common to a lot of the HB's. Namely making accusations without fundamental knowledge of what they speak about, following someone else's ideas without checking the validity of the claims and finally not being able to concede to failure.
If Jay reads this congratulations on taking him down, whether or not he changed his web site.
Peter now I know who read the microfiche of the newspaper, kudos to you.
-
I'm actually the third owner of ApolloHoax, believe it or not.
I thought there might have been another owner between you and the original, but I couldn't remember for sure. I joined when it was under the second owner, which at the time I thought was the original owner. I think latter I learned that he was actually the second owner. I definitely remember when you took it over. That's been a long time now, do you remember what year that was?
-
Being a rather newbie I surmise it must be common to a lot of the HB's. Namely making accusations without fundamental knowledge of what they speak about, following someone else's ideas without checking the validity of the claims and finally not being able to concede to failure.
That description sums it up pretty well.
-
I'm actually the third owner of ApolloHoax, believe it or not.
I thought there might have been another owner between you and the original, but I couldn't remember for sure. I joined when it was under the second owner, which at the time I thought was the original owner. I think latter I learned that he was actually the second owner. I definitely remember when you took it over. That's been a long time now, do you remember what year that was?
I created the ProBoards forum in May 2005, so it's been over 10 years. Yikes! Time flies!
-
Jonathan (the original owner) sent me an email some years after he abandoned the site. He wanted us to know he was doing well, dating a nice girl, studying at college, and how grateful he was for our assistance during what, for him, was a a difficult point in his life.
-
That's good to hear, Jay. :) I know 9/11 hit pretty close to home for him, so I'm glad he found happiness.
-
Oh yes, Dave Cosnette (Cosmic Dave as he liked to be known, or Comic Dave as we called him) has a long and amusing history among HBs. For a long time, along with the article you linked, he also had an article about the alien encounters Apollo astronauts had when they went to the Moon. So, yes, he simultaneously promoted the ideas that the astronauts couldn't go to the Moon, and found aliens when they went there. I can't see the astronaut-alien encounter page there with a quick search, so he may have finally realised the two theories were mutually incompatible.
IIRC he visited Cosmoquest and this board, both in earlier incarnations, and generally had his arguments torn to shreds by people like JayUtah.
ETA: I remember debunking most of the 33 questions in around 2002...
I just finished reading one of the threads in CosmoQuest:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?1573-The-artful-dodges-of-Cosmic-Dave-Cosnette
In which Jay and a lot of the members, including you if your have the same handle at both locations. His arguments seemed rather common to the likes of White, Fetzer, Blunder. Being a rather newbie I surmise it must be common to a lot of the HB's. Namely making accusations without fundamental knowledge of what they speak about, following someone else's ideas without checking the validity of the claims and finally not being able to concede to failure.
If Jay reads this congratulations on taking him down, whether or not he changed his web site.
Peter now I know who read the microfiche of the newspaper, kudos to you.
Yep, that's me.
I live in Canberra, which is home to the National Library. It has an extensive collection of Australian and overseas newspapers on microfilm (and increasingly digitised these days). In my single days I actually spent quite a few Saturdays reading old newspapers - anything from Apollo, to the World Wars, to the American Civil War, and even the Napoleonic Wars. So it was nothing for me to spend a few hours looking through back issues of the West Australian for mention of Coke bottles.
-
Yep - Peter sent me details so that I could refine my search for original copies at the Western Australia State Reference Library.
-
To back up Peter B's work and to satisfy my own curiosity, I ordered the July and August 1969 microfilms of the West Australian at my local library in Palmerston North on 28 March 2007.
They arrived from Australia on 11 April and cost NZ$21 to hire. On 13 April I spent three hours at the library photocopying 102 articles from 7 July to 18 August 1969. Most were about Apollo 11 and a few were of general interest, such as the last one, a negative article about the Woodstock festival, titled 2,000 sick as hippies turn festival to disaster (shock, horror!).
For the rest of April 2007, I scanned, edited and typed all the articles as necessary. Could post them here sometime if LunarOrbit approves, and I have more from my local paper.
One amusing thing about this was knowing that Bennett and Percy wrote in their magnum dopus Dark Moon, page 320, regarding "Una Ronald" and the non-existent letters about her "Coke bottle," that they "contacted this newspaper requesting information on the subject of the Coke bottle letters but despite several enquiries they have declined to respond..."
Was there any other way they could have ascertained the facts? Yes. They could have hired the microfilms just like I did, and maybe they didn't have to get them sent from Australia either, because on both of the boxes the films came in, was written:--
The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE
-
I've followed the hoax debate for a long time in lurk mode, on YT, on various fora, here, Clavius, Cosmoquest, and other places, and it suddenly occurred to me...
All of the threads I've read, (and some of them were huge!) all of the arguments I've witnessed, all of the "debates" (I use that term loosely) all seem to end up with the HBs, CTs, Deniers, etc.. all saying some variations of the same thing: "There is nothing you can tell me that will change my mind! I know it was a hoax!"...
Welcome to membership of ApolloHoax, Ishkabibble. An excellent first post and a likeable username. Where does it come from? It seems to ring a bell somewhere deep in my memory, but my recall is getting faulty due to Oldfartitis.
An excellent saying about what you posted came from UFO buff Stanton Friedman. Interestingly, it was directed at sceptics of his claims about UFOs, but it applies to any dogmatists like those you mentioned:--
Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is already made up. — Dr Stanton T. Friedman, Nuclear Physicist — Nexus Vol. 6, No. 2, page 5.
-
To back up Peter B's work and to satisfy my own curiosity, I ordered the July and August 1969 microfilms of the West Australian at my local library in Palmerston North on 28 March 2007.
They arrived from Australia on 11 April and cost NZ$21 to hire. On 13 April I spent three hours at the library photocopying 102 articles from 7 July to 18 August 1969. Most were about Apollo 11 and a few were of general interest, such as the last one, a negative article about the Woodstock festival, titled 2,000 sick as hippies turn festival to disaster (shock, horror!).
For the rest of April 2007, I scanned, edited and typed all the articles as necessary. Could post them here sometime if LunarOrbit approves, and I have more from my local paper.
One amusing thing about this was knowing that Bennett and Percy wrote in their magnum dopus Dark Moon, page 320, regarding "Una Ronald" and the non-existent letters about her "Coke bottle," that they "contacted this newspaper requesting information on the subject of the Coke bottle letters but despite several enquiries they have declined to respond..."
Was there any other way they could have ascertained the facts? Yes. They could have hired the microfilms just like I did, and maybe they didn't have to get them sent from Australia either, because on both of the boxes the films came in, was written:--
The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE
This statement seems to be fairly common among HB's, I contacted them with this preposterous proposition and they never reported back. You did the reasonable direction, purchasing the material which the newspapers were more than happy to do.
-
The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE
Between the British Library, Bodleian Library and the many libraries of the Oxbridge colleges and their schools/departments, there is probably little that Percy and Bennett could not get their hands on. What really grates is that they have had plenty of chance to revise their claims with the advent of the interweb. Another body of knowledge that when used correctly provides a wonder depository of information.
Helll, Apollo has its own online journal, there is little one that cannot find there. In fact, either/both Jay and ka9q have both commented that there is more than a lifetime's reading at the ALSJ for a single person (my memory).
I always found the coke bottle story quite amusing. On one hand the CTs invoke its argument, on the other they bemoan the grainy images with their better technology claims. My question is this, how do you know it's a coke bottle from such grainy images? There's an anomaly with their argument.
-
The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE
Between the British Library, Bodleian Library and the many libraries of the Oxbridge colleges and their schools/departments, there is probably little that Percy and Bennett could not get their hands on. What really grates is that they have had plenty of chance to revise their claims with the advent of the interweb. Another body of knowledge that when used correctly provides a wonder depository of information.
Helll, Apollo has its own online journal, there is little one that cannot find there. In fact, either/both Jay and ka9q have both commented that there is more than a lifetime's reading at the ALSJ for a single person (my memory).
I always found the coke bottle story quite amusing. On one hand the CTs invoke its argument, on the other they bemoan the grainy images with their better technology claims. My question is this, how do you know it's a coke bottle from such grainy images? There's an anomaly with their argument.
Revising/deleting parts of AULIS would hurt sales and I really don't believe they will do that. Profit incentive is a powerful motivator.
-
Revising/deleting parts of AULIS would hurt sales and I really don't believe they will do that. Profit incentive is a powerful motivator.
That's why it grates. It's not about the truth, it is either about profit or ego.
-
That's why it grates. It's not about the truth, it is either about profit or ego.
I understand and have the SAME FEELINGS. How those that don't have a monetary incentive, are just plain attempting to boost their egos, "see what I have found that all these learned people don't see/understand". How important are these people in the overall scheme of life? Not important but the filth they spew may influence others and that really makes me angry.
EDIT: As conversations with my son who has seen/heard some stuff indicates.
-
I've followed the hoax debate for a long time in lurk mode, on YT, on various fora, here, Clavius, Cosmoquest, and other places, and it suddenly occurred to me...
All of the threads I've read, (and some of them were huge!) all of the arguments I've witnessed, all of the "debates" (I use that term loosely) all seem to end up with the HBs, CTs, Deniers, etc.. all saying some variations of the same thing: "There is nothing you can tell me that will change my mind! I know it was a hoax!"...
Welcome to membership of ApolloHoax, Ishkabibble. An excellent first post and a likeable username. Where does it come from? It seems to ring a bell somewhere deep in my memory, but my recall is getting faulty due to Oldfartitis.
An excellent saying about what you posted came from UFO buff Stanton Friedman. Interestingly, it was directed at sceptics of his claims about UFOs, but it applies to any dogmatists like those you mentioned:--
Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is already made up. — Dr Stanton T. Friedman, Nuclear Physicist — Nexus Vol. 6, No. 2, page 5.
Thank you for the warm welcome.
The Username comes from my lovely spouse, who has called me that for the last 24 years. I have no idea why, and every time I've asked her, she says, with a gleam in her eye, "You look like an ishkabibble. Now stop bothering me."
So there you have it.
-
Thank you for the warm welcome.
The Username comes from my lovely spouse, who has called me that for the last 24 years. I have no idea why, and every time I've asked her, she says, with a gleam in her eye, "You look like an ishkabibble. Now stop bothering me."
So there you have it.
And you know/learned to not make mama unhappy, because when she's unhappy the whole household is unhappy. :)
-
Here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ish_Kabibble
(See also Borscht Belt)
-
:)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/w6s8y9.jpg)
-
Here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ish_Kabibble
(See also Borscht Belt)
Not only did I have no idea about any of this, neither did my wife.
In fact, I pointedly asked her, and she said she had no idea where it came from, it was probably something she heard somewhere and thought funny.
I think the fun may have now gone out of the thing for her...
-
Here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ish_Kabibble
(See also Borscht Belt)
Not only did I have no idea about any of this, neither did my wife.
In fact, I pointedly asked her, and she said she had no idea where it came from, it was probably something she heard somewhere and thought funny.
I think the fun may have now gone out of the thing for her...
Aaaagh! That certainly wasn't my intent!! Some of the funniest stuff in the world came from those guys!
-
We shall see... If I know her as well as I think I do, it will be a few months and then she'll do it again out of habit, at which point I'll get that little gleam, and the all-too-familiar phrase "Now stop bothering me!"
And yes, I learned many, many years ago that the three best words a man can say to his spouse are not "I love you" but rather, "You're right, dear!"
-
I learned many, many years ago that the three best words a man can say to his spouse are not "I love you" but rather, "You're right, dear!"
Except when she says "Do I look fat in this?
(Married to Mrs Dalhouise for 33 years and counting)
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
As we all would :)
-
Helll, Apollo has its own online journal, there is little one that cannot find there. In fact, either/both Jay and ka9q have both commented that there is more than a lifetime's reading at the ALSJ for a single person (my memory).
I don't think I'd say there's a lifetime of reading at the ALSJ, but I would say it looks like a lifetime's work for Ken Glover and Eric Jones, the editors who put it together.
-
I learned many, many years ago that the three best words a man can say to his spouse are not "I love you" but rather, "You're right, dear!"
Except when she says "Do I look fat in this?
(Married to Mrs Dalhouise for 33 years and counting)
One of the harder questions to answer. 36 years for us and still counting. :)
-
Helll, Apollo has its own online journal, there is little one that cannot find there. In fact, either/both Jay and ka9q have both commented that there is more than a lifetime's reading at the ALSJ for a single person (my memory).
I don't think I'd say there's a lifetime of reading at the ALSJ, but I would say it looks like a lifetime's work for Ken Glover and Eric Jones, the editors who put it together.
Indeed including transferring all the video to a useable format. And from my last from Ken there is still work that needs to be completed.
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
Speaking from my personal experience, my wife is never wrong, even when she is. She will quickly change the subject that she is right. Later she will bake a cake, pie or cookies as an admit that she was wrong. :)
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
Speaking from my personal experience, my wife is never wrong, even when she is. She will quickly change the subject that she is right. Later she will bake a cake, pie or cookies as an admit that she was wrong. :)
Well as far as my wife and I are concerned, I do not keep track of all the things I do wrong. I don't see the point of both of us keeping track.
-
Well as far as my wife and I are concerned, I do not keep track of all the things I do wrong. I don't see the point of both of us keeping track.
I didn't, as you might have notice, relate to my errors.
-
I learned many, many years ago that the three best words a man can say to his spouse are not "I love you" but rather, "You're right, dear!"
Except when she says "Do I look fat in this?
(Married to Mrs Dalhouise for 33 years and counting)
My stock response to that is, "does it make me look stupid?"
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
There are always special cases.
However, I have learned through experience that she is almost always more right than she is wrong. I personally think she's smarter than I am.
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
Speaking from my personal experience, my wife is never wrong, even when she is. She will quickly change the subject that she is right. Later she will bake a cake, pie or cookies as an admit that she was wrong. :)
Well as far as my wife and I are concerned, I do not keep track of all the things I do wrong. I don't see the point of both of us keeping track.
We've discovered after lo, these many years, that humour is the one of the more important things to cultivate.
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
Speaking from my personal experience, my wife is never wrong, even when she is. She will quickly change the subject that she is right. Later she will bake a cake, pie or cookies as an admit that she was wrong. :)
So, everyone wins?
I share accommodations with a cat, and cats are definitely never wrong, even when the statement is "It's 3 am, and time to play!"
-
So, everyone wins?
I share accommodations with a cat, and cats are definitely never wrong, even when the statement is "It's 3 am, and time to play!"
Checking whether the de-clawing is still in effect! :)
-
Personally, I'd rather be told when I'm wrong than agreed to just to make me happy. If you could have prevented me from making a mistake and didn't, how is that better? (Actually a woman.)
There are always special cases.
However, I have learned through experience that she is almost always more right than she is wrong. I personally think she's smarter than I am.
Up until recently, I was just better educated than my boyfriend. (He got his BA in December.) As it is, I'm more likely to read nonfiction for pleasure. I have a wider array of information to draw on. However, there are some subjects where he's more likely to be right, and I tend to defer to him on those. I know people better than he does, by a lot, but he knows small engine repair better than I do!
-
Everyone is ignorant on something. Worse, everyone is ignorant on something they think they aren't. Avoiding Dunning-Kruger syndrome in one domain does not confer perfect protection against finding it in some other domain.
-
Everyone is ignorant on something. Worse, everyone is ignorant on something they think they aren't. Avoiding Dunning-Kruger syndrome in one domain does not confer perfect protection against finding it in some other domain.
"In scholarship, a man can only be a master in one particular field, namely as a specialist, and in some field he should be a specialist. But if he is not to forfeit his capacity for taking a general view, or even his respect for general views, he should be an amateur at as many points as possible, privately at any rate, for the increase of his own knowledge and the enrichment of his possible standpoints. Otherwise he will remain ignorant in any field lying outside his own specialty, and perhaps, as a man, a barbarian."
- Jacob Burckhardt, Reflections on History (1868)
-
Or, as Heinlein put it, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-
Hunchbacked seem to be prolific a few years ago, but seems like he ran out of ideas.
He did. Now he's just recycling his old ones. Sort of a "greatest hits" collection.
I knew the guy was really off the deep end when he claimed that Aldrin's demonstration of eating in zero gravity was filmed underwater. He breathed through his headset.
-
Hunchbacked seem to be prolific a few years ago, but seems like he ran out of ideas.
He did. Now he's just recycling his old ones. Sort of a "greatest hits" collection.
I knew the guy was really off the deep end when he claimed that Aldrin's demonstration of eating in zero gravity was filmed underwater. He breathed through his headset.
How does he expect to have anyone take his claims seriously. That is one of the most bizarre claims yet.
-
Or, as Heinlein put it, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Surely that must be one of the silliest things Heinlein ever said.
-
Or, as Heinlein put it, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Surely that must be one of the silliest things Heinlein ever said.
I'd say declaring that "anyone who doesn't know calculus is subhuman" is worse. But the well is almost certainly deeper than that.
-
"Gosh, Gillian, why don't you read Heinlein?"
Actually, I did once. I read Starship Troopers and liked the unabashed silliness of the movie better.
-
He did write some good stuff. I liked 'Tunnel in the Sky', for example.
-
My favorite Heinlein short story is "The Roads Must Roll". Why? Because his job as a science fiction author was to preview the future, and he missed something really big.
The "roads" are a huge solar-powered network of conveyor belts that have replaced all car, truck and train traffic in the US. Restaurants (among other businesses) are built on the roads so you can eat while you travel.
So far so good.
The main character is the chief engineer of the roads. How important was he? So important that whenever he ate on the road, the waitress always brought a phone over to his table and plugged it in just in case his office wanted to call him.
-
Being military myself, I thought that the book 'Starship Troopers' was great but thought that whilst the movie was basically true to the book, it completely corrupted the message.
-
Being military myself, I thought that the book 'Starship Troopers' was great but thought that whilst the movie was basically true to the book, it completely corrupted the message.
I'm pretty sure that was the Director's intent.
I enjoy my military science fiction too, but found his politics poorly worked out. Heinlein may have thought he'd come up with a very good way for a society to work, but personally I think there are serious problems with his premises and conclusions.
-
Or, as Heinlein put it, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Surely that must be one of the silliest things Heinlein ever said.
I'd say declaring that "anyone who doesn't know calculus is subhuman" is worse. But the well is almost certainly deeper than that.
I'd forgotten that one....
-
"Gosh, Gillian, why don't you read Heinlein?"
Actually, I did once. I read Starship Troopers and liked the unabashed silliness of the movie better.
I like this movie also, but only the first one, the sequels were not as silly as the first. Maybe the new concept wore off on me.
-
Being military myself, I thought that the book 'Starship Troopers' was great but thought that whilst the movie was basically true to the book, it completely corrupted the message.
I didn't read the book so I'll ask a question, what is/was the message of the book?
-
I liked Between Planets.
-
I like this movie also, but only the first one, the sequels were not as silly as the first. Maybe the new concept wore off on me.
Oh, I didn't bother with the sequels. For one thing, no Neil Patrick Harris.
-
Oh, I didn't bother with the sequels. For one thing, no Neil Patrick Harris.
I really judge movies on the story not the actors. I really like many of the SciFi B movies from the 50's many with actors(actresses) many of whom really didn't obtain mega star status. :)
-
I thought Neil Patrick Harris was one of the best parts of the first one. With that part removed, I was sure the quality would be reduced. I assure you, I have undoubtedly seen more movies starring people no one here has ever heard of than anyone else here. Are you familiar with my Great Library Project?
http://www.the-solute.com/i-havent-seen-it-because-it-begins-with-t/
-
I thought Neil Patrick Harris was one of the best parts of the first one. With that part removed, I was sure the quality would be reduced. I assure you, I have undoubtedly seen more movies starring people no one here has ever heard of than anyone else here. Are you familiar with my Great Library Project?
http://www.the-solute.com/i-havent-seen-it-because-it-begins-with-t/
Determined, gritty, on task and tenacious is all I can think of at the moment. Go girl go. :)
-
I thought Neil Patrick Harris was one of the best parts of the first one. With that part removed, I was sure the quality would be reduced. I assure you, I have undoubtedly seen more movies starring people no one here has ever heard of than anyone else here. Are you familiar with my Great Library Project?
http://www.the-solute.com/i-havent-seen-it-because-it-begins-with-t/
Myself and my siblings quite enjoyed the humour in it. Would you like to know more?
-
Being military myself, I thought that the book 'Starship Troopers' was great but thought that whilst the movie was basically true to the book, it completely corrupted the message.
I didn't read the book so I'll ask a question, what is/was the message of the book?
In a sentence, that participation in the political process should be limited to those who have demonstrated an ability to put the interests of society before their own.
-
Being military myself, I thought that the book 'Starship Troopers' was great but thought that whilst the movie was basically true to the book, it completely corrupted the message.
I didn't read the book so I'll ask a question, what is/was the message of the book?
In a sentence, that participation in the political process should be limited to those who have demonstrated an ability to put the interests of society before their own.
Ok just like the movie then.
-
Just like the movie? We must have seen different versions. The one I saw was apparently about underwear models milling around randomly on alien planets in a military style apparently designated "Brownian motion writ large". Except when it showed spaceships, piloted by other underwear models, milling around randomly above alien planets.
I think the theme, beautifully brought out by the cast, was about Man's undying struggle to display more than one facial expression.
-
Just like the movie? We must have seen different versions. The one I saw was apparently about underwear models milling around randomly on alien planets in a military style apparently designated "Brownian motion writ large". Except when it showed spaceships, piloted by other underwear models, milling around randomly above alien planets.
I think the theme, beautifully brought out by the cast, was about Man's undying struggle to display more than one facial expression.
LOL, ok you identified the movie, but to become a citizen one had to serve.
-
I think it's kind of amusing that, given that the book basically invented 'power armour', that the movie had them running around in gear on that a Vietnam vet would wince at.
-
I think it's kind of amusing that, given that the book basically invented 'power armour', that the movie had them running around in gear on that a Vietnam vet would wince at.
Electronic Kevlar?
-
I think it's kind of amusing that, given that the book basically invented 'power armour', that the movie had them running around in gear on that a Vietnam vet would wince at.
Electronic Kevlar?
More Iron Man, actually, assuming you mean what I think you mean.
-
I think it's kind of amusing that, given that the book basically invented 'power armour', that the movie had them running around in gear on that a Vietnam vet would wince at.
Electronic Kevlar?
More Iron Man, actually, assuming you mean what I think you mean.
I have heard that the movie makers were afraid that including powered armor would have required an immense and risky investment in special effects.
That is, lots of expensive CG work that produced unrealistic results.
I did see some sketches of powered armor in a "Starship Troopers" movie book.
Also, the Bugs in the movie would have gotten stomped. The Bugs in the book had their own guns, nukes and star ships.
Too bad. Heinlein did a great job of describing how the armor would work, and what wearing it would be like. I was hoping to see some of that.
-
That's why I thought the message was corrupted. For example, "the hump". I don't think that was even mentioned. Anyone who has been turn from a civilian to a military person has gone through that.
Another thing were the "federal" messages in the movie; they sounded... fascist? Heinlein would have been rolling in his grave so rapidly it is a surprise that someone didn't try to run a dynamo off of him.
-
I think it's kind of amusing that, given that the book basically invented 'power armour', that the movie had them running around in gear on that a Vietnam vet would wince at.
Electronic Kevlar?
More Iron Man, actually, assuming you mean what I think you mean.
I have heard that the movie makers were afraid that including powered armor would have required an immense and risky investment in special effects.
That is, lots of expensive CG work that produced unrealistic results.
I did see some sketches of powered armor in a "Starship Troopers" movie book.
Also, the Bugs in the movie would have gotten stomped. The Bugs in the book had their own guns, nukes and star ships.
Too bad. Heinlein did a great job of describing how the armor would work, and what wearing it would be like. I was hoping to see some of that.
Maybe, we can pray/hope if we ever get a reboot, we'll get that then. CGI wasn't up to the task then, but now? Now I could see it.
-
A lot can be done with practical effects. Just look at the powered exoskeleton forklift used in "Aliens".
-
Last movie I watched in a theater was "The Hunt for Red October"
Book are better than movies, IMHO.
-
That's why I thought the message was corrupted. For example, "the hump". I don't think that was even mentioned. Anyone who has been turn from a civilian to a military person has gone through that.
Another thing were the "federal" messages in the movie; they sounded... fascist? Heinlein would have been rolling in his grave so rapidly it is a surprise that someone didn't try to run a dynamo off of him.
There is no doubt in my mind the society in the book was highly authoritarian and probably totalitarian. Fascist? The massive xenophobia and militarism certainly points that way.
-
A lot can be done with practical effects. Just look at the powered exoskeleton forklift used in "Aliens".
Imperial Storm troopers too.
-
A lot can be done with practical effects. Just look at the powered exoskeleton forklift used in "Aliens".
Imperial Storm troopers too.
The power armour of the Mobile Infantry was described looking like a steel "hydrocephalic gorilla" as well as flying, or at least jumping, with style, and don't forget the drop pods! I love practical effects too, and I would love seen them for certain shots, buuut I think CGI would have to do some heavy lifting, no pun intended but accepted with glee.
-
Last movie I watched in a theater was "The Hunt for Red October"
Book are better than movies, IMHO.
The last movie I watched in the theatre (as far as sci-fi and having already read the book goes) was Carl Sagan's "Contact".
WARNING: HEREAFTER BE SPOILERS!!!
While it varied from the book in a few important (and some not so important) aspects, I was satisfied enough that Robert Zemeckis got it as close as he could have without some naff background explanations. For example, the "message hidden in the value of pi*" (http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mf55-spoiler.html) would have been a very difficult concept to get across to the public in a film (it was hard enough getting it across in the book) because it implies that the aliens were not only ancient, but that they created the physical laws of the universe, and therefore, the universe itself.
ETA: Just thinking about that, I still think that for the most part, movie directors, producers and studio executives often seriously underestimate the movie going public's capacity to understand complicated concepts. Blade Runner (based on Philip K. Dick's superb "Do Androids Dream of Electri Sheep") is a great example of where studio executives interfered in a movie in an effort to dumb it down, only for their interference to have the opposite effect.
-
Usually I equate a "film based on the book" (in a very deep basso voice gargling gravel), these films, to a story that might have some connection. Some more than others. 2001 is one that was written in conjunction but even then there were differences.
Starship Troopers film, I had no idea that that was a book and it led me to read it. What a difference, and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" same again, though in both cases I enjoyed both versions but for different reasons.
But until I read this thread, I had never heard of that Heinlein quote.
Now, Forever War, that would be a good rip off.
-
A lot can be done with practical effects. Just look at the powered exoskeleton forklift used in "Aliens".
Imperial Storm troopers too.
The power armour of the Mobile Infantry was described looking like a steel "hydrocephalic gorilla" as well as flying, or at least jumping, with style, and don't forget the drop pods! I love practical effects too, and I would love seen them for certain shots, buuut I think CGI would have to do some heavy lifting, no pun intended but accepted with glee.
Starship Troopers 3 has something approaching what I had visioned the power armor to be. Pretty brief appearance near the end of the movie though. Not as bad as the 2nd one.
-
That's why I thought the message was corrupted. For example, "the hump". I don't think that was even mentioned. Anyone who has been turn from a civilian to a military person has gone through that.
Another thing were the "federal" messages in the movie; they sounded... fascist? Heinlein would have been rolling in his grave so rapidly it is a surprise that someone didn't try to run a dynamo off of him.
There is no doubt in my mind the society in the book was highly authoritarian and probably totalitarian. Fascist? The massive xenophobia and militarism certainly points that way.
That's interesting because I didn't take it that way. I'd like to take this further and discuss why we see the same thing in different ways. If I start another thread on it, would you like to discuss it?
-
Last movie I watched in a theater was "The Hunt for Red October"
Book are better than movies, IMHO.
The last movie I watched in the theatre (as far as sci-fi and having already read the book goes) was Carl Sagan's "Contact".
WARNING: HEREAFTER BE SPOILERS!!!
While it varied from the book in a few important (and some not so important) aspects, I was satisfied enough that Robert Zemeckis got it as close as he could have without some naff background explanations. For example, the "message hidden in the value of pi*" (http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mf55-spoiler.html) would have been a very difficult concept to get across to the public in a film (it was hard enough getting it across in the book) because it implies that the aliens were not only ancient, but that they created the physical laws of the universe, and therefore, the universe itself.
ETA: Just thinking about that, I still think that for the most part, movie directors, producers and studio executives often seriously underestimate the movie going public's capacity to understand complicated concepts. Blade Runner (based on Philip K. Dick's superb "Do Androids Dream of Electri Sheep") is a great example of where studio executives interfered in a movie in an effort to dumb it down, only for their interference to have the opposite effect.
I have pretty much always enjoyed books more compared to movies.
Re: Contact. I thought reducing it from the five (?) people down to one removed something; when there were multiple people reporting similar experiences you could at least say that it is unlikely to be a lie, especially the varied composition of the crew.
-
Now, Forever War, that would be a good rip off.
I would love to see that as a movie. Could they do it?
Likewise the Foundation series.... though that would have to be done as a mini-series or the like. Far too much too fit into a single movie.
-
Re: Contact. I thought reducing it from the five (?) people down to one removed something; when there were multiple people reporting similar experiences you could at least say that it is unlikely to be a lie, especially the varied composition of the crew.
That's exactly why I enjoyed the movie more. If five people had similar experiences then where is the mystery? Why would people doubt them? With the movie, even the audience doubted Ellie... right up until the moment that it is revealed that her camera recorded 18 minutes of static.
-
I like both books and movies on different levels. I think there is very much such thing as a bad adaptation of a book, and I think there's definitely such thing as an unfilmable book! However, I don't think there's anything particularly admirable about not liking movies.
-
I think that I've only ever seen two films that were better than the books- The Deer Hunter and Fight Club. FC, in particular, is a thin little book that can be read in an afternoon. The Deer Hunter is similar- the film is, IMHO, better.
With a book you are using your own imagination. With a film, you are relying on someone else's.
-
Hmm, as for movies better than the books. The Godfather? Part 1 & 2, at least. Remember the sex scene at the start? That woman gets a whole big sub-plot about how her vagina and vulva are too loose to enjoy sex most of the time.
Ben-Hur may also be an example of 'movie better', though I've never read the book.
-
The book of Ben-Hur is fairly silly, but the movie is as well. (Both of them; I've actually seen the original silent version.) I maintain that the movie of The Lost World is better, because the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre. Still, I enjoy movies and I don't mind admitting it. It's a different kind of art and a different kind of entertainment from reading, but so what?
http://www.the-solute.com/extraordinary-people-do-what-they-love/
-
The book of Ben-Hur is fairly silly, but the movie is as well. (Both of them; I've actually seen the original silent version.) I maintain that the movie of The Lost World is better, because the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre. Still, I enjoy movies and I don't mind admitting it. It's a different kind of art and a different kind of entertainment from reading, but so what?
You might add to this short list of one, but did Nero take part in chariot races? I'm fairly sure I overheard this on the TV the other night when those in the front room were watching TV.
-
I don't think he actually took part, but he was certainly a fan despite the fact that they were considered low-class entertainment at the time.
-
Apparently he had a brief (and nearly fatal) driving career in the 67 Olympic Games...
-
Re: Contact. I thought reducing it from the five (?) people down to one removed something; when there were multiple people reporting similar experiences you could at least say that it is unlikely to be a lie, especially the varied composition of the crew.
That's exactly why I enjoyed the movie more. If five people had similar experiences then where is the mystery? Why would people doubt them? With the movie, even the audience doubted Ellie... right up until the moment that it is revealed that her camera recorded 18 minutes of static.
Small correction. It was 18 hours, not mins of static.
-
I saw a graphic on a message board today, and it inspired me to create my own for the Apollo Hoax community.
I think this perfectly sums up those HB, CT, and Deniers...
(http://library-static.snapfish.com/library/photos?website=snapfish_us&cobrand=snapfish&locale=en_US#state={%22pg%22%3A%22cv%22%2C%22so%22%3A%22createDate%22})
(http://library-static.snapfish.com/library/photos?website=snapfish_us&cobrand=snapfish&locale=en_US#state={%22pg%22%3A%22cv%22%2C%22so%22%3A%22createDate%22})
-
Pretty much sums it up perfectly.
-
Now, Forever War, that would be a good rip off.
I would love to see that as a movie. Could they do it?
Likewise the Foundation series.... though that would have to be done as a mini-series or the like. Far too much too fit into a single movie.
I expect they can. Problem will be bums on seats. As with any film venture, you may not like the end result, they made Avatar after all....... (mind you, they out did Crocodile Dundee)
-
Now, Forever War, that would be a good rip off.
I would love to see that as a movie. Could they do it?
Likewise the Foundation series.... though that would have to be done as a mini-series or the like. Far too much too fit into a single movie.
I expect they can. Problem will be bums on seats. As with any film venture, you may not like the end result, they made Avatar after all....... (mind you, they out did Crocodile Dundee)
Was Avatar a book? I never knew.
The graphic novel of The Forever War was apparently a good seller. Maybe I am just a Haldeman tragic. The Forever War, the Worlds series, The Long Habit of Living ("Buying Time" for US folks).... all great novels I'd love to see as movies.
-
I saw a graphic on a message board today, and it inspired me to create my own for the Apollo Hoax community.
I think this perfectly sums up those HB, CT, and Deniers...
(http://library-static.snapfish.com/library/photos?website=snapfish_us&cobrand=snapfish&locale=en_US#state={%22pg%22%3A%22cv%22%2C%22so%22%3A%22createDate%22})
(http://library-static.snapfish.com/library/photos?website=snapfish_us&cobrand=snapfish&locale=en_US#state={%22pg%22%3A%22cv%22%2C%22so%22%3A%22createDate%22})
The basics of an HB circular argument in graphic form, well done! ;D
-
Was Avatar a book? I never knew.
No, Avatar was not based on a book although I believe there are going to be a series of books based on the film. Apparently, James Cameron has asked Sci-Fi author Steven Charles Gould (probably best known for the book Jumper which was made into a movie just a few years ago) to write four stand-alone novels that are to be set in the Avatar universe and will expand upon themes from the film.
However, the major premise of Avatar first appeared in a 1957 short story by Poul Anderson called "Call Me Joe"
Anderson's story is about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remote-controlled artificial life-forms, and the main character is a disabled man who operates one of them... sound familiar?
-
Was Avatar a book? I never knew.
Apologies, it was an example of a "meh" film with loads of effects. Imagine if it had a good plot/script behind it ;)
-
Was Avatar a book? I never knew.
Apologies, it was an example of a "meh" film with loads of effects. Imagine if it had a good plot/script behind it ;)
I put Avatar in the same class as Prometheus, stories with great premises and great potential that were undone by over-emphasis on SFX and that degenerated into stock formula cheap thrillers.
Very disappointing. Both movies could have been so much more.
-
Anderson's story is about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remote-controlled artificial life-forms, and the main character is a disabled man who operates one of them... sound familiar?
Huh. So you take that, combine it shot-for-shot in places with Dances With Wolves (seriously--I watched Dances With Wolves not long after seeing Avatar, and there are places where he uses the exact same shot to establish the exact same mood), and make it all CGI, and you've got Avatar. Which is routinely trotted out to me as an example of an original screenplay that's therefore so much better than a remake, an adaptation, or a comic book movie.
-
I rather liked the review of Avatar that called it "Dances with Smurfs" :D
-
Anderson's story is about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remote-controlled artificial life-forms, and the main character is a disabled man who operates one of them... sound familiar?
Huh. So you take that, combine it shot-for-shot in places with Dances With Wolves (seriously--I watched Dances With Wolves not long after seeing Avatar, and there are places where he uses the exact same shot to establish the exact same mood), and make it all CGI, and you've got Avatar. Which is routinely trotted out to me as an example of an original screenplay that's therefore so much better than a remake, an adaptation, or a comic book movie.
I thought it was just Pocahontas in Space
-
Besides the whole theme issue, I'm kind of pissed that, despite all that CGI, the aliens weren't all that interesting. They were just stretched blue humans. They didn't even follow the six limb body plan the other beasties seen have. For comparison, every living land vertebrate on the planet follows the same four limb body plan, even if only very vestigially, like certain flightless birds.
-
Besides the whole theme issue, I'm kind of pissed that, despite all that CGI, the aliens weren't all that interesting. They were just stretched blue humans. They didn't even follow the six limb body plan the other beasties seen have. For comparison, every living land vertebrate on the planet follows the same four limb body plan, even if only very vestigially, like certain flightless birds.
Or, even more vestigially, snakes!
-
Might as well gone with Star Trek's "Rhinoplasty of the Week".
-
Coming back to the original intent of the thread... (not that I'm making any statements here... :o )
I've been working on a document containing straight questions intended to derail or limit hoaxers, and I've run into something I have no idea how to contend with.
I've been following another random thread on YT, and I've discovered this one fool who thinks he's a philosopher, in that he keeps coming back to what is seen, versus what is known. The thing that I don't get, and I can't understand how anyone would even think this, is that he keeps suggesting that the entire historic record, all of history, is fake, and that nothing can be known because no one saw everything with their own eyes, and even if they did, it can't be trusted, because the person reading the account wasn't a witness of the event.
In addition to the standard mobile goalposts, the handwaving, the flat ignoring of legit questions, and all the subtle reframing of the questions being posed, this guy is frustrating. Here's a brief excerpt of one of his posts:
Im not the one selling that the Apollo program happened. Anyone who says it did happen needs to stump up with the evidence. The only question that is perhaps legitimate from your perspective might be, 'what is it about the evidence (that Apollo occurred the way it did) that you doubt'. Relying on 'historical fact' is idiotic. All evidence, unless you witnessed it, is heresay. just so i can understand your position, what is this 'historical record of events' you speak of? What is it?
He clearly isn't interested in real discussion. He's been asked at least a half-dozen questions, all of which he's continually ignored, to come back with some other piece of irrelevant claim.
What would be a single-point response to someone who is intent on denying the entire historical record?
-
Im not the one selling that the Apollo program happened. Anyone who says it did happen needs to stump up with the evidence. The only question that is perhaps legitimate from your perspective might be, 'what is it about the evidence (that Apollo occurred the way it did) that you doubt'. Relying on 'historical fact' is idiotic. All evidence, unless you witnessed it, is heresay. just so i can understand your position, what is this 'historical record of events' you speak of? What is it?
He clearly isn't interested in real discussion. He's been asked at least a half-dozen questions, all of which he's continually ignored, to come back with some other piece of irrelevant claim.
What would be a single-point response to someone who is intent on denying the entire historical record?
My bolding on the evidence. One may witness any historical event after the fact, if math or technical facts point to the event. Photos "could" have been made on Earth. The liftoff, orbital insertion, TLI, Lunar orbit, LM descent/ascent, TEI can all be mathematically proved. Lunar rocks are not Earth rocks made to look like lunar rocks.
-
What would be a single-point response to someone who is intent on denying the entire historical record?
There isn't one. It's a philosophical dead end. You either accept that there is empirical truth or you don't. If he wants to believe that he's hooked up to the Matrix and that everything except him is imaginary then that's his lookout. Ultimately, he doesn't want a debate. He just wants to be a smartarse.
-
Ask him if he would try to press charges then if he was assaulted. If he does, then unwitnessed evidence must be more than hearsay.
-
I've been following another random thread on YT, and I've discovered this one fool who thinks he's a philosopher, in that he keeps coming back to what is seen, versus what is known. The thing that I don't get, and I can't understand how anyone would even think this, is that he keeps suggesting that the entire historic record, all of history, is fake, and that nothing can be known because no one saw everything with their own eyes, and even if they did, it can't be trusted, because the person reading the account wasn't a witness of the event.
What is the link to the video?
-
...I've been working on a document containing straight questions intended to derail or limit hoaxers...
Here's one I did back in 2003
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/6040-Fox-Special-rescreening-in-NZ-24-June-2003?p=102901#post102901
Use anything you want. I just wanted brief answers to the major claims as a result of the Fox TV Special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
You might find the one about "no stars", and the explanation in the following post, useful, because it uses a nice big number, 30,000. Although the next post shows that over 100,000 was a better number.
Do you know about JayUtah's website, Clavius?
http://www.clavius.org
And Bob B's site?
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Plus it has enough maths to blow most HBs' brains.
-
Here's one I did back in 2003
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/6040-Fox-Special-rescreening-in-NZ-24-June-2003?p=102901#post102901
Use anything you want. I just wanted brief answers to the major claims as a result of the Fox TV Special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
...
Good list kiwi.
-
Here is another pretty good site:
http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/
Phil
-
Here's (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) the one Phil Plait did, wow, 15 years ago.
-
That guy clearly has a handle on neither the Apollo record nor the meaning of "hearsay".
-
That guy clearly has a handle on neither the Apollo record nor the meaning of "hearsay".
About whom are you speaking?
-
I've been following another random thread on YT, and I've discovered this one fool who thinks he's a philosopher, in that he keeps coming back to what is seen, versus what is known. The thing that I don't get, and I can't understand how anyone would even think this, is that he keeps suggesting that the entire historic record, all of history, is fake, and that nothing can be known because no one saw everything with their own eyes, and even if they did, it can't be trusted, because the person reading the account wasn't a witness of the event.
In addition to the standard mobile goalposts, the handwaving, the flat ignoring of legit questions, and all the subtle reframing of the questions being posed, this guy is frustrating.
It really is a waste of time and effort trying to argue with such a person, because their disconnect with anything even remotely resembling reality is so total. The Stupid can manifest itself in weird and unexpected ways.
Try arguing this: WW2 was real because there are people who are presently still alive who personally witnessed it, but WW1 is fake because there aren't (the last surviving participant was Florence Green, a WAAF, who died in 2012, aged 110).
1. Was WW1 real before she died and did it only become fake after her death?
2. Some time around 2045 onwards, will WW2 will go from being real to fake when the last WW2 participant dies?
If you can't convince them they are wrong by making them think about the answers to these questions, then you should stop wasting your time because they are beyond any hope or help.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, The Stupid has a firm grip on them in exactly the same way that reality doesn't.
-
It's even worse than that. World War 2 is fake because Mister Solipsism didn't witness it themselves.
-
It's even worse than that. World War 2 is fake because Mister Solipsism didn't witness it themselves.
Since I didn't witness your birth firsthand then you don't exist? ::)
-
It's even worse than that. World War 2 is fake because Mister Solipsism didn't witness it themselves.
Since I didn't witness your birth firsthand then you don't exist? ::)
Apparently! Also, as noted above, you can not seek redress for any crime the judge and jury did not themselves witness.
-
Apparently! Also, as noted above, you can not seek redress for any crime the judge and jury did not themselves witness.
This will set jurisprudence back 2000 years or more.
-
Apparently! Also, as noted above, you can not seek redress for any crime the judge and jury did not themselves witness.
This will set jurisprudence back 2000 years or more.
At least! On the plus side, if he really believes this, someone could Buzz Aldrin his ass with no repercussions.
-
At least! On the plus side, if he really believes this, someone could Buzz Aldrin his ass with no repercussions.
That might be too much fun!!!!
Speaking of Buzz, I was browsing abovetopsecret this afternoon and found a thread in which the people were discussing the YT video of said event, declaring the punch never landed. Never heard this before.
-
At least! On the plus side, if he really believes this, someone could Buzz Aldrin his ass with no repercussions.
That might be too much fun!!!!
Speaking of Buzz, I was browsing abovetopsecret this afternoon and found a thread in which the people were discussing the YT video of said event, declaring the punch never landed. Never heard this before.
Never heard it quite like that, but I have heard ( actual hearsay mind) of CT who claim Bart Sibrel is actually working for NASA to make CT look bad or something.
-
Never heard it quite like that, but I have heard ( actual hearsay mind) of CT who claim Bart Sibrel is actually working for NASA to make CT look bad or something.
If that were true he is doing a bang up job.
-
At least! On the plus side, if he really believes this, someone could Buzz Aldrin his ass with no repercussions.
That might be too much fun!!!!
Speaking of Buzz, I was browsing abovetopsecret this afternoon and found a thread in which the people were discussing the YT video of said event, declaring the punch never landed. Never heard this before.
I remember someone claiming it was "staged" (and, I presume from the brunt of their argument, faked, but they never actually said it) because in some clip they found on line, the audio didn't appear to synch with the blow.
-
At least! On the plus side, if he really believes this, someone could Buzz Aldrin his ass with no repercussions.
That might be too much fun!!!!
Speaking of Buzz, I was browsing abovetopsecret this afternoon and found a thread in which the people were discussing the YT video of said event, declaring the punch never landed. Never heard this before.
I remember someone claiming it was "staged" (and, I presume from the brunt of their argument, faked, but they never actually said it) because in some clip they found on line, the audio didn't appear to synch with the blow.
That was the line in the thread. I have to ask, if it was bogus then why did Bart attempt to sue?
-
At least! On the plus side, if he really believes this, someone could Buzz Aldrin his ass with no repercussions.
That might be too much fun!!!!
Speaking of Buzz, I was browsing abovetopsecret this afternoon and found a thread in which the people were discussing the YT video of said event, declaring the punch never landed. Never heard this before.
Oh, it landed alright, and good!!
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/BartPunch_256Color.gif)
Note how Bart's head moves; back... and to the right!! Back... and to the right!!
I rarely miss an opportunity to post this. Its my favourite animated gif.
-
Note how Bart's head moves; back... and to the right!! Back... and to the right!!
Wasn't that back and to the left, BACK and to the LEFT?
Oops wrong conspiracy.
-
Note how Bart's head moves; back... and to the right!! Back... and to the right!!
Wasn't that back and to the left, BACK and to the LEFT?
Oops wrong conspiracy.
Aaah, you saw what I did then!!?
-
Hey, thanks for all the replies.
I've been having major trouble getting back on here, getting some kind of "database error" over the past few login attempts, so sorry I haven't kept up.
Regarding the YouTube thread, I was pretty amused when the guy kept getting asked the same question over and over again, and he'd go further and further off the deep end with cursing, homoerotic slurs, and all sorts of weird stuff. He kept demanding that all the "Apollo fools" produce "one piece of evidence" that supported their claim, and one of them came back with links to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Clavius, The Lunar and Planetary Institute, Phil Plait's site, the Project Apollo Archive, Bob Braeunig's site, this forum, and two or three more. Then when he finally got obscenely nasty and foul-mouthed, I sort of lost interest. I went to copy the link as someone requested, and accidentally closed the tab, and now I can't find it again!
I tried to go through my history to find the link but for some reason it's not there. I went back over a month and there are no YouTube visits at all in my history.
So, unless I happen to run across it again...
Bringing my original question back up again, why do people do this? Why do they sit there and keep screaming as loudly as they can that the whole thing was faked, and nothing will ever change their minds about it? How can anyone possibly be that intransigent in today's world?
-
Aaah, you saw what I did then!!?
That was exactly what went through my mind when I read your comment.
-
Note how Bart's head moves; back... and to the right!! Back... and to the right!!
Wasn't that back and to the left, BACK and to the LEFT?
Oops wrong conspiracy.
That's why The Daily Show reversed the clip when he was on, so they could make that very joke.
-
I've been having major trouble getting back on here, getting some kind of "database error" over the past few login attempts, so sorry I haven't kept up.
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
-
I've been having major trouble getting back on here, getting some kind of "database error" over the past few login attempts, so sorry I haven't kept up.
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
Not an issue, LO... I'm just glad that I can relax in the comfort of the great minds here, and not risk a stroke on You Tube... Those people are the very textbook definition of stupidly insane. And they won't do a thing about it. I don't understand why.
-
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
Not being in the business, but is renting a more efficient way to go instead of owning a server?
Just asking. :)
-
You Tube... Those people are the very textbook definition of stupidly insane. And they won't do a thing about it...
I don't bother reading You Tube comments much because I don't want my brain to hurt, but from what I've seen I wouldn't so much call them stupidly insane, but perhaps obviously young, very foul-mouthed, and couldn't recognise or understand what an ad hominem is unless it somehow whipped their head forward, back and to the left and to the right a number of times. And above all, because of their age, they have far more ego than brains.
The last is probably the saddest and greatest affliction of all, perhaps because they won't do a thing about it. It causes untold problems and misery right up until, and sometimes even after, it's fixed. :)
-
I don't bother reading You Tube comments much because I don't want my brain to hurt, but from what I've seen I wouldn't so much call them stupidly insane, but perhaps obviously young, very foul-mouthed, and couldn't recognise or understand what an ad hominem is unless it somehow whipped their head forward, back, and to the left and right a number of times. And above all, because of their age, they have far more ego than brains.
The last is probably the saddest thing of all, perhaps because they won't do a thing about it. It causes untold problems and misery right up until, and sometime even after, it's fixed. :)
I believe the same and they can't/won't accept science because they "know" the truth about everything they post videos.
-
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
Not being in the business, but is renting a more efficient way to go instead of owning a server?
Just asking. :)
If you have a NAS, you can host it at home with no extra cost.
-
If you have a NAS, you can host it at home with no extra cost.
Ok, now what is a NAS? (Home server?)
-
Network Attached Storage - a box with harddrives in it, which can store files available for the home network, and able to run programmes such as webservers and fileservers and many other types of software.
Harddrives are usually arranged so that the failure of one drive won't affect the data on the entire system - the failing drive can be swapped with a fresh without losing data or interrupting service.
I have a Synology 1812+ as my main file storage and two others as backup for my photos.
-
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
Not being in the business, but is renting a more efficient way to go instead of owning a server?
Just asking. :)
If you have a NAS, you can host it at home with no extra cost.
Assuming that your ISP lets you without charging extra, which most don't on home level accounts
-
Wouldn't you also need a static IP?
-
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
Not being in the business, but is renting a more efficient way to go instead of owning a server?
Just asking. :)
It depends on how technically inclined you are, how much time you want to spend managing the server, and how much traffic your site needs to be able to handle.
I am a server admin as part of my day job, so I could definitely handle the technical aspects of having my own server. But since I spend all day managing a server at work I can't (and dont want to) devote that much time to my own server. If it went down while I was at work it would stay down until I got home.
And since most people don't have T1 lines running right into their homes, heavy traffic would impact the speed of a home server.
So for around $100/year I get a server with decent capacity, and my own 24/7 support team. It's a bargain, as far as I'm concerned.
-
It depends on how technically inclined you are, how much time you want to spend managing the server, and how much traffic your site needs to be able to handle.
I am a server admin as part of my day job, so I could definitely handle the technical aspects of having my own server. But since I spend all day managing a server at work I can't (and dont want to) devote that much time to my own server. If it went down while I was at work it would stay down until I got home.
And since most people don't have T1 lines running right into their homes, heavy traffic would impact the speed of a home server.
So for around $100/year I get a server with decent capacity, and my own 24/7 support team. It's a bargain, as far as I'm concerned.
Seems fairly reasonable then. Good choice, until they upgrade and forget to notify you!
-
Well, they did notify me, it just took longer than expected due to unforseen circumstances.
-
Sorry about that. My web host decided to upgrade my server last night and it caused some issues. Everything should be back to normal now.
Not being in the business, but is renting a more efficient way to go instead of owning a server?
Just asking. :)
It depends on how technically inclined you are, how much time you want to spend managing the server, and how much traffic your site needs to be able to handle.
I am a server admin as part of my day job, so I could definitely handle the technical aspects of having my own server. But since I spend all day managing a server at work I can't (and dont want to) devote that much time to my own server. If it went down while I was at work it would stay down until I got home.
And since most people don't have T1 lines running right into their homes, heavy traffic would impact the speed of a home server.
So for around $100/year I get a server with decent capacity, and my own 24/7 support team. It's a bargain, as far as I'm concerned.
OK, hypothetically speaking, I have pretty good speed and unlimited bandwidth on my cell phone. It also has router functionality. And static IP. In theory, I could host all of this site using one of my various PCs and my phone as hub and router perfectly happily.
There are, however, downsides. It becomes my job to maintain the link integrity 24/7. There is no contractual guarantee of any continuous coverage on my cell phone. I can no longer take my cell phone out of my home. If the server needs a reboot, only I can do it. If the server needs a part replaced only I can do it. And so on through many headaches.
I will grant that you could kill some of those issues by using a land line for the purpose or cable but that only addresses partially the issues. For example, nobody gets an SLA with their cell or cable or landline which guarantees 99% or better uptime. The servers that I own and operate are indeed owned by me, but they are situated in a co-location facility which does indeed offer that facility and are quite willing to hand moolah back if they fail to perform as advertised.
The bottom line is that you could very well host a web server on your home network, there is no reason why not, technically. But why would you voluntarily invite all of that overhead into your home for no good reason when one can simply rent a surrogate headache bearer?
-
...
So for around $100/year I get a server with decent capacity, and my own 24/7 support team. It's a bargain, as far as I'm concerned.
Who do you host with? I've been looking for a decent hosting company...
-
Who do you host with? I've been looking for a decent hosting company...
Sorry for not responding earlier. I have been using Lunar Pages (http://lunarpages.com) since 2001, and I've always been happy with their service. And no, I'm not an employee... I was using this username before I found them. ;)
-
Sorry for not responding earlier. I have been using Lunar Pages (http://lunarpages.com) since 2001, and I've always been happy with their service. And no, I'm not an employee... I was using this username before I found them. ;)
I read somewhere that the old system had some sort of issue and you had to re-build the posts. Was it with them or an other server system?
-
I read somewhere that the old system had some sort of issue and you had to re-build the posts. Was it with them or an other server system?
The original AH forum used a different host, I don't recall which. That was before I owned the forum. I don't really remember the exact cause of that problem... but yeah, I did have to spend some time trying to restore the database.
-
I read somewhere that the old system had some sort of issue and you had to re-build the posts. Was it with them or an other server system?
The original AH forum used a different host, I don't recall which. That was before I owned the forum. I don't really remember the exact cause of that problem... but yeah, I did have to spend some time trying to restore the database.
The cause was someone filing a request with the provider and having all of their posts deleted by the provider without notice. Can't remember who that was. Playdor? Dakdak?
-
The cause was someone filing a request with the provider and having all of their posts deleted by the provider without notice. Can't remember who that was. Playdor? Dakdak?
What did he do, come to his senses and want to rid all the ignorant evidence?
-
I read somewhere that the old system had some sort of issue and you had to re-build the posts. Was it with them or an other server system?
The original AH forum used a different host, I don't recall which. That was before I owned the forum. I don't really remember the exact cause of that problem... but yeah, I did have to spend some time trying to restore the database.
The cause was someone filing a request with the provider and having all of their posts deleted by the provider without notice. Can't remember who that was. Playdor? Dakdak?
I think bknight is referring to the problem that the original AH forum (ver. 1.0) had that lead to me becoming involved. The problem you're referring to was with the ProBoards forum (AH ver. 2.0) that lead to me creating this forum (AH ver. 3.0).
Here is the thread on the ProBoards forum starting with the discovery that Playdor had deleted his posts: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/post/98396/thread
-
I think bknight is referring to the problem that the original AH forum (ver. 1.0) had that lead to me becoming involved. The problem you're referring to was with the ProBoards forum (AH ver. 2.0) that lead to me creating this forum (AH ver. 3.0).
Here is the thread on the ProBoards forum starting with the discovery that Playdor had deleted his posts: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/post/98396/thread
Is that a feature of all forums? Was that a feature is the original forum only? It seems like it would be a Super Administrator.
-
The original forum used the YABB forum software (which was a predecessor of the phpBB software). The issue that I helped with was probably just a technical glitch, but it could have been hacked.
The issue with the Proboards forum was that there was a super admin (an employee of Proboards) who decided that deleting all of the posts made by a troll without even informing me was okay.
Never use one of those free forum provider services because you give up too much control to some else. A troll can seriously damage or even shutdown a forum by going over your head to the service provider.
Any forum will normally allow users to delete posts, but not after they have been banned. But with Proboards all you have to do is make a request with one of their employees, and then without any sort of investigation... poof... hundreds of posts just disappear.
-
...
The issue with the Proboards forum was that there was a super admin (an employee of Proboards) who decided that deleting all of the posts made by a troll without even informing me was okay.
Never use one of those free forum provider services because you give up too much control to some else. A troll can seriously damage or even shutdown a forum by going over your head to the service provider.
Any forum will normally allow users to delete posts, but not after they have been banned. But with Proboards all you have to do is make a request with one of their employees, and then without any sort of investigation... poof... hundreds of posts just disappear.
I don't understand the inner workings of the forum, but deleting posts shouldn't make the forum collapse. Don't all the posts reside in a database of sorts. Deletion should affect those records that were deleted but not the whole Db. Anyway I do understand the pay/free nature now.
-
The issue with the Proboards forum was that there was a super admin (an employee of Proboards) who decided that deleting all of the posts made by a troll without even informing me was okay.
I don't understand the inner workings of the forum, but deleting posts shouldn't make the forum collapse. Don't all the posts reside in a database of sorts. Deletion should affect those records that were deleted but not the whole Db.
I think you're getting two separate events mixed up, so I will try explaining the history of the forum again in a bit more detail.
There have been three separate Apollo Hoax forums, on three separate servers:
1. The original forum (https://web.archive.org/web/20040804055445/http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/) (2001-2005)
2. The Proboards Forum (http://apollohoax.proboards.com) (2005-2012)
3. The current forum (2012-Present)
The original forum
Lost due to domain expiration
The original forum was owned by someone who was a hoax believer initially, but he eventually came around. He lost interest in the forum and gave admin privileges to another user (not me). At this point I was not the owner or a moderator, I was just an occasional user.
In 2004 (I don't remember the exact date) there was a technical issue that lead to some posts being lost. I don't remember the exact nature of the problem, but I offered to help fix it and was given admin privileges. The problem was fixed, and the forum was running smoothly again. It is not the reason we had to start the second forum.
In early 2005 the apollohoax.com domain expired. The person who took over the forum from the original owner was not given the information he needed to renew the domain, so that meant the Apollo Hoax forum was basically dead in the water.
The ProBoards Forum
Abandoned due to the unreliable (untrustworthy) Proboards service, but still accessible as a read-only archive
When the domain expired I more or less took it upon myself to create a "temporary" forum that ended up becoming more long-term than I expected. I registered the apollohoax.net domain to replace the .com domain because I was worried the name would be taken by a site that promoted the hoax theory. Eventually I was also able to register the .com after it became available again.
We used the Proboards forum for almost seven years with few (if any) technical problems. I only chose to leave Proboards because I couldn't trust them after they deleted hundreds of posts based on a request from a troll.
So just to be clear, the original forum did have some technical issues that lead to some posts being lost, but it was only because the domain name expired that we had to move to Proboards. And that was a separate issue from the troll who deleted his posts in the second forum. If he had not done that then there is a good chance we would still be using the Proboards forum today.
The current forum
And here we are... it's hard to believe it has been 14 years since it all began.
-
The issue with the Proboards forum was that there was a super admin (an employee of Proboards) who decided that deleting all of the posts made by a troll without even informing me was okay.
I don't understand the inner workings of the forum, but deleting posts shouldn't make the forum collapse. Don't all the posts reside in a database of sorts. Deletion should affect those records that were deleted but not the whole Db.
I think you're getting two separate events mixed up, so I will try explaining the history of the forum again in a bit more detail.
There have been three separate Apollo Hoax forums, on three separate servers:
1. The original forum (https://web.archive.org/web/20040804055445/http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/) (2001-2005)
2. The Proboards Forum (http://apollohoax.proboards.com) (2005-2012)
3. The current forum (2012-Present)
The original forum
Lost due to domain expiration
The original forum was owned by someone who was a hoax believer initially, but he eventually came around. He lost interest in the forum and gave admin privileges to another user (not me). At this point I was not the owner or a moderator, I was just an occasional user.
In 2004 (I don't remember the exact date) there was a technical issue that lead to some posts being lost. I don't remember the exact nature of the problem, but I offered to help fix it and was given admin privileges. The problem was fixed, and the forum was running smoothly again. It is not the reason we had to start the second forum.
In early 2005 the apollohoax.com domain expired. The person who took over the forum from the original owner was not given the information he needed to renew the domain, so that meant the Apollo Hoax forum was basically dead in the water.
The ProBoards Forum
Abandoned due to the unreliable (untrustworthy) Proboards service, but still accessible as a read-only archive
When the domain expired I more or less took it upon myself to create a "temporary" forum that ended up becoming more long-term than I expected. I registered the apollohoax.net domain to replace the .com domain because I was worried the name would be taken by a site that promoted the hoax theory. Eventually I was also able to register the .com after it became available again.
We used the Proboards forum for almost seven years with few (if any) technical problems. I only chose to leave Proboards because I couldn't trust them after they deleted hundreds of posts based on a request from a troll.
So just to be clear, the original forum did have some technical issues that lead to some posts being lost, but it was only because the domain name expired that we had to move to Proboards. And that was a separate issue from the troll who deleted his posts in the second forum. If he had not done that then there is a good chance we would still be using the Proboards forum today.
The current forum
And here we are... it's hard to believe it has been 14 years since it all began.
You're correct I got it all wrong. Thanks AND keep up the good work.
-
Thanks for the link showing version 1.0 of the forum on wayback. It might be nice to put that in a more prominent place for those wanting to see the earliest Apollohoax posts.
Edit- Scratch the idea of a more prominent link. The posts on wayback don't seem to readable.
-
Thanks for the link showing version 1.0 of the forum on wayback. It might be nice to put that in a more prominent place for those wanting to see the earliest Apollohoax posts.
Edit- Scratch the idea of a more prominent link. The posts on wayback don't seem to readable.
Some of the old pages were captured.
Full List
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/*
I wouldn't like to follow a thread that way though.
-
All this computer talk...
;D
-
Thanks for the link showing version 1.0 of the forum on wayback. It might be nice to put that in a more prominent place for those wanting to see the earliest Apollohoax posts.
Edit- Scratch the idea of a more prominent link. The posts on wayback don't seem to readable.
Yeah, I was so happy when I found it, and then quickly disappointed when I discovered none of the links work.
-
All this computer talk...
;D
That's how I feel when people talk about math. ;)
-
That's how I feel when people talk about math. ;)
But that's how the electronics/internet WORK. :)
-
I don't believe it.
It works because I flip the switch on this box thingy on my desk, and it whirs and hums for a moment, and then I have the interwebz on the screen in front of me.
The rest of it is so much electronic spaghetti and wizardry. And things, and stuff.
:P
-
I don't believe it.
It works because I flip the switch on this box thingy on my desk, and it whirs and hums for a moment, and then I have the interwebz on the screen in front of me.
The rest of it is so much electronic spaghetti and wizardry. And things, and stuff.
:P
I'm pretty sure there are gnomes and elves involved.
-
It's connected to the wall... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic)
-
It's connected to the wall... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic)
"I really don't know"!!!!
Very funny
-
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Sorry. Someone just made may "got to see" list.
But bang on the button for many hoax believers. Does not look right....... why? well, er,..... it would......
-
I don't believe it.
It works because I flip the switch on this box thingy on my desk, and it whirs and hums for a moment, and then I have the interwebz on the screen in front of me.
The rest of it is so much electronic spaghetti and wizardry. And things, and stuff.
:P
I'm pretty sure there are gnomes and elves involved.
Just never let the magic blue smoke out, or it will stop working.
-
I've followed the hoax debate for a long time in lurk mode, on YT, on various fora, here, Clavius, Cosmoquest, and other places, and it suddenly occurred to me...
All of the threads I've read, (and some of them were huge!) all of the arguments I've witnessed, all of the "debates" (I use that term loosely) all seem to end up with the HBs, CTs, Deniers, etc.. all saying some variations of the same thing: "There is nothing you can tell me that will change my mind! I know it was a hoax!" (usually followed by some observation regarding the parentage of the person debunking the hoax)
My question is, knowing that I have not seen all possible discussions, are there any known instances of a hoax believer (or their cousins) saying anything along the lines of, "Up until now, I had been firmly convinced that it was a hoax, but you've presented me with enough believable evidence that disproves my theory, that I've changed my mind!"
Has that actually ever happened? Can anyone post links to a disbeliever ever having their mind changed?
I stumbled onto this today. A fairly good reference
http://www.attivissimo.net/luna/mhd/mhd-v1.0.1light.pdf
-
I met Paolo at an astronaut presentation and he signed a copy of his book.
Nice man, and he told me he was working on more material :)
-
On the subject of books, came across this while looking at who 'Ronnie Stronge', the narrator of 'What happened on the moon' is (jobbing actor and head of various corporate consultancy companies).
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rJVWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT74&lpg=PT74&dq=ronnie+stronge&source=bl&ots=8SqH_xX69Z&sig=CzkfYiBSUAqV9Xp_AB5CJHFdJVc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwiN7_y-2JbIAhUIwxQKHbCaDgs#v=onepage&q=ronnie%20stronge&f=false
It doesn't address the claims made in moon hoax conspiracy films (other topics are also covered), but does address how they make them and the way that viewers are led down a specific pathway.
Interesting read.
-
I met Paolo at an astronaut presentation and he signed a copy of his book.
Nice man, and he told me he was working on more material :)
I'm glad that the book is available on line. He did a rather good job in debunking, the last bit about talking to a hoax "believer" versus a "doubter
-
I stumbled onto this today. A fairly good reference
http://www.attivissimo.net/luna/mhd/mhd-v1.0.1light.pdf
Thank you for that. It's a superb resource.
Incidentally, it also mentioned this video which I hadn't heard of before (NASAFLIX's Apollo 12 uncensored):
-
I stumbled onto this today. A fairly good reference
http://www.attivissimo.net/luna/mhd/mhd-v1.0.1light.pdf
A little outdated, as fairly recently they did find water (well, chemicals with hydrogen and oxygen in them) in lunar samples.
They also could have given a little bit about cosmic ray exposure ages. (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/) It's very convincing, in my opinion, as it means they can't even be lunar meteorites. Another really good piece of evidence involving the moon rocks is that SMART-1, a probe from a third party besides NASA or the former USSR, confirmed the ground truth of Apollo and Luna samples coming from not only the moon but the right places on the moon. I believe India's Chandraayn-1 did the same.
I do like the cartoons for the various hoax scenarios though. ;D
-
I stumbled onto this today. A fairly good reference
http://www.attivissimo.net/luna/mhd/mhd-v1.0.1light.pdf
A little outdated, as fairly recently they did find water (well, chemicals with hydrogen and oxygen in them) in lunar samples.
They also could have given a little bit about cosmic ray exposure ages. (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/) It's very convincing, in my opinion, as it means they can't even be lunar meteorites. Another really good piece of evidence involving the moon rocks is that SMART-1, a probe from a third party besides NASA or the former USSR, confirmed the ground truth of Apollo and Luna samples coming from not only the moon but the right places on the moon. I believe India's Chandraayn-1 did the same.
I do like the cartoons for the various hoax scenarios though. ;D
Don't forget the Japanese Kaguya mission and four Chinese missions Three obiters, one lander/rover have also added to our knowledge of the Moon
-
All images Photo shopped, Just ask the Blunder
-
And the rest of the official NASA record was all also faked, and therefore not acceptable as a reference source.
I despise these people.
-
Don't forget the Japanese Kaguya mission and four Chinese missions Three obiters, one lander/rover have also added to our knowledge of the Moon
I certainly do not, but I mention them specifically because they did X-ray spectroscopy from orbit of the lunar surface.
-
All images Photo shopped, Just ask the Blunder
That one gets weird. I had this conversation with a carpenter who fitted out my built-in bedroom units way back in...Well years ago.
In all other respects, he was a sane likeable chap and good at his job. No issue there.
But the conversation (paraphrased, because this was a real live crank)
Him: "all of the Apollo pictures were photoshopped"
Me: "There was no photoshop in the 60s'"
Him: "There was a secret photoshop NASA didn't reveal"
Me: "What did they run it on? There were no PCs or Macs?"
Him: "They had secret computers that they never revealed"
Me: "Wait, wasn't your last claim that such computers didn't exist at the time? Now you say they did?"
Him: "That's what they want you to think."
To this day I cannot figure out how anyone can simultaneously claim that NASA has and doesn't have the technology all at once.
-
All images Photo shopped, Just ask the Blunder
That one gets weird. I had this conversation with a carpenter who fitted out my built-in bedroom units way back in...Well years ago.
In all other respects, he was a sane likeable chap and good at his job. No issue there.
But the conversation (paraphrased, because this was a real live crank)
Him: "all of the Apollo pictures were photoshopped"
Me: "There was no photoshop in the 60s'"
Him: "There was a secret photoshop NASA didn't reveal"
Me: "What did they run it on? There were no PCs or Macs?"
Him: "They had secret computers that they never revealed"
Me: "Wait, wasn't your last claim that such computers didn't exist at the time? Now you say they did?"
Him: "That's what they want you to think."
To this day I cannot figure out how anyone can simultaneously claim that NASA has and doesn't have the technology all at once.
Makes perfect sense to me claim anything that will "prove" their claim at least to the one babbling. Just shrug your shoulders and go on being correct, pointing out the deficiencies in the argument, even though that won't get you very far in persuading him otherwise
-
It's useful on public forum, where others can see it, to display their ideas for the ridicule they justly deserve.
-
It's useful on public forum, where others can see it, to display their ideas for the ridicule they justly deserve.
True but MANY don't see the debunking's, or believe them. The old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink comes to mind.
-
To this day I cannot figure out how anyone can simultaneously claim that NASA has and doesn't have the technology all at once.
It's really very simple. NASA can do anything. Anything. Except go to the moon.
-
It's useful on public forum, where others can see it, to display their ideas for the ridicule they justly deserve.
True but MANY don't see the debunking's, or believe them. The old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink comes to mind.
True, but lies fester in the dark. We can provide the water at least, and hope the more amiable horses take a slurp or two.
-
Argument One
Him: "all of the Apollo pictures were photoshopped"
Me: "There was no photoshop in the 60s'"
Him: "There was a secret photoshop NASA didn't reveal"
Rebuttal: Well, if NASA had "Secret Photoshop", then why did they not just photoshop in the correct shadows, stars in the sky, remove the fiducials, and fix up all the other photographic anomalies that allegedly gave the game away?
Argument Two
Me: "What did they run it (Photoshop) on? There were no PCs or Macs?"
Him: "They had secret computers that they never revealed"
Me: "Wait, wasn't your last claim that such computers didn't exist at the time? Now you say they did?"
Rebuttal: In the one hand, you are arguing that the computing power available to take a spacecraft to the moon, didn't exist in the 1960s, and on the other hand, you are arguing that computers capable of the kind of number crunching required to deal with the complex algorithms required for image processing, did exist.
Are you aware that it is possible to navigate to the moon using a sextant and a slide-rule? Do you even know what a slide rule is?
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of invention and excuses created from whole cloth that HB's will go to in order to keep their worldview intact.
-
...
Are you aware that it is possible to navigate to the moon using a sextant and a slide-rule? Do you even know what a slide rule is?
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of invention and excuses created from whole cloth that HB's will go to in order to keep their worldview intact.
[/quote]
Man I still have my Post Versalog!
-
Are you aware that it is possible to navigate to the moon using a sextant and a slide-rule? Do you even know what a slide rule is?
Sure: It's an indispensable tool for space pirates. Link (https://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Astounding-Science-Fiction-February-1959-2.jpg)
-
Aww, beat me too it. Notice it is the pirates of Ersatz, tho...
Which I just noticed is free to read online!