A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists

[Zakalwe]

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

So, why are you still alive?

Why has Jarrah White not been dragged off to a NASA Concentration Camp?

Why has Bart Sibrel not been assassinated?

(Not to worry about Jack White. He made such a complete jackass of himself in front of the Warren Commission, that no-one took him seriously anyway)

Maybe we need to start saying that "NASA can do anything except land men on the moon and shut a few Internet kooks up"

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I will not present proof . . . .

Refusing to give proof because it's obvious. That's a new one. You are a troll as no one is that stupid.....

[ka9q]

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

Really? Let's assume that the North Korean regime is the worst ever to inhabit the modern earth (this seems to be a popular meme lately). There's certainly no question that they try very hard to hide what they do behind a rigorously controlled media, mined and armed borders, limited and tightly controlled tourism, extreme militarism, a cult of personality around their leaders, totalitarian control of their people, gulags, etc, etc.

Yet we still have no trouble seeing right through that state's ludicrous propaganda. Not only is it absurd on its face, but we know an awful lot about what really goes on there from the defectors who risked their lives to escape and tell us about it.

So where are the "defectors" telling us about the horrors of NASA operating in a country with an open press, open travel, open communications, open employment and a substantial tourism industry?

[onebigmonkey]

Me too, but I wondered not about that, I wonder about the energy put in the debunking.

I think you'll find nearly all of us agree on two reasons why we put our energy into debunking:

1. We are all interested in space exploration, particularly but not limited to the Apollo program. Some of us are professionals in aerospace. Some of us, like me, are professionals in related fields of engineering and science. And some of us have other vocations but are simply interested on a personal level. Some, but by no means all of us are old enough to have been personally inspired by the Apollo program as kids. All of us have learned a great deal about Apollo and space in the process of debunking false claims about them, and we find learning to be intrinsically rewarding.

2. We are justifiably proud of "our" positive accomplishments, where "our" goes beyond personal activities to those of other members of our professions, our countries and our species. The people who accomplished the feat of putting humans on the moon deserve to be honored -- not falsely accused of fraud, idiocy or worse. And we feel compelled and perfectly justified in saying so.

If you find it difficult to understand why others enjoy learning so much, or why others can be so offended by misinformation and false claims about people other than themselves that they're willing to spend their own time gratis to rebut them, perhaps that says more about you than anyone else.

^^This. Completely this. I firmly believe you can't say "I told you so" if you haven't.

How is it OK for conspiracy theorists and anti-science dullards to invest hours of their personal time in trying to disprove something, but somehow suspicious for people to devote their time (and money) defending it? Other than plain old fashioned hypocrisy that is.

[darren r]

Believer asks why people would defend Apollo if they weren't being paid for it. These are my reasons.

I trained as a journalist, a profession which has, quite rightly, come under attack recently. But I have never considered myself as a 'print the legend' writer. I could never work for any organisation that was more interested in sales figures than the truth. I would never willingly go along with a lie or a distortion.

I love history. Real history. I like nothing better than finding out that some historical event either never happened or happened very differently from how it is commonly perceived. I love having my preconceptions shaken up. The truth, to me, is far more compelling than made up stories. If I had discovered that was the case for Apollo, I'd be yelling it from the rooftops, but I've never encountered anything to make me doubt its veracity for very long.

I'm not an engineer or a physicist. Being an art-y type, I was never very good with numbers. But I can see that the vast majority of people in those fields believe in the truth of Apollo. Those that don't? Well, their qualifications usually don't bear close examination. However, I do understand some of the fundamentals of those areas and it amazes me that people who don't even have that level of understanding feel able to denounce people who are qualified professionals.

I defend Apollo because I resent being called a shill or a sheep by those who believe that, for instance, a day on the Moon lasts 24 hours, that shadows in photos must always be parallel regardless of angle, perspective or terrain, that the Van Allen Belts are some sort of impenetrable forcefield or that the ascent stage couldn't have achieved Lunar orbit because it wasn't travelling fast enough on takeoff. All things I have argued against on other forums.

On a more personal level, I defend Apollo because I regard the astronauts as true heroes. Unassuming, intelligent, incredibly brave men who represent everything that humanity is truly capable of and I despise those who, based on nothing but untruths, distortions and ignorance, would tarnish their characters and achievements by calling them liars and cowards and criminals.

[ka9q]

Yes, there is no one who claims he travels in space.

Really? I have personally met and spoken with...let's see... eight people who have done exactly that. I've exchanged email with several more. And I've personally seen and listened to (but not spoken with) maybe another dozen.

So you still maintain this claim....?

[ka9q]

Yes I believe astronauts did and still do go up in 'space', but this 'space' is the point. 400 or km up away from the earth surface is not really space.

Why not? Can you survive without a pressure suit at 400 km? Can you not orbit the earth at that altitude?

As Andromeda mentioned, 'space' is widely considered to begin at an altitude of 100 km, including by several international organizations, though I don't think it's actually a de-jure legal boundary.  It's interesting to consider Kármán's reasoning behind his choice of that figure: at that altitude, an airplane wing would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to generate enough lift to support its weight. Evidently Kármán considered orbiting the earth to be space travel, as does everyone who uses the line he defined. Only the USA doesn't, or at least didn't when they used a lower boundary of 50 nautical miles (~80 km) to award astronaut wings. (I'm not sure of the current US position on this.)

Do I sense some goalpost-shifting here?

[LunarOrbit]

It is really beyond all measure that people reacting in these insulting ways should not get banned.

Trying to be the moderator again, Heiwa?

Don't worry, someone is about to be banned. You won't have to worry about the insults coming your way any longer.

I don't flee, since I challenge you to ask me and I will not lie to you, I try to answer.

Thank you for confirming my belief that die hard conspiracy theorists are dishonest.

I will not present proof

Then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Bye bye!

[Peter B]

Yes I believe astronauts did and still do go up in 'space', but this 'space' is the point. 400 or km up away from the earth surface is not really space.

Why not? Can you survive without a pressure suit at 400 km? Can you not orbit the earth at that altitude?

As Andromeda mentioned, 'space' is widely considered to begin at an altitude of 100 km, including by several international organizations, though I don't think it's actually a de-jure legal boundary.  It's interesting to consider Kármán's reasoning behind his choice of that figure: at that altitude, an airplane wing would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to generate enough lift to support its weight. Evidently Kármán considered orbiting the earth to be space travel, as does everyone who uses the line he defined. Only the USA doesn't, or at least didn't when they used a lower boundary of 50 nautical miles (~80 km) to award astronaut wings. (I'm not sure of the current US position on this.)

Do I sense some goalpost-shifting here?

This line of argument reminds me of someone who posted I think on what's now Cosmoquest. That poster's claim was something along the lines of the fact that as there was still the faintest vestige of atmosphere at 400 km altitude, then it wasn't "space" as popularly defined. On top of that, as that was the sort of altitude the Space Shuttle operated at, that spacecraft was also incorrectly named - after all, it wasn't in "space".

Anyone else remember that person?

[Not Myself]

That poster's claim was something along the lines of the fact that as there was still the faintest vestige of atmosphere at 400 km altitude, then it wasn't "space" as popularly defined. On top of that, as that was the sort of altitude the Space Shuttle operated at, that spacecraft was also incorrectly named - after all, it wasn't in "space".

If we do it that way, since there's at least a little bit of matter just about everywhere, there is no space.

Anyone else remember that person?

Moon man was the where does this alleged vacuum begin person, right?

[smartcooky]

Anyone else remember that person?

Was it five letters beginning with "H"?

[Noldi400]

Look, this is why I think you are a bunch of paid students or so. Clearly that was not proven, clearly the argument is avoided, there is only repeated battering of him with the same bunch of statements over and over again. It prevents knowledgeable posters from having a fair discussion and only convinces the ignorants who casually look into the matter. That is what I see. To bad, but that is how the Nazi's would work if internet existed then.

Did you just:

Imply that I'm a liar because I'm some sort of "paid student"? and

That I behave like a Nazi (or worse yet am a Nazi)?

If that's the case, I want an apology right now.  Whether you believe we went to the moon or not, I am someone who sincerely believes (well, knows) we did, based on what I observed and the historical record.  You have no right to label me the way you did.  Period.

Yes I do. That is not what I hoped for, I hoped that the first question, 'why do you all lie' would the subject of discussion.  With me as your specimen to examen. Because I don't lie.

Seen the reactions, especially the way of reacting, the moral level of it all, the evidence is clear to any observer. You don't want to have a discussion of what sort ever. You only want to bash, overwhelm, destroy. The truth is far from you.

And yes, how NASA could do this (or whoever does it now) is clearly like how the Nazi's could do it, how the Nord Koreans do it, and how any totalitarian regime would do it.

So it is not an insult as far as I am concerned, but a fact, demonstrated in the posts of this thread. You are not honest. You try to destroy free thinking. You sold your soul to the devil, to speak with Goethe. Like the Nazi's did.

Your comments lead me to believe that you have not spent any time in the USA.

The earmarks of a totalitarian regime simply do not exist. We are free to travel about as we wish. We are free to speak publicly against any of our leaders, short of actual threats.  Although children are require to receive a basic education, we do not have to send them to state schools - they may be schooled at home or in church schools, so long as certain subjects are covered.

As for the "government controlled" media - I would be willing to wager any amount of money that if any piece of convincing evidence of a hoax ever came to light, the media would trample any number of "guvmint agents" you care to name to get to the story.  Any member of the American media would laugh in your face at the suggestion that the government controls what they publish.

I think filosophy and logic thinking can bring the answer to who wants to know. Only this Heiwa seems to have an undefeatable question about the fuel. So that should be an eye opener to the engineering people, if it is true what he says. Because the way he was attacked, and his argument not answered, I think he is right.

In history the wrong side has never had an interest in open discussion. They would lose that. Instead of that the wrong side alway oppresses free press and freedom of speech. That is what you see here right before your eyes.

Nonsense. Baloney, poppycock, amphigory, whatever term you prefer.  Heiwa questioned the amount of propellant mass required to change a spaceship's velocity.  It was explained to him, repeatedly and in the simplest terms possible, what was wrong with his calculations. He flatly refused to accept the answer, even though the answer remains the same, regardless of whether you're talking about Apollo 11, Ariane, or DragonX. Physical laws are not subject to the approval of hoax believers; every spacecraft orbiting today is there as a result of the calculations that Heiwa rejected.

The other issues the hoaxers raise are answered on almost a daily basis. Van Allen Belts? Dr. Van Allen himself called the idea that they were an insurmountable obstacle "nonsense". There are satellites in orbit this minute that transit the belts, and many electronics are much more sensitive to radiation than the human body, yet they seem to survive without the "two metres of lead shielding" you hear in many claims.

The LM doesn't look like a real spacecraft? Hey, this is the real world, not Star Wars. Have you ever even seen a real spacecraft?

Look like a flying junkyard, huh?  And please note that that's not a NASA product - it's Arabsat-5c, which went up on a French rocket in September 2011 and currently resides at 35,000 km altitude - right in the outer VAB. It got there in accordance with the equations that were explained to Heiwa, despite his disbelief.

Stars in space? The ISS is staffed by astronauts from various nations. With a little effort, you can probably email one of them and ask whether they can see stars out the windows on the day side of Earth.

Apollo may be 40+ years in the past, but most of the "questions" raised by hoax believers are still being answered on a daily basis. Absolute, 100% proof? No; very few things are ever absolute. Proof enough to get a conviction in front of any jury? Certainly, many times over.  Open your eyes and look at the facts.
-----------------------------------

Edit
LunarOrbit: Booted?

[Peter B]

Believer asks why people would defend Apollo if they weren't being paid for it. These are my reasons...

I love history. Real history. I like nothing better than finding out that some historical event either never happened or happened very differently from how it is commonly perceived. I love having my preconceptions shaken up. The truth, to me, is far more compelling than made up stories. If I had discovered that was the case for Apollo, I'd be yelling it from the rooftops, but I've never encountered anything to make me doubt its veracity for very long.

Same for me. I love history. In years gone by, I'd often spend entire Saturdays at the National Library, reading old newspapers on microfilm. It's an intriguing feeling reading about events as yesterday's news which to me are history.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm preparing for publication the memoirs of one of my great-grandfathers. He wrote of his experiences going to sea as a 14 year old in 1863, and how by the late 1870s he was a captain. He also experienced a couple of shipwrecks. I've been able to find reports of these shipwrecks in newspapers of the time, as well as of the courts of inquiry held into the accidents. One of the interesting things has been comparing what he says in his memoirs with the newspaper reports - they're often quite different, and it's fun to speculate why the accounts differ. Nevertheless, there's always a little thrill from seeing his name in print.

I'm not an engineer or a physicist. Being an art-y type, I was never very good with numbers. But I can see that the vast majority of people in those fields believe in the truth of Apollo. Those that don't? Well, their qualifications usually don't bear close examination. However, I do understand some of the fundamentals of those areas and it amazes me that people who don't even have that level of understanding feel able to denounce people who are qualified professionals.

Same for me again. I have an instinctive grasp of a few of the relevant topics, but no relevant professional qualifications. That's why I leave arguments over formulas to those who know them. Nevertheless, it says something about the quality of some Hoax Believer arguments that even I can occasionally challenge them on technical factors.

I defend Apollo because I resent being called a shill or a sheep by those who believe that, for instance, a day on the Moon lasts 24 hours...

I don't resent it so much. It's more like something between amused contempt and cheerful earnestness, depending on the demeanour of the Hoax Believer.

On a more personal level, I defend Apollo because I regard the astronauts as true heroes. Unassuming, intelligent, incredibly brave men who represent everything that humanity is truly capable of and I despise those who, based on nothing but untruths, distortions and ignorance, would tarnish their characters and achievements by calling them liars and cowards and criminals.

+1. Two other things. One is that I agree with these opinions while still accepting Apollo's Cold War context - it was politics first and engineering/science second. The second is that our values have changed a lot since then - sport stars and talk show hosts are heroes these days instead of astronauts or scientists, and celebrity is preferred over knowledge. I don't have the right knowledge to be a scientist or astronaut, but in promoting or defending Apollo I can do my little bit to redress the imbalance.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Heiwa pretending to be Believer is about as convincing as Homer pretending to Mr Burns.

[gillianren]

You know, I almost certainly had family killed by the Nazis.  (My great-grandmother was born in a Gypsy camp; she was allowed into the US, but her first husband and their children were not.  I assume they got a divorce or something, but she married my great-grandfather somehow.)  They probably didn't even make it into the camps; a lot of Gypsies were just taken out and shot.  Being compared to Nazis amuses me more than it infuriates me, because it proves that the person making the accusation doesn't know anything about me or Nazis.