New forum by najak

[TimberWolfAu]

If he bothered to check....

And that's the crux.

The current "smoking gun" is the "hidden" footage that Sibrel shows in A Funny Thing..., and how great it was that he presented the footage. Yet as soon as he was corrected, in that the footage HAD been shown/available almost since they got back, it was suddenly all "well, I always meant that we can't take Sibrel literally, but...".

Hell, one of his 'issues' is that the view rolls near the beginning, and surely this isn't supposed to be them rolling the CSM (as if they would waste fuel on that) when the transcript gives the quite clear impression that they rolled the camera. Or that the windows, when the view is interior, are blue, so it must be "sky" (inferring looking at Earth), because it's not black. As far as I know, this is an artifact/combination of the light reflecting of the coatings that were applied to the glass and the gas used between the panes. And the simple point that glass is pretty reflective when the interior is lit and the outside is 'dark'.

[Jason Thompson]

The current "smoking gun" is the "hidden" footage that Sibrel shows in A Funny Thing..., and how great it was that he presented the footage. Yet as soon as he was corrected, in that the footage HAD been shown/available almost since they got back, it was suddenly all "well, I always meant that we can't take Sibrel literally, but...".

And that's another issue with najak and other conspiracy theorists: they genuinely seem to believe they are bringing something new even when dealing with stuff that's been out there for decades. I tried repeatedly to make him understand that he had literally nothing new in his arsenal while he was here. To no avail, of course.

[JayUtah]

And that's another issue with najak and other conspiracy theorists: they genuinely seem to believe they are bringing something new even when dealing with stuff that's been out there for decades.

That seems broadly true across conspiracy-theory genres. Of those that have been around for decades, it seems that every ten years or so someone gives them a new coat of paint and parades them around for a new audience that has just discovered them. I think it's human nature to believe that something we've recently become aware of is somehow also new to everyone else. But in the case of conspiracy theorists I think the bias in their choice of sources leads them to believe that all these claims have stood undebunked for decades.

[Jason Thompson]

But in the case of conspiracy theorists I think the bias in their choice of sources leads them to believe that all these claims have stood undebunked for decades.

Not to mention the common factor of their stubborn refusal to accept any debunkings because they don't agree with their limited understanding. How often did we try to get najak (and others) to grasp the difference between 'this violates the laws of physics' and 'this doesn't match my understanding of the laws of physics as they apply in this situation'?

So, conspiracy theories are published by people who refuse to accept the explanations and so maintain they remain unanswered questions, and are picked up by people with the same mindset who accept the claim the questions have not been answered, refuse to accept the answers they're given when they bring those same arguments back to the table, and so maintain themselves that they remain unanswered. Wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

[smartcooky]

But in the case of conspiracy theorists I think the bias in their choice of sources leads them to believe that all these claims have stood undebunked for decades.

Not to mention the common factor of their stubborn refusal to accept any debunkings because they don't agree with their limited understanding. How often did we try to get najak (and others) to grasp the difference between 'this violates the laws of physics' and 'this doesn't match my understanding of the laws of physics as they apply in this situation'?

So, conspiracy theories are published by people who refuse to accept the explanations and so maintain they remain unanswered questions, and are picked up by people with the same mindset who accept the claim the questions have not been answered, refuse to accept the answers they're given when they bring those same arguments back to the table, and so maintain themselves that they remain unanswered. Wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

With reference to this post, this is the meme I usually post in response to the really dumb stuff I see posted by Flat Earthers, Chemtrailers and Moon Landing Deniers.



Its a paraphrase of a quote by Mike Masnick the CEO and founder of Techdirt. Masnick was the originator of the term "Streisand effect".

 

[rocketman]

has led me to a far sounder understanding of the subject than any hoax believer

Not setting the bar too high there!

[rocketman]

That's why I like to throw it back to conspiracy theorists to consider how they'd respond to someone saying the same sorts of uninformed things about the work that they're expert in. I've never had anyone respond to that point, but I hope it at least plants a seed of thoughtfulness.

Years ago, I tried that at BAUT or what ever it's called now.  It didn't work.

There were people who have some level of knowledge of physics, astronomy, etc., sometimes a great deal of knowledge, and some of them really seemed to enjoy mocking or ridiculing the conspiracy theorists who didn't know which end was up.  Fair enough.  But the same people could not be convinced, no matter what I did, that they sounded like complete morons when they decided to step out of their areas of expertise and lecture everyone on topics where they clear don't know which end was up.

But I'm rational, I understand some things, therefore I understand everything!

[onebigmonkey]

Poor Brian still isn't happy about being banned, but he obviously pops by to keep up as he's posted this thread on Rasa's fb group. Insert sad face here.

He still can't get his head around one thing as regards the terminator footage.

Let me explain it again for you Brian: the footage you are seeing is not of the terminator. It is where the specifc camera/film combination used stops being able to see the lunar surface as light levels fall beyond its capability to record it. That's it. That's all it is, unless you want to factor in degradation caused by conversion from analogue to digital. You aren't seeing the original footage, you're seeing digital renderings of it. Renderings that vary in quality.

There is no smoking gun. Not one. Not a single wisp of smoke. Every single thing that you think is a smoking gun is just your lack of knowledge and understanding compounded by confirmation bias.

Enjoy your forum. May it be filled with the sound of crickets.

[onebigmonkey]

And another thing Brian... your suggestion that the terminator moved 5 degrees between orbits in the 16mm footage is wrong. The plotted locations of the 16mm strips show that, and you can verify it by looking at the features in the footage. YOu won't find those features in pre-Apollo imagery. You'll also need to explain the precisely dateable Earthrise in Magazine F. Good luck with that.