A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists

[najak]

Okay, a friend of mine just raised a really good point.  If you believe we're all paid by NASA to say these things, why don't you try outbidding?

I think this accusation simply underestimates the sheer power of Confirmation Bias, which tends to make us more dumb.

PNAs (Pro-NASA-Advocates) - cannot understand how a smart person can doubt the Moon Landing.

and MLD (ML Deniers) cannot understand how any smart person could BELIEVE we landed humans on the moon.

And so MLD's mistakenly just assume, "you PNAs must be doing this on purpose; you KNOW you're wrong, so you must be paid."

It's common.  Similarly, many Christians accuse Atheists like this -- "You know you're wrong; you know there is a God, but you simply want to sin more." as many Christians simply can't see how anyone else "doesn't see God the way they do."

[Allan F]

Nobody is trying to make you look like fools, You manage that all on your own.

You yourself is a prime example of confirmation bias. Every single argument put to your ideas, is dismissed without any consideration. You only look at the surface, not the causes of things. Like your flag idea. On Apollo 11, the flag points in one direction during EVA. When filmed before liftoff, it points in a totally different direction?`

Why?

Because procedures during the preparation for liftoff called for a brief test of the attitude control system, including firing a short burst from the thrusters, which impinged on the flag and turned it away from the LM. Maybe consider that happened on the rest of the landings too?

There is so much more to learn, when you step away from the usual hoaxnuttery. There is a reason why a certain unnamed person is referred to as "TBFDU". Because he is consistently wrong, been shown where he's wrong, totally disregards the corrections and keeps on trucking the same arguments again and again.

[najak]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

Your attempted analogy to Apollo 11 is grossly deficient, in that it still offers ZERO explanation for the seemingly impossible claim that the "slow decompression of the cabin" was not only strong enough to move the flag at all, and then AWAY -- but that it was somehow able to magically lasso it to bring it TOWARDS the LEM.   This is the ISSUE -- this feat is IMPOSSIBLE.  Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to Break Simple Physics -- which they do repeatedly.

Since Apollo can't break physics -- my bias then is to try and "explain it ALL" - but part of that explanation can't be -- "Apollo broke physics, and it's OK."

[Peter B]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

TBFDU = The Blunder From Down Under a.k.a. Jarrah White. Like me, he's Australian.

[Allan F]

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

Your attempted analogy to Apollo 11 is grossly deficient, in that it still offers ZERO explanation for the seemingly impossible claim that the "slow decompression of the cabin" was not only strong enough to move the flag at all, and then AWAY -- but that it was somehow able to magically lasso it to bring it TOWARDS the LEM.   This is the ISSUE -- this feat is IMPOSSIBLE.  Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to Break Simple Physics -- which they do repeatedly.

Since Apollo can't break physics -- my bias then is to try and "explain it ALL" - but part of that explanation can't be -- "Apollo broke physics, and it's OK."

Apollo didn't "break physics". You are working with a very small subset of reality, which conforms to your delusion. Therefore the observed events don't match up to your expectations.

Now, to document your flag-claim, please use the Apollo picture numbers which are easier to follow, where we can find out exactly WHEN those pictures were taken. If you quote them out of order, your claim is obviously nonsense. Also look up the DAC recordings of the EVA activities. Where you can see the flag setup.