Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[raven]

A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.

Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.

I second that proposal

Third.  We need more critical thinkers like her on this rock.

[bknight]

A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.

Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.

I second that proposal

I'll third that proposal.

[smartcooky]

I will pass on your congratulations to her.

I would like to point out that she did something that HBs and CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers).

"I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be travelling extremely fast when I saw it."

"the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought."

When the results didn't match her opinion, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into HB/CT thinking!

[bknight]

I will pass on your congratulations to her.

I would like to point out that she did something that HBs and CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers).

"I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be travelling extremely fast when I saw it."

"the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought."

When the results didn't match her opinion, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into HB/CT thinking!

No they mak up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong.  Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly

[Apollo 957]

they (Hoax Believers and/or Conspiracy Theorists) make up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong.  Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly

There are a few stock responses on YouTube when debunking a HB/CT; the most common are;

1. The HB/CT ignores the debunking, and hops to a different topic
2. The HB/CT accuses the debunker of being a 'shill' or 'on the NASA/Government payroll'
3. The HB/CT resorts to childish insult, foul language, and/or abuse.

Closely followed by;

4. Divert the conversation by dragging in 11/9 (WTC attacks), JFK, Sandy Hook, or any other conspiracy theory.....

[bknight]

they (Hoax Believers and/or Conspiracy Theorists) make up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong.  Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly

There are a few stock responses on YouTube when debunking a HB/CT; the most common are;

1. The HB/CT ignores the debunking, and hops to a different topic
2. The HB/CT accuses the debunker of being a 'shill' or 'on the NASA/Government payroll'
3. The HB/CT resorts to childish insult, foul language, and/or abuse.

Closely followed by;

4. Divert the conversation by dragging in 11/9 (WTC attacks), JFK, Sandy Hook, or any other conspiracy theory.....

Those also I'll be critical of the foul language, shouldn't be necessary to talk like an adolescent.

[Apollo 957]

So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.

A Tarkus-like 'flounce', maybe?

For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at the tail end about Gubments having 'alien technology', which I thought was a bit out of place.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy/episodes/episode-9-433

There was footage of Sibrel following astronauts around with a bible, and oh, how I laughed when one of them gave Sibrel a kick up the a*se to get him on his way, and when Aldrin delivered the famous punch......

Both Sibrel and Allen were very, very careful to lace everything they said with "if this..." and "could have done that ..." with very few, if any, definites in the conversation.

[darren r]

For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at....

Yes, I saw that. It seemed to be fairly even-handed, though obviously they couldn't go into too much detail about why the hoax believers were wrong. Unfortunately, the HB's claims sound superficially plausible to people who can't be bothered to look into them, while the truth requires a bit more explanation.

I was on tenterhooks waiting to see what Sibrel's 'cast-iron', 'rock-solid' piece of evidence for the hoax was. What a surprise when it turned out to be the 'ultra top secret, previously never before seen' footage of the inside of the Apollo 11 capsule with the Earth outside the window. Odd that Sibrel never mentioned his belief that it was a transparency (or whatever it was he'd previously said). Instead, he claimed that a voice saying 'Talk' just before Armstrong began speaking to Houston was actually an off-camera CIA handler or some such nonsense. You'd think, if that was the case, that the astronauts would have been wearing earpieces so that such extraneous chatter wouldn't have been picked up, or that it would have been done with hand signals or something. But then, logic and rationality aren't Sibrel's strongest points.

[bknight]

So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.

A Tarkus-like 'flounce', maybe?

For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at the tail end about Gubments having 'alien technology', which I thought was a bit out of place.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy/episodes/episode-9-433

There was footage of Sibrel following astronauts around with a bible, and oh, how I laughed when one of them gave Sibrel a kick up the a*se to get him on his way, and when Aldrin delivered the famous punch......

Both Sibrel and Allen were very, very careful to lace everything they said with "if this..." and "could have done that ..." with very few, if any, definites in the conversation.

Was there any non HB that refuted their claims or just the group showing their anomalies?

[darren r]

Was there any non HB that refuted their claims or just the group showing their anomalies?

These two chaps ; http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/jerrydegroot.html

                           http://www.chris-riley.net/#a-short-biography

Professor De Groot rather amusingly said that he had a tabloid magazine in his possession that claimed that Elvis shot Kennedy, and that this was more plausible than the possibility that Apollo was faked.

[ineluki]

So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.

I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...

[Ishkabibble]

I've seen him on a couple of other forums spouting the same drivel he used here.

space.com is one of them.

[Apollo 957]

I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...

Ah, of course - I'd forgotten he was under moderation! Doh.

[JayUtah]

I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...

We've seen a number of people equate moderation with banishment.  And it's not surprising that some would cry "censorship!" and stomp away in dismay at the least amount of control imposed upon them.  Baker strikes me as an example of the latter.  But on the other hand he made it clear that Apollo was not his primary target.  He said he wanted to prove Apollo was a hoax as a means of improving the credibility of other allegations of government malfeasance, namely 9/11.  Since he's clearly incompetent when it comes to space engineering, he's likely shopping around for low-hanging fruit.

[Zakalwe]

There's none so blind as those that will not see.