Of course.
Just remember that FatFreddy is about as ignorant as anybody could be. He knows nothing, understands nothing YET believes everything these idiots turn out. Sad.
...DID we go to the moon?
- Thread starter GeoffP
- Start date
- Status
Of course.
Just remember that FatFreddy is about as ignorant as anybody could be. He knows nothing, understands nothing YET believes everything these idiots turn out. Sad.
Look at this.
Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
"Physics of the Moon Flag"
Watch as the swinging gets narrow before it stops.
It looks a little faster than the Apollo flag which could be explained by the slow-motion at which the Apollo footage is shown (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
(2:37 time mark)
The Apollo flag is moving much faster than the speed at which the video shows it should be moving at the 18:50 time mark.
Let's hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.
Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
"Physics of the Moon Flag"
Watch as the swinging gets narrow before it stops.
It looks a little faster than the Apollo flag which could be explained by the slow-motion at which the Apollo footage is shown (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
(2:37 time mark)
The Apollo flag is moving much faster than the speed at which the video shows it should be moving at the 18:50 time mark.
Let's hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
Freddy...guess what? You're a fool.
They got the spring constant wrong.
Why do incredible conspiracy theories start?...and what sort of people are taken in by them?
We’ve written before about the historical and social aspects of conspiracy theories, but wanted to learn more about the psychology of people who believe, for instance, that the Boston Marathon bombing was a government “false flag” operation. Psychological forces like motivated reasoning have long been associated with conspiracy thinking, but scientists are learning more every year. For instance, a British study published last year found that people who believe one conspiracy theory are prone to believe many, even ones that are completely contradictory.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, published a paper late last month in the journal Psychological Science that has received widespread praise for looking at the thinking behind conspiracy theories about science and climate change. We asked him to explain the psychology of conspiracy theories. This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
There are number of factors, but probably one of the most important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it’s much easier to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it’s not just randomness.
What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
Basically what’s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it’s psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you’re probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature of reasoning.
Another common trait is the need to constantly expand the conspiracy as new evidence comes to light. For instance, with the so-called Climategate scandal, there were something like nine different investigations, all of which have exonerated the scientists involved. But the response from the people who held this notion was to say that all of those investigations were a whitewash. So it started with the scientists being corrupt and now not only is it them, but it’s also all the major scientific organizations of the world that investigated them and the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., etc., etc. And that’s typical — instead of accepting the evidence, you actually turn it around and say that it’s actually evidence to support the conspiracy because it just means it’s even broader than it was originally thought to be.
Are there certain types of people who are more prone to believing in conspiracy theories than others? Does it match any kind of political lines?
I don’t think there is a systematic association between political views and the propensity to believe in conspiracy theories. There are some studies that suggest people on the political left are inclined to it, and there are some that suggest people on the right are. But it’s always a weak association. There are some theories that appeal to only one side, however. For example, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job was fairly common among Democrats in the early part of the 2000s, and very few Republicans believed it at the time. But conversely, the idea that the U.N. is trying to create a world government is predominantly held by people on the right, but not at all by people on the political left. So it really doesn’t depend on politics.
Everyone is prone to some degree of bias and motivated reasoning — where do you draw the line, if there is one?
The crucial difference between having a preconceived notion — we all do that, of course — and conspiratorial thinking is when you get into that self-sealing reasoning and ignore every piece of evidence that is pointing the other way, when you’re starting to broaden the circle of conspirators, and when your skepticism gets to be nihilistic — when you believe absolutely nothing that the government or the media is saying — that’s when you’ve crossed the line.
I hear a lot of stories from people who email or from friends who have a brother, or cousin, or friend who they say is normal and smart, but then they’re horrified to find conspiratorial stuff on their Facebook page or whatnot. One was even a medical student at a very prestigious school. How do otherwise smart and reasonable people end up believing this stuff?
Well, there is no relationship to intelligence, in my experience. Many of these people are actually quite smart, though not all, so it’s not that. It’s the need to explain and control, as I said, but it can be other things also: A general sense of disgruntlement, feeling excluded from society. Feeling discriminated against. Even insecurity in one’s job.
And it’s often with good reason. For instance, the conspiracy theory that AIDS was created by the U.S. government is held disproportionately by African-Americans. In a sense, there is good reason to have that suspicion, since it wasn’t that long ago that, in the 1950s or even later, that the U.S. government was sterilizing African-Americans and doing all sorts of horrible things to them without their consent. So some conspiracy theories have a grain of historical truth in them — that’s not to say the theories are true, but the conditions that give rise to them are.
How should we think of conspiracy theorists? They’re often dismissed as fringey nuts, but an awful lot of Americans believe in one conspiracy or another.
First of all, any extraordinary event will be followed by conspiracy theorizing. I can tell you that right now. Whatever happens tomorrow, there will be a conspiracy theory about it. Number two, I think it’s important that we understand that it satisfies a need. It isn’t that these people are necessarily disordered or marginal members of society. After all, not that long ago, half of Republican primary voters thought President Obama was born outside the U.S. So, if half of one segment of a population believes in a conspiracy theory then you can’t talk about marginal elements and you have to accept that it’s a real part of society and serves a need. And I think we have to understand that need and find ways for society to find other ways in which that need can be satisfied.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/why_people_believe_in_conspiracy_theories/
We’ve written before about the historical and social aspects of conspiracy theories, but wanted to learn more about the psychology of people who believe, for instance, that the Boston Marathon bombing was a government “false flag” operation. Psychological forces like motivated reasoning have long been associated with conspiracy thinking, but scientists are learning more every year. For instance, a British study published last year found that people who believe one conspiracy theory are prone to believe many, even ones that are completely contradictory.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, published a paper late last month in the journal Psychological Science that has received widespread praise for looking at the thinking behind conspiracy theories about science and climate change. We asked him to explain the psychology of conspiracy theories. This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
There are number of factors, but probably one of the most important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it’s much easier to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it’s not just randomness.
What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
Basically what’s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it’s psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you’re probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature of reasoning.
Another common trait is the need to constantly expand the conspiracy as new evidence comes to light. For instance, with the so-called Climategate scandal, there were something like nine different investigations, all of which have exonerated the scientists involved. But the response from the people who held this notion was to say that all of those investigations were a whitewash. So it started with the scientists being corrupt and now not only is it them, but it’s also all the major scientific organizations of the world that investigated them and the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., etc., etc. And that’s typical — instead of accepting the evidence, you actually turn it around and say that it’s actually evidence to support the conspiracy because it just means it’s even broader than it was originally thought to be.
Are there certain types of people who are more prone to believing in conspiracy theories than others? Does it match any kind of political lines?
I don’t think there is a systematic association between political views and the propensity to believe in conspiracy theories. There are some studies that suggest people on the political left are inclined to it, and there are some that suggest people on the right are. But it’s always a weak association. There are some theories that appeal to only one side, however. For example, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job was fairly common among Democrats in the early part of the 2000s, and very few Republicans believed it at the time. But conversely, the idea that the U.N. is trying to create a world government is predominantly held by people on the right, but not at all by people on the political left. So it really doesn’t depend on politics.
Everyone is prone to some degree of bias and motivated reasoning — where do you draw the line, if there is one?
The crucial difference between having a preconceived notion — we all do that, of course — and conspiratorial thinking is when you get into that self-sealing reasoning and ignore every piece of evidence that is pointing the other way, when you’re starting to broaden the circle of conspirators, and when your skepticism gets to be nihilistic — when you believe absolutely nothing that the government or the media is saying — that’s when you’ve crossed the line.
I hear a lot of stories from people who email or from friends who have a brother, or cousin, or friend who they say is normal and smart, but then they’re horrified to find conspiratorial stuff on their Facebook page or whatnot. One was even a medical student at a very prestigious school. How do otherwise smart and reasonable people end up believing this stuff?
Well, there is no relationship to intelligence, in my experience. Many of these people are actually quite smart, though not all, so it’s not that. It’s the need to explain and control, as I said, but it can be other things also: A general sense of disgruntlement, feeling excluded from society. Feeling discriminated against. Even insecurity in one’s job.
And it’s often with good reason. For instance, the conspiracy theory that AIDS was created by the U.S. government is held disproportionately by African-Americans. In a sense, there is good reason to have that suspicion, since it wasn’t that long ago that, in the 1950s or even later, that the U.S. government was sterilizing African-Americans and doing all sorts of horrible things to them without their consent. So some conspiracy theories have a grain of historical truth in them — that’s not to say the theories are true, but the conditions that give rise to them are.
How should we think of conspiracy theorists? They’re often dismissed as fringey nuts, but an awful lot of Americans believe in one conspiracy or another.
First of all, any extraordinary event will be followed by conspiracy theorizing. I can tell you that right now. Whatever happens tomorrow, there will be a conspiracy theory about it. Number two, I think it’s important that we understand that it satisfies a need. It isn’t that these people are necessarily disordered or marginal members of society. After all, not that long ago, half of Republican primary voters thought President Obama was born outside the U.S. So, if half of one segment of a population believes in a conspiracy theory then you can’t talk about marginal elements and you have to accept that it’s a real part of society and serves a need. And I think we have to understand that need and find ways for society to find other ways in which that need can be satisfied.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/why_people_believe_in_conspiracy_theories/
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings:
is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about Moon landings that does not come from either NASA, the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence serves as independent confirmation of NASA's account of the Moon landings.
SELENE photographs[edit]
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.
The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program.
Chandrayaan-1[edit]
As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.
Chang'e 2[edit]
China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[4]
Apollo missions tracked by independent parties[edit]
Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. On later missions, NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories.[5]
Observers of all missions[edit]
The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."[6] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered," describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.[7]
The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back
Bochum Observatory tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory
Existence and age of Moon rocks[edit]
A total of 382 kilograms (842 lb) of Moon rocks and dust were collected during the Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.[27] Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been used in hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica.[28] The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old,[27] making them 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks, which are from the Hadean eon and dated 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme.[29] A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was accurately dated to be 4.417 billion years old, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 million years. The test was done by a group of researchers headed by Alexander Nemchin at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia.
Retroreflectors
The detection on Earth of reflections from laser ranging retro-reflectors (LRRRs, or mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) on Lunar Laser Ranging experiments left on the Moon is evidence of landings.[31][32][33][34]
AS14-67-9386: Retroflector left on the Moon by Apollo 14
Quoting from James Hansen's biography of Neil Armstrong, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong:
"For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is
New lunar missions[edit]
Apollo 11 landing site photographed by LRO
Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.
Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.[41][42][43] Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.[44]
After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution.[45][46]
Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon.[47]
Observers of all missions[edit]
The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-Earth and lunar mission phases. Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, adjacent to the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, near Canberra, Australia.
Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens. NASA also contracted the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to supplement the three deep space sites, most famously during the Apollo 11 EVA as documented by radio astronomer John Sarkissian[49] and portrayed (humorously and not quite accurately) in the movie The Dish. The Parkes Observatory is not NASA-owned; it is, and always has been, owned and operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a research agency of the Australian government. It would have been relatively easy for NASA to avoid using the Parkes Observatory to receive the Apollo 11 EVA television signals by scheduling the EVA at an earlier time when the Goldstone station could provide complete coverage.
Apollo 12[edit]
Main article: Apollo 12
Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum
Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969.[52] These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about Moon landings that does not come from either NASA, the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence serves as independent confirmation of NASA's account of the Moon landings.
SELENE photographs[edit]
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.
The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command/Service Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo program.
Chandrayaan-1[edit]
As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.
Chang'e 2[edit]
China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[4]
Apollo missions tracked by independent parties[edit]
Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. On later missions, NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories.[5]
Observers of all missions[edit]
The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."[6] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered," describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.[7]
The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back
Bochum Observatory tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory
Existence and age of Moon rocks[edit]
A total of 382 kilograms (842 lb) of Moon rocks and dust were collected during the Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.[27] Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been used in hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica.[28] The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old,[27] making them 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks, which are from the Hadean eon and dated 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme.[29] A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was accurately dated to be 4.417 billion years old, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 million years. The test was done by a group of researchers headed by Alexander Nemchin at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia.
Retroreflectors
The detection on Earth of reflections from laser ranging retro-reflectors (LRRRs, or mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) on Lunar Laser Ranging experiments left on the Moon is evidence of landings.[31][32][33][34]
AS14-67-9386: Retroflector left on the Moon by Apollo 14
Quoting from James Hansen's biography of Neil Armstrong, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong:
"For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is
New lunar missions[edit]
Apollo 11 landing site photographed by LRO
Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.
Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.[41][42][43] Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.[44]
After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution.[45][46]
Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon.[47]
Observers of all missions[edit]
The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-Earth and lunar mission phases. Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, adjacent to the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, near Canberra, Australia.
Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens. NASA also contracted the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to supplement the three deep space sites, most famously during the Apollo 11 EVA as documented by radio astronomer John Sarkissian[49] and portrayed (humorously and not quite accurately) in the movie The Dish. The Parkes Observatory is not NASA-owned; it is, and always has been, owned and operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a research agency of the Australian government. It would have been relatively easy for NASA to avoid using the Parkes Observatory to receive the Apollo 11 EVA television signals by scheduling the EVA at an earlier time when the Goldstone station could provide complete coverage.
Apollo 12[edit]
Main article: Apollo 12
Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum
Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969.[52] These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Finally, of all the nutty conspiracy theories that abound, this has to be the nuttiest.
I think it has developed and got to the stage where "would be's if they could be's", have seen something like the fluttering of a flag, which their inept mind, and basic desire to usurp any and all forms of supposed government/NASA control, have lead them to conclude "CONSPIRACY"!!!
That and the movie "Capricorn 1" and other TV shows like The X Files and Millennium, has seen their Imaginations go into overdrive.
It's obvious at this stage, it has now reached a point of no return for the instigators of such inane rubbish.
They have painted themselves into a corner so to speak, and will never have the intestinal fortitude to admit they are in error, probably though just going silent on the issue as time progresses and their obvious lies and deceptions become so blatant and obvious, as to be self evident and consequently self incriminating.
I think it has developed and got to the stage where "would be's if they could be's", have seen something like the fluttering of a flag, which their inept mind, and basic desire to usurp any and all forms of supposed government/NASA control, have lead them to conclude "CONSPIRACY"!!!
That and the movie "Capricorn 1" and other TV shows like The X Files and Millennium, has seen their Imaginations go into overdrive.
It's obvious at this stage, it has now reached a point of no return for the instigators of such inane rubbish.
They have painted themselves into a corner so to speak, and will never have the intestinal fortitude to admit they are in error, probably though just going silent on the issue as time progresses and their obvious lies and deceptions become so blatant and obvious, as to be self evident and consequently self incriminating.
Still there was something rather pleasing that has come out of all of this nutty stuff.
And I fully support all actions taken by the person in question.....Great stuff!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU
Or to view the full video of the incredible harassment that resulted in one of the best right crosses one could wish to see...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
And I fully support all actions taken by the person in question.....Great stuff!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU
Or to view the full video of the incredible harassment that resulted in one of the best right crosses one could wish to see...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
This is also Interesting.....
A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MALL
by PHIL PLAIT, Aug 05 2009:
I wasn’t going to write about this, since it’s really just schadenfreude, but so many people have sent it to me via email I figure it’s touching on some level of skeptical consciousness.
Moon hoax conspiracy promulgator, astronaut stalker, and Buzz Aldrin punching bag Bart Sibrel was recently arrested for vandalism. Apparently, someone took too long to get out of a parking space he wanted. He parked nearby, got out of his car, and then repeatedly jumped up and down on the offending car, doing over $1400 worth of damage.
Now, there is certainly a vast array of snark just quivering to be let loose here. Sibrel is largely responsible for the dumbosity of the Moon hoax still being around, and has used arguably slimy tactics to keep it so. He has lied about me, and still says things that are provably wrong even when I have told him to his face (well, over the radio) that they are factually wrong. Yet he keeps on saying them.
And, of course, there is the potentially huge ad hominem about a conspiracy theorist who goes ballistic over such a minor issue as a parking space. It’s certainly easy to assume he’s a nutsoid goofball who’s just a NASA photo away from losing it completely. But that should be avoided: I know I myself have daydreamed of what I would do to people who take too long to pull out of a parking space — generally at some point large electric shocks applied to delicate body parts are involved.
But the difference, of course, is in idly fantasizing about something versus actually doing it. The real irony here is that Sibrel’s Apollo claims are fantasy, and aimed against people who actually did do something.
So I won’t go out of my way to engage in beating this particular zombie horse. Instead I’ll let you idly daydream about it. Try not to write anything slanderous in the comments, but the best "parking space travel" joke will get the kudos of the Skepticblog community.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/05/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-mall/
A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MALL
by PHIL PLAIT, Aug 05 2009:
I wasn’t going to write about this, since it’s really just schadenfreude, but so many people have sent it to me via email I figure it’s touching on some level of skeptical consciousness.
Moon hoax conspiracy promulgator, astronaut stalker, and Buzz Aldrin punching bag Bart Sibrel was recently arrested for vandalism. Apparently, someone took too long to get out of a parking space he wanted. He parked nearby, got out of his car, and then repeatedly jumped up and down on the offending car, doing over $1400 worth of damage.
Now, there is certainly a vast array of snark just quivering to be let loose here. Sibrel is largely responsible for the dumbosity of the Moon hoax still being around, and has used arguably slimy tactics to keep it so. He has lied about me, and still says things that are provably wrong even when I have told him to his face (well, over the radio) that they are factually wrong. Yet he keeps on saying them.
And, of course, there is the potentially huge ad hominem about a conspiracy theorist who goes ballistic over such a minor issue as a parking space. It’s certainly easy to assume he’s a nutsoid goofball who’s just a NASA photo away from losing it completely. But that should be avoided: I know I myself have daydreamed of what I would do to people who take too long to pull out of a parking space — generally at some point large electric shocks applied to delicate body parts are involved.
But the difference, of course, is in idly fantasizing about something versus actually doing it. The real irony here is that Sibrel’s Apollo claims are fantasy, and aimed against people who actually did do something.
So I won’t go out of my way to engage in beating this particular zombie horse. Instead I’ll let you idly daydream about it. Try not to write anything slanderous in the comments, but the best "parking space travel" joke will get the kudos of the Skepticblog community.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/05/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-mall/
Start watching this at the 3:14:35 time mark.
What Happened on the Moon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4
If the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology to send unmanned remote-control craft to the moon. Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.
Photographs are fakable so photographs of the sites are not proof of anything because they might have been faked.
Allegations that the missions were tracked doesn't make the mountain of hoax proof go away (see post #40). Just because we read they were tracked doesn't mean they were tracked.
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------
Q: Weren’t there independent parties tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back?
A: No. There are some known Ham radio operators who attest to having picked up signals from Apollo (Paul Wilson, Richard Knadle, Larry Baysinger, Sven Grahn), but none of them can attest to having tracked these probes all the way to the moon and back. Grahn for example only testifies to having picked up signals from Apollo 17 when it was in earth orbit, when it was on the moon and in lunar orbit. He openly admits to not tracking it the whole way there and back. Baysinger only received communications from Apollo 11 during the alleged moonwalk, again not the way to the moon and back. Wilson & Knadle received signals from a diversity of Apollo missions2, but again only when the crafts were in lunar orbit – an exception being Apollo 15 in which they received a handful of signals on the alleged flight home. The two were quoted to saying: “The moon is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations in Spain, Australia and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!”
Recently, Jarrah met with CSIRO professor Ray Morris, who as a kid received signals from Apollo 13 – but only during the time they were said to be in earth orbit.
In the nineties, David Percy contacted Jodrell Bank Observatory technician Robert Pitchard. He stated that they too only tracked Apollo when it was close to the moon, not the trip there and back: “The Moon probes were observed with a 50ft radio telescope which at the frequency used (2300MHz) had a beam width of 5/8ths degrees
In round terms this allowed us to pick up signals from up signals from up to about 1,000 miles above the moon’s surface, although small corrections had to be made to pointing as the probes orbited the Moon.
Voice signals (of good quality) were received from both the orbiting spacecraft and the Lunar Lander but television signals were only picked up from the spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. As we were not actively involved in the tracking of these spacecraft, we did not track them after they had left the Moon. And with regard to Apollo 10, I have no details of any observations, after all this time – the reason escapes me.”
And on the Russian side, for the most part the Soviets had relied heavily on Jodrell Bank just to track their own moon-bound spacecrafts because they lacked the capability to do it themselves (this was discussed in the BBC series, The Planets). Although later in the early 60s they were able to build deep space network tracking facilities with a 100million kilometre range, none of these radio telescopes were tuneable to the 2.3GHz (2300MHz) signals used by Apollo. Only at the last minute in November 1968 did they manage to equip their TNA-400 * facility in Crimea with suitable receiving equipment.
And even then, because NASA did not supply them with the ballistics data, the Soviets were limited to listening to it during the time Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 were supposedly in lunar orbit.
* In Russian. Can be read using google translate.
Only the NASA Manned Space Flight Network can attest to having tracked these vehicles all the way to the moon and back. This Network comprised of Goldstone Tracking Station in California, the Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex, and various facilities in Australia; most notably Parkes Observatory, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla. In the case of Parkes, it was (and still is) owned by the Australian government but was under control of and under contract to NASA during the time of the Apollo missions. It was NASA’s very own Robert Taylor who controlled the release of any data from Parkes during the Apollo 11 mission and his team were responsible for the reception, recording and transfer of audio, video and telemetry at Parkes. And on the subsequent flights technicians and engineers from NASA’s Tidbinbilla complex were heavily involved at Parkes. It’s essentially a fox guarding the hen house scenario.
--------------------------------------
You people have condescending attitudes but what you're actually presenting is pretty weak.
Go into some detail. Tell us what it is and what it should be and why.
So he confirms that astronauts were on the Moon - and others have confirmed that they monitored them in Earth orbit, on the way to the moon and in Lunar orbit.
Have you, yourself, ever watched a 747 fly all the way from New York to Japan?
I have no idea. I could guess, but I'd probably be just as wrong as the people in the video are.
We read that the rocks are real but that doesn't make the mountain of hoax proof go away (see post #40). There are plausible explanations that would explain the rocks.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------
Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?
A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites are the same as NASA’s samples. Yet when the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.
Likewise, although most “lunar meteorites” can be closely matched with Eucrites, there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being “distinct from” or “unlike any basalt from Apollo or Luna” ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.
Further evidence that the samples are faked can be found even without comparing them to the real stuff. Contrary to what NASA and propagandists claim, the rocks contain water within the same ranges as their terrestrial cousins [Fig-11, 12]. * Any water deposited in the equatorial region of moon by comets or solar wind, or any water not vaporised by the alleged giant impact, should have been vaporised in the vacuum of space and >100C daylight temperatures. They also contain water or air induced minerals and secondary oxides that would only have been present if the samples were exposed to an atmosphere [Fig-13]. These include ferric iron oxides [Fig-14]. Sample 66095 is only one notorious example of such oxidation. The majority of Apollo 16 rocks also contain abundant rust. Other samples show ferric iron to total iron ratios that are comparable to terrestrial rocks that underwent two days of heat treatment in evacuated quartz tubes [Fig-15]. Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it – attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination!
* The range for water in terrestrial basalts is between 150-10,000ppm (see 13 & 15), Fig-11 & Fig-12 together clearly illustrate water contents for lunar rocks within those ranges. Alberto Saal recently confirmed the presence of around 46ppm of water in lunar glass spherules, and estimated that they contain contents within the terrestrial rane of 240-750ppm.
Mighta schmighta. Prove they were lying.
Since you've spammed that on half a dozen forums maybe people assumed the butt kicking you were getting at Cosmoquest would do the trick.
There's no atmosphere to slow it and the pivot point isn't on the vertical but the diagonal - huge difference to his inept calculations. Really, really crap video and a useless grasp of physics.
What's your point here? I can't see how you've made any point at all.
Here's the thread from CosmoQuest.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?148701-Latest-Apollo-Hoax-Proof
People can decide for themselves whether those pro-Apollo people's analyses debunk the video. They have condescending attitudes but they're saying some pretty lame things.
- Status