Posted
by
michael
from the things-THEY-don't-want-you-to-know dept.
redbaron7 writes "The BBC is
reporting that NASA has cancelled plans for a book to challenge the Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory, due to criticism. No doubt the cancellation of this book will be listed as further "evidence" that the landings were fake."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Yeah, and for their next trick, NASA will spend 80 kajillion dollars on a book that proves the hoax book was not a hoax, but it'll be cancelled... etc.
By the way, I wonder how much money was wasted before the project was blown?
It is unfortunate, but true. NASA needs to have a good public image if it wants to get funded, because if people don't like it, they won't vote for politicians that fund it...
There are teachers teaching their 3rd-grade students that the moon landing never happened... It appears they shall continue. (although I suppose they wouldn't have given much credence to the NASA publication anyway)
These guys who believe we didn't go to the moon are everywhere. I had a 10th grade history teacher who was insistent that we didn't go to the moon. I spent half the semester avoiding discussing history before 1963 with him. After all it's only $15,000, why not? Perhaps NASA should spend the money producing a book on scientific method instead
What the heck is a dumb bunny like that doing teaching? Did he also deny the Holocost? If my kids got some cretin like that, you can be sure that everyone from the principal to the state certification board would hear about it.
NASA is darned if they do and darned if they dont where those conspiracies are concerned. If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise.
NASA is darned if they do and darned if they dont where those conspiracies are concerned. If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise.
You are exactly right. I worked at a NASA base 5 years ago, it was nothing spooky or mysterious. They have some cool technology, but that's all it is.
Yet it doesn't stop conversations like this, that I had with some strange fellow in a small town in southern California:
Me: Well, actually NASA is just like any other organization. You go to work, work on a project that is usually pretty cool and exciting, and go home to a normal house.. It's not like you work for NASA and suddenly they relocate you to some secret underground housing project. Him: NASA hides all of it's findings! You never know the result of their research because it would disrupt humanity! Me: What research? Most of NASA research is funded in part by public companies, and you can easily find out what they are doing. Most projects have their own website. Him: They hide a lot of stuff. Art Bell deserves to know the truth and tell the American people what's going on!
Art fucking Bell. That what these people listen to. At that point, I just walked off. They want there to be some secret meaning, because it gives their life more significant and importance in their mind. They're part of the elite conspiracy busting consortium without having to lift a finger just open their mouths.
As long as Art Bell is around to tell them the "secrets" NASA is holding out, NASA will have to deal with the nutjobs. It's unfortunate.
I listen to Art Bell, but that doesn't make me a dummy. I take what he and his guests say with a big grain of salt, and realize that much of it simply can not be trusted or proven.
I do find it a fascinating show, though, whether I believe any of it or not. There was a relaly good who on a week or two ago when they were interviewing Kevin Mitnick. You just have to have the ability to seperate the fact from the fiction.
Oh, yawn. If NASA had a history dating from its inception of faking missions, then you'd have some grounds for comparison. Slashdotters' distrust of Palladium is more akin to doubting the old Soviet space agency's rather vehement denials that personnel were killed every time there was a mysterious explosion at Baikonur.
Um, I don't think you read my post very carefully.
---
You: People who think Palladium is evil because it's from Microsoft are just like people who think NASA faked the Moon landings.
Me: No, people who think Palladium is evil because it's from Microsoft are just like people who think the Soviet space agency was lying when it denied that its personnel were getting killed.
You: That proves my point!
---
You may not understand the context here. NASA has a lot of flaws, but lying about its missions isn't one of them; every time there's a failure (whether or not loss of life is involved) it's dissected in gory detail, in public. OTOH, the Soviet space program was under no more obligation than the rest of the Soviet government to reveal its fuckups, and (as we now know) they did suffer a number of rather horrific accidents that make the Challenger disaster look like small potatoes. This was something that everyone kind of suspected all along, but we had to wait until the end of the Cold War for our suspicions to be confirmed. The Soviets didn't help their own case at all with pre-emptive press releases that said, in essence, "That big boom at Baikonur that your satellites picked up, that was just, um... a problem with a test of a new engine, that's right! No dead cosmonauts and ground crew here, nosirree. Nothing to see, move along, move along..."
So the point is (in case you still haven't gotten it) that Microsoft has a history of lying too. They lie about their intentions, they lie about standards compliance, they lie about openness. They try to control every new technology that comes along, and if they can't control it, they try to crush it. This behavior is a matter of public record. So when people who pay attention to this history express some suspicion of Palladium, we're being entirely reasonable -- just as those who expressed suspicion about the safety record of the Soviet space program were being entirely reasonable. Those who believe NASA faked the Moon landings, OTOH, have no reasonable grounds for their suspicions.
Do you get it now? Jesus, I can't believe I wasted that much time in explaining this to someone who probably isn't going to get it anyway...
If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise."
Dare I say that it reminds of... many Microsoft supporters who claim Palladium is a Good Thing (tm)?
Microsoft lovers *want* to believe that Palladium is a god send for computer security, despite the fact that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to protect against viruses and trojans and still maintain backward compatibility with unsigned software and/or viruses.
Yet, no matter how much I make this point, which the hopelessly optimistic never bother to refute, their only answer is "Microsoft is a great company they'd never try to hoodwink users into believing the benefit of Palladium was increased security."
If you want to know how people can be so delusional that they can believe the moon landing was a consipiracy, look no further than the parent post.
Yes, I read the link. The fact is Palladium (for all practical purposes) _is_ DRM. It provides the means _and_ they created it specifically for DRM. Brian admitted this. Others (when pressed) have admitted it. Palladium's primary goal is DRM and Microsoft has been trying to spin it otherwise.
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public (Microsoft has admitted this although grudgingly). And please don't repeat the soiled mantra of 'you can turn it off'. Well you can turn your computer off too, but then it isn't useful anymore now is it. If and when Palladium becomes successful, Microsoft can use it just like it has the IE browser to hinder competition and create another level of second class computer users. The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire... just like Microsofts related FUD about linux.
Don't you realize that the Earth is a giant chocolate chip cookie floating in an even bigger glass of milk? Don't go near the edge, you'll kill us all!
"Oh, those are just doctored images" That will be the excuse... then you'd have conspiracy theorists showing how the pixalation of the photo near the landing sites show that there was no activity at this region, etc etc..
Like someone said originally... those who don't want to believe it, will continue to not believe it no matter how much evidence you have. If you flew them into space and plopped them into a crater, they still wouldn't believe it!
...just use the freekin' Hubble to take pictures of the landing sites and shut these idiots up?
There has to be enough resolution
The reflected light from the moon is strong enough to fry Hubble's optics.
If the moon landings were a hoax, don't you think the Soviet Union would have exposed it for propaganda purposes (they were able to track the spacecraft, IIRC) ?
Which ground based telescopes could find and resolve the lunar lander, a rover, a flag, or a footprint? And what stops us from using a ground based telescope to find the LM,...?
Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that shows the Apollo lunar modules on the moon? With its 2.4 diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at the Moon's distance of about 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters across.
Besides, why would anyone who believed in that naive hoax suddenly believe a so-called Hubble picture?
Of what? They'd have to find the exact location that the little flag was planted (assuming it's still there, probably not a lot to disturb it). Or perhaps they could look for footsteps or an "impact zone".
Of course, even if they used a telescope, the "cynics" would say that it's not really a telescope by a video screen or something. There's not really any way to win. Even if we sent of the idiots into space himself/herself, some world probably just say there were put through a simulation reconstruction.
That being said, there are always cynics, some just insist on being more anal than others. Why not send them ALL on an all-expense-paid one-way trip to the moon...?
Cynic: This is BS, we're still on Earth, it's just a machine. I'm opening my mask now....
*whoooooosh* *splattt*
Unfortunately, even Hubble does not have the resolution. At that distance, it cannot make out features less than about 60 feet (20 m) across, and the moon-landing footprints are just too small. (To-do list for next time: Take along 100-meter-high NASA logo flag).
Of course, the astronauts left little mirrors, off which lots of people regularly bounce laser beams, which should satisfy anybody. Unless ooh.. all that laser data is faked too!;-)
It's a waste of Hubble time. There's real science to be done.
Second reason:
The sunlit moon is way too bright. You'd cook all the expensive and highly sensitive optics. If you examine a new moon, maybe you could get away with it, but such a moon is still illuminated by the full sunny side of the earth. I wouldn't want to try it. Also, pointing towards the dark face of the moon is also pointing the Hubble very close to where the sun would be in its sky...
Third reason:
The Hubble's resolution isn't good enough. Depending on the wavelength you work at, the moon's distance at the time, and the assumptions you choose to make in your calculation, the Hubble could resolve objects no smaller than twenty to eighty metres in size--much larger than any of the artifacts left at the moon landing sites. You might have better luck with the Keck telescopes in Hawaii, but they too are busy being used for real science. Any hoax believers aren't going to be convinced by a smudge, which is all you'd see even with the Kecks--if you could see anything at all.
Hubble's CCD's will NOT be fried by the intensity of light from the moon. This has got to be the most common misconception about Hubble. A 2 second search for "Hubble + Moon" [google.com] gives you THIS [stsci.edu] as the very first result!!!
I hope that NASA has realized that it really doesn't matter anymore. Even if it was a hoax, who cares. We have a space station orbiting the earth that I think everyone agrees is there, especially since you can see it with a telescope. Let's concentrate on the present and future and not whether something in the past that really doesn't matter now adays actually happened .
But do we really?!? Have you ever been to this so called "space station"? I though not. That object you see in your telescope is really just a big piece of aluminum foil. It's a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that Russia squandered all of its funds for the ISS on super computers that search the Net for p0rn.:-)
I was surprised when I read that NASA was planning this book to begin with. People who think the moon landings were a hoax are never going to be convinced otherwise by anything anyone says, NASA or otherwise.
If NASA really wants to do something about these wackos, they should sic Buzz Aldrin [csicop.org] on them.
The book was meant to be used as an oracle for school teachers and other people wishing to teach their non-luddite, but-still-easily-mislead friends about the truth behind the moon landings.
The luddite people who think the landings were a hoax have a lot of FUD which is easy to believe on the surface of it, but once you actually learn about the details, they fall apart. Placing all these details in one place is very beneficial.
Look at how far major religions got because a lot of people believed them for a long time. The Mormons were in the 19th century what scientologists are today. Bad memes spread easily among the uneducated.
In my opinion we ought to have the Luddites believing things like the moon landings are fake. It makes it easier to keep track of them. That way their more subtle goofy beliefs like "irradiating meat causes cancer" don't creep into society as easily. When those groups have these sorts of obviously goofy beliefs it shows them for what they are to society at large.
Sort of akin to wanting the far right or far left to hold onto their weird beliefs so that they don't contaminate more moderate groups.
BTW - you do realize that there are many very educated and thoughtful Mormons, right? I'm not sure the "Bad memes spread easily amoung the uneducated" comment ought to be tied to Mormons. I agree with the general thrust, but not the backhand. . .
There are well-educated and thoughtful members of any religion. That fact doesn't make those religions more credible; it only establishes that even well-educated and thoughtful people are not immune to the siren song of religious ideology.
I agree. However the original poster suggested that religion spreads because of the ignorant and stupid.
I don't want to turn this into a religious thread. I just think that the bias some have against religion in general is a bit tiring. It for one suggests that the reasons people are religious is irrational and that religion itself is irrational. This is simply an ignorant view of religion.
I'm not suggesting that the "most likely" rational choice is any particular religion. However the assumption that all religions (including Mormonism) is irrational is itself a rather strong siren song of ideology.
People who think the moon landings were a hoax are never going to be convinced otherwise by anything anyone says, NASA or otherwise.
Not entirely true.
I have a friend who is pretty intelligent, but has an unfortunate weakness in being gullible to certain "newsoid" broadcasts. Its very odd... the guy actually is quite smart, but after seeing the Fox News special claiming the moon landings were fake he was mostly convinced, and accussed me of being closed minded and dense when I laughed at him.
So I did a little googling (something he should have done before ever admitting to anyone other than his wife, who is similarly a little "too open minded" about fringe conspiracy theories, that he took such a thing seriously) and pointed him to an excellent site debunking the entire broadcast point by point, with clay models and lighting to demonstrate the optical features of each "faked" shot.
In other words, I pointed him to a web site that proved, picture by picture, that every piece of "evidence" presented by the media whores of Fox was in fact farcical, and that the reporter should have been emberrassed at his own lack of basic scientific understanding on each and every point.
My friend, somewhat abashed, was convinced, and was more than a little annoyed that a major television network would present such garbage as "news."
Frankly, so am I, but the point remains... there are a lot of reasonable people who have an unfortuante, ingrained trust of the media (many of the same people will decry the media, but believe the next newscast all the same), and these people can and often are conviced by reasonable, factually, easy-to-understand counterarguments.
Indeed, fighting bad speech with good speech is the best way to offset this sort of thing.
That, and openly jeering at the Fox Media Whores perpetrating this disgusting fraud on the people of America whenever they show their faces in public (a little social humiliation is just what those clowns need. No, let me rephrease: a great deal of social humiliation is just what those clowns need).
Seeing as how NASA runs the Hubble, I don't really see that being much in the way evidence for the naysayers. If there was a privately owned telescope somewhere on Earth that could make out the landing site, that'd be different.
What do you mean it's your favorite anti-hoax site so far? Do you know so many you actually have to rank them and pick favorites? Do you spend much of your time looking for new ones?
Don't pretend to be someone you're not. Nobody's impressed anyway (in this case, all it goes to show is that you have some weird priorities).
I really wish NASA would get back doing what they do best....it would be much cooler to watch man walk on Mars and then hear about how *that* was faked.
I believed in NASA, but as the years pass I'm becoming suspicious of the landing. I wonder why haven't we been back. Why hasn't any other country been to the moon if possible. Wouldn't the moon be useful as a research lab at a minimum.
We just don't want anyone going up there and bothering the monolith. It tells us it doesn't like it when the ape-people keep touching it. Monoliths are very fickle things...
We stopped going because we couldn't afford it any more. No one else has gone because they have better uses for their money!
The race to the moon cost so much mioney that it would hev been utterly impossible to pull off at aniy other time in US history. Only the mind-boggling economic excesses of the 1950's and 1960's gave us enough money to toss down that bottomless money pit.
We didn't go to the moon for research purposes. We went for purely political reasons: to beat those (in the lexicon of the day) "Godless bastards in Moscow" to the moon! The science was needed to get the job done.
There is no point in putting a reaserch station on the moon. The cost of maintaining a manned presence on the moon is (pardon the pun) astronimical. Ever breath of air, every drop of water, every bite of food must be sent there at tremedous cost.
The only useful scientific endeavor to put ion the moon would be telscopes on the far side, insulated from the light and radation of the Earth and it's noisy inhabitants.
As much as I like the idea of manned space exploration, and as much as I'd love to go to the moon, I just don't see it being in any way econimically feasable any time soon.
Take all the people who don't believe, stick them on a spaceship and let them see the landing sites for themselves. We can tell them to "press the big red button" when they are satisfied and are ready to come back home;)
Not only was the moon landing fake, but also the Space Race and Cold War. The US and Russia have been faking all space exploration. Sputnik I was the only real space launch. It was during this mission that Russia learned that the world sat upon the back of a turtle. The turtle in turn sat upon another. In fact Turtle(n) sat upon Turtle(n+1) into infinity. They shared this info with the US. It was then decided that the general public could not handle this information, and that is why the "Space Race" started to really heat up after Sputnik I. It was all a hoax so that no one would suspect the truth.
Send rocket to the moon with critics and bring them back. A month after they've returned and saying how great it really was and that they were wrong to question the original moon shot, leak a fake video of them on a moon set. Now the conspiracy nuts can't trust each other....
This is an obvious piece of counter-hoax propaganda posturing. It should be clear to any disinterested observer that this is a desperate move on the part of the N(A)SA organization, and act which at once legitimizes the hoax/fraud theory and brushes it aside. However, it will have neither effect: it will at once pique the interest of those who have previously dismissed the fraud theory out of hand, and simultaneously fail to convince those who have previously given the hoaxes credit that the so-called 'artifacts' cited by the fraud theorists should not be given the weight that they have been in some parts.
What sort of conclusions can be drawn from this one-step-forward-one-step-back policy? Perhaps none. Perhaps that the posturing around the so-called "moon" expedition is exactly that. Posturing, and posturing that is still pertinent today.
But the real question that should be on your minds is, when will China reach the moon, and what will they find there? Will they find the footprints and detritus of the N(A)SA agents who purportedly reached the moon? Will they find the sovereign flag of the United States, claiming the entire Moon for our grand country? Or will they find a pristine moon, quite free of all evidence of a 1969 landing, and perhaps even quite different in character than the one shown in the 1969 films.
BUT
Will the communist Chinese even be allowed to reach the moon? Or will their vessel be struck down by an 'antiballistic' missile or laser, with the only information released to the public a Chinese government release describing a non-specific "failure."
I think that the meaning is clear. There is something that the N(A)SA doesn't want us to know about the 1969 moon landing films, OR the hoax surrounding them. Or there is something that they DO want us to know, and this book would not have contained it. The only thing that is clear, is that this book will not be published officially; and that will either lead us in the direction of the truth or away from it, and this may or may not be the intention of the evil N(A)SA and the so-called United States "Government."
It can be no surprise that people think the Moon landings were fake - after all, look at how many people take astrology seriously.
Newspapers spend millions advertising their wares on the basis of which professional con artist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hastrologer they employ. Just think about that for a minute - more is being spent on promoting scandalous anti-science than many aspects of science that could really improve our lives. But then look at missile defence and you can see it is not just Rupert Murdoch who is to blame for that one.
I never had any reason to doubt this event growing up. Then I heard about the conspiracy angle, checked out all the material (movies, books, forums), and I am now in the 'undecided' category. For me, the most convincing "evidence" supportng the conspiracy theory is the radiation belt, and NASA's inability (even at present IIRC) to send any living thing through it without receiving a lethal dose. Most of the other facts are hit or miss, and pretty subjective.
To think that the government doesn't hide anything is lunacy. To think that the government doesn't lie is naive. What needs to be provided here is indisputable proof of the event. This was a scientific event and therefore must be (re)proven scientifically. Even when the private sector comes forward with photographic evidence of abandoned Apollo equipment, I still would not be 100% convinced. To be honest, I don't know what it would take to prove beyond a doubt that Niel Armstrong set foot on the moon. It might be easier to provide _real_ evidence to the contrary.
Am I alone in this vein of thought?
- OrbNobz If a sig falls in a forum and noone is around to read it, was it really written?
I think you are pretty much alone in these thoughts in this forum.
You ideas that proof of such an event is hard to come by definatively, is valid. But similar statements about Australia can be made. I have never been there - hvae you?
Something that might be persuasive without actually being proof of the landing, is the lack of proof of the fakery. It would be very easy to provide evidence of the faking if it in fact did occur in my opinion. How easy would it be to cover up the filming of a major motion picture? Not very.
There has not been one credible person to come forward explaining how the "fake" was carried out in any real detail. Where were the movie sets? Who made them? Who paid for them? Who did the filming? Where are the out-takes?
Nixon and his buddies couldn't keep the wraps on a couple of hours of audio tapes, yet NASA and how many other people managed to destroy all of the physical evidence of their fakery and managed to convince everyone who worked on it to keep their mouth's shut, for 30+ years?
Going to the moon was difficult, but no where near as hard as faking the whole thing successfully would have been. The moon visit just required some good engineering. The hiding of such a big fake I feel is virtually impossible.
If "they" are this good at coverups, and "they" control NASA, the USSR, and everyone else... then why the heck would anyone ever speak up against "them"? If I thought "they" were this powerful, I would be scared shitless. You would have to be *crazy* to try to fight against "them"...
For me, the most convincing "evidence" supportng the conspiracy theory is the radiation belt, and NASA's inability (even at present IIRC) to send any living thing through it without receiving a lethal dose
The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation.
To convince the conspiracy theorists, NASA only needs to give them a better theory.
The moon landing was real alright - they released faked photos and such because they actually established a nuclear missile base on the moon, in complete violation of international treaties.
But a few very perceptive people noticed some small discrepancies, so it was necessary to "guide" them into believing the moon shots were faked, so they would be dismissed as kooks.
Work this right, and we might get financing for some more trips to the moon, well equipped for an extended search for the hidden automated missile bases.
The moon landing is a great example of separate intersecting lines of evidence converging on the conclusion that we did indeed land on the moon. For the conspiracy theorists, no amount of evidence is going to convince them so we might as well be speaking another language. Still, I think interesting things can come out of the discussion. My favorite piece of evidence of the landing is the storage bag from the Apollo 15 mission. NASA astronauts threw it out, it ended up at auction, someone bought it and realized that it was saturated with moon dust (you can tell the dust is from the moon by comparing the ratios of certain isotopes). The isotopic ratios of certain elements in moon rocks is different than that of any rocks found on earth. The collector has since been selling sections at an enormous profit.
see this link [collectspace.com]
Now, I suppose they could have gone to the moon with an unmanned mission which landed, blasted off, returned with a bunch of rocks and dust which was subsequently distributed. At that point, why not just go there. Occam's Razor would say manned missions is a much more likely solution given the other evidence.
The International Society to Disprove the Moon Landings (ISDML) had recently determined that Christopher Columbus had never set foot in North America, and that any evidence presented by the Imperial Spanish Court of Ferdinand and Isabela was indeed a hoax.
There is no proof that Columbus, nor any of the men in his three vessels, had ever crossed the Atlantic and landed in North America. The ISDML believe that any evidence to the contrary was generated as part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the Spanish Government in an attempt to convince the world that they were the winners in the "Sea Race" versus their rival nation, Portugal. All evidence was fabricated at an elaboratly constructed studio in Seville, in a blatent attempt to deceive the public.
In fact, the ISDML has failed to find evidence that Europeans have ever reached North America, nor that this 'fabeled' contined does indeed exists.
The apollo mission was followed by amateur astronomers (and professional ones outside of the USA). It just so happens that all of them were in on it too?
Conspiracy theorists often get nicked by the sharpened edges Occam's Razor.
I operated an instrument aboard the SOHO spacecraft for four years; during that time I fielded innumerable emails and discussions from crackpots who were convinced, variously, that comets were crashing into the Earth, that aliens were here, that SOHO was in fact a spy satellite, and that the sun was going to blow up.
The common thread was that NASA must be hiding something. In particular, writing from a nascom.nasa.gov email address, I was an "insider" and therefore not to be trusted -- if you're involved with NASA, these people will latch on to anything you say that seems to support them, but dismiss even the clearest, most well-documented rebuttals. After all, you're working for the government, of course you'd say that.:-P
Give me a break! Those people at Goddard were working their arses off just to keep the damned spacecraft working and the data flowing -- there was no time (or inclination or, most probably ability) to keep a giant dark secret about aliens or whatever.
Ditto the lunar journeys. Feh.
The Russians are, collectively, the best reason not to believe the Apollo revisionists -- if we really didn't send men on those spacecraft, the Russians had the technology to find out. They would've screamed bloody murder. Besides, why bother to fake Apollo 13?
Of course the moon landing is a hoax! Everybody knows that there really is no moon and it's just a big projection up in the sky created by our government to test effects of radiation on US citizens! Why do you think people go crazy on nights with a full moon?
"The further evidence comments are just getting funnier and funnier:)"
Heh like the professional photographer that had no idea that light bounces? I about died laughing when somebody provided a visual rebuttal using legos.
The lego links to which you refer are sprinkled throughout this page [badastronomy.com]. Some of the claims of the non-believers really are quite funny and far fetched.
By the way, for all those who were dissappointed that NASA is no longer making the book, the guy that runs the site link above appears to have his own book for sale. It's probably a rough equivalent.
And if you actually read the article, you would have realized that Jim Oberg is still going to write the book, but with alternative funding.
For a second there, I thought you had written "alternative ending" instead of "funding". Since NASA's not going to cough up the money, the new version will end up with the spaceship returning to Earth with Apes at the damn controls.
And if you actually read the article, you would have realized that Jim Oberg is still going to write the book, but with alternative funding.
*Whew* I read that wrong and had to do a double take. I thought you said "with an alternative ending"... and I'm thinking "What, the moon was made of cheese after all?"
>Ex-NASA staff have publically admitted it.. you forgot to add: " but for some curious reason, anyone who points that out fails to provide a mainstream reference to said admissions."
> The Moon Landing was a camera trick.
A very elborate one in which they had to take a camera alllllll the way the moon! Sure seems like alotta work to fake a moon landing.
Elvis, I told you to keep quiet. Now get back to Graceland before somebody notices that you're not dead. If you're good, we'll borrow one of the black helicopters and slip down to Dallas and catch some rays on the grassy knoll right after I get back from my next trip to Area 51. Who knows, we might even see the woman in the red dress again.
...there is absolutely NO chance of winning with the conspiracy crowd. They have everything to lose by conceding. (And I was pretending to be one of them. I'm not! Really!)
However, a book aimed at the general public might make sense -- there is a lot of bad science out there in general acceptance. A book targeting these problems, and not framed as a response to the conspiracy theorists, might make a lot of sense.
For all the fun folks make of conspiracy theorists, the term itself is a condemnation of skeptics run amok. I like the undercurrent of skepticism, of criticizing the accepted wisdom, but not with the disregard of the facts and, worse, dishonest hidden agenda of getting rich or getting on TV.
Which is the more complex and unlikely scenario: the Apollo program occured as "conventional wisdom" says it does, or the whole thing was faked with thousands upon thousnads of people involved, fake unmanned space craft travelling from Earth orbit to lunar orbit replying to radio chatter from Earth, fake moon rocks good enough to fool the best geologists around the world etc. etc.
Given the technology of the day it would be HARDER to fake the landings then to do it for real, not to mention the huge numbers of people involved staying quiet.
True skeptics don't automaticaly beleive everything they are told, but they are also able to logicaly analyze the evidence before them. No skeptic would beleive that the moon landings were faked.
Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!)
Two things wrong with this statement. Let me quickly clear things up:
(1) Really anyone is able to *ask* as Joshua did. It's just that not everyone gets a response like he did. Maybe this is just semantics, though.
(2) Joshua didn't ask to stop the rotation of the earth, but rather the movement of the sun across the sky. This proves that the earth *is* the center of the universe! But that's a whole other discussion.
That's pretty funny, since I though proving the absolute non-existence of something was a logical impossibility.
Thats only true if your evidence was gained through observation of the natural world. If however, you evidence was gained through a logical examination of the concepts involved, for example finding a logical contradiction in the definition of God, then its certainly possible. One such piece of evidence that applies to most of the popular Christian definitions of God is the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are logically inconsistent with each other.
Proof... (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, this is funny. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this mean (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does this mean (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Does this also mean... (Score:3, Funny)
HAHAHAHA What a hoser!
nuclear weapon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The moon is a hoax (Score:3, Funny)
NASA? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NASA? (Score:2)
What a shame... (Score:2, Interesting)
That's too bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligatory Star Wars quote (Score:2, Funny)
=-Jippy
Perception is reality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perception is reality. (Score:5, Interesting)
You are exactly right. I worked at a NASA base 5 years ago, it was nothing spooky or mysterious. They have some cool technology, but that's all it is.
Yet it doesn't stop conversations like this, that I had with some strange fellow in a small town in southern California:
Art fucking Bell. That what these people listen to. At that point, I just walked off. They want there to be some secret meaning, because it gives their life more significant and importance in their mind. They're part of the elite conspiracy busting consortium without having to lift a finger just open their mouths.
As long as Art Bell is around to tell them the "secrets" NASA is holding out, NASA will have to deal with the nutjobs. It's unfortunate.
Re:Perception is reality. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do find it a fascinating show, though, whether I believe any of it or not. There was a relaly good who on a week or two ago when they were interviewing Kevin Mitnick. You just have to have the ability to seperate the fact from the fiction.
Re:Perception is reality. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perception is reality. (Score:5, Insightful)
---
You: People who think Palladium is evil because it's from Microsoft are just like people who think NASA faked the Moon landings.
Me: No, people who think Palladium is evil because it's from Microsoft are just like people who think the Soviet space agency was lying when it denied that its personnel were getting killed.
You: That proves my point!
---
You may not understand the context here. NASA has a lot of flaws, but lying about its missions isn't one of them; every time there's a failure (whether or not loss of life is involved) it's dissected in gory detail, in public. OTOH, the Soviet space program was under no more obligation than the rest of the Soviet government to reveal its fuckups, and (as we now know) they did suffer a number of rather horrific accidents that make the Challenger disaster look like small potatoes. This was something that everyone kind of suspected all along, but we had to wait until the end of the Cold War for our suspicions to be confirmed. The Soviets didn't help their own case at all with pre-emptive press releases that said, in essence, "That big boom at Baikonur that your satellites picked up, that was just, um
So the point is (in case you still haven't gotten it) that Microsoft has a history of lying too. They lie about their intentions, they lie about standards compliance, they lie about openness. They try to control every new technology that comes along, and if they can't control it, they try to crush it. This behavior is a matter of public record. So when people who pay attention to this history express some suspicion of Palladium, we're being entirely reasonable -- just as those who expressed suspicion about the safety record of the Soviet space program were being entirely reasonable. Those who believe NASA faked the Moon landings, OTOH, have no reasonable grounds for their suspicions.
Do you get it now? Jesus, I can't believe I wasted that much time in explaining this to someone who probably isn't going to get it anyway
Re:Perception is reality. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dare I say that it reminds of
Microsoft lovers *want* to believe that Palladium is a god send for computer security, despite the fact that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to protect against viruses and trojans and still maintain backward compatibility with unsigned software and/or viruses.
Yet, no matter how much I make this point, which the hopelessly optimistic never bother to refute, their only answer is "Microsoft is a great company they'd never try to hoodwink users into believing the benefit of Palladium was increased security."
If you want to know how people can be so delusional that they can believe the moon landing was a consipiracy, look no further than the parent post.
Re:Perception is reality. (Score:3, Insightful)
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public (Microsoft has admitted this although grudgingly). And please don't repeat the soiled mantra of 'you can turn it off'. Well you can turn your computer off too, but then it isn't useful anymore now is it. If and when Palladium becomes successful, Microsoft can use it just like it has the IE browser to hinder competition and create another level of second class computer users. The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire
Why don't they... (Score:2, Interesting)
There has to be enough resolution.
.
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you realize that the Earth is a giant chocolate chip cookie floating in an even bigger glass of milk? Don't go near the edge, you'll kill us all!
Re:Why don't they... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like someone said originally... those who don't want to believe it, will continue to not believe it no matter how much evidence you have. If you flew them into space and plopped them into a crater, they still wouldn't believe it!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:5, Interesting)
The reflected light from the moon is strong enough to fry Hubble's optics.
If the moon landings were a hoax, don't you think the Soviet Union would have exposed it for propaganda purposes (they were able to track the spacecraft, IIRC) ?
Re:Why don't they... (Score:3, Funny)
Which ground based telescopes could find and resolve the lunar lander, a rover, a flag, or a footprint? And what stops us from using a ground based telescope to find the LM,
Re:Why don't they... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's score a Informative...
Why don't they just use the freekin' Hubble to take pictures of the landing sites and shut these idiots up?
As explained on this Astronomy Picture of the Day [nasa.gov]:
Besides, why would anyone who believed in that naive hoax suddenly believe a so-called Hubble picture?
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
Of course, even if they used a telescope, the "cynics" would say that it's not really a telescope by a video screen or something. There's not really any way to win. Even if we sent of the idiots into space himself/herself, some world probably just say there were put through a simulation reconstruction.
That being said, there are always cynics, some just insist on being more anal than others. Why not send them ALL on an all-expense-paid one-way trip to the moon...?
Cynic : This is BS, we're still on Earth, it's just a machine. I'm opening my mask now....
*whoooooosh* *splattt*
Re:Why don't they... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the astronauts left little mirrors, off which lots of people regularly bounce laser beams, which should satisfy anybody. Unless ooh.. all that laser data is faked too!
Re:Why don't they... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part2/secti on-22.html [faqs.org] s .html [demon.co.uk]
http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/676.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/telescope
Just to name a few.
Re:Why don't they... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a waste of Hubble time. There's real science to be done.
Second reason:
The sunlit moon is way too bright. You'd cook all the expensive and highly sensitive optics. If you examine a new moon, maybe you could get away with it, but such a moon is still illuminated by the full sunny side of the earth. I wouldn't want to try it. Also, pointing towards the dark face of the moon is also pointing the Hubble very close to where the sun would be in its sky...
Third reason:
The Hubble's resolution isn't good enough. Depending on the wavelength you work at, the moon's distance at the time, and the assumptions you choose to make in your calculation, the Hubble could resolve objects no smaller than twenty to eighty metres in size--much larger than any of the artifacts left at the moon landing sites. You might have better luck with the Keck telescopes in Hawaii, but they too are busy being used for real science. Any hoax believers aren't going to be convinced by a smudge, which is all you'd see even with the Kecks--if you could see anything at all.
Re:Why don't they... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:3, Informative)
1) They're too small. Even at the Hubble's resolution, all you'd see would be a blob.
2) The moon is too bright. It would overload the optics.
Re:Why don't they... (Score:3, Funny)
ironic or something-well not ironic but something (Score:2)
What next? (Score:2)
Gawd, it must be a slooowwww news day.
Evidence (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the fact that they were going to create the book is further evidence. The more elaborate the story is, the more likely it is to be a lie.
Cancelled funding - the book's still being written (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cancelled funding - the book's still being writ (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it really matter anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter anymore? (Score:5, Funny)
But do we really?!? Have you ever been to this so called "space station"? I though not. That object you see in your telescope is really just a big piece of aluminum foil. It's a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that Russia squandered all of its funds for the ISS on super computers that search the Net for p0rn. :-)
Super Russian pr0n computer? (Score:4, Funny)
Really? Well I guess what's done is done. So, umm how do I get access to this super pr0n computer, just out of curiousity of course?
What am I to do now? (Score:2)
The book wouldn't have worked anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
If NASA really wants to do something about these wackos, they should sic Buzz Aldrin [csicop.org] on them.
They acknowledged this. (Score:3, Insightful)
The luddite people who think the landings were a hoax have a lot of FUD which is easy to believe on the surface of it, but once you actually learn about the details, they fall apart. Placing all these details in one place is very beneficial.
Look at how far major religions got because a lot of people believed them for a long time. The Mormons were in the 19th century what scientologists are today. Bad memes spread easily among the uneducated.
Re:They acknowledged this. (Score:4, Funny)
Sort of akin to wanting the far right or far left to hold onto their weird beliefs so that they don't contaminate more moderate groups.
Re:They acknowledged this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They acknowledged this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They acknowledged this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to turn this into a religious thread. I just think that the bias some have against religion in general is a bit tiring. It for one suggests that the reasons people are religious is irrational and that religion itself is irrational. This is simply an ignorant view of religion.
I'm not suggesting that the "most likely" rational choice is any particular religion. However the assumption that all religions (including Mormonism) is irrational is itself a rather strong siren song of ideology.
Not Entirely True (Score:5, Interesting)
Not entirely true.
I have a friend who is pretty intelligent, but has an unfortunate weakness in being gullible to certain "newsoid" broadcasts. Its very odd
So I did a little googling (something he should have done before ever admitting to anyone other than his wife, who is similarly a little "too open minded" about fringe conspiracy theories, that he took such a thing seriously) and pointed him to an excellent site debunking the entire broadcast point by point, with clay models and lighting to demonstrate the optical features of each "faked" shot.
In other words, I pointed him to a web site that proved, picture by picture, that every piece of "evidence" presented by the media whores of Fox was in fact farcical, and that the reporter should have been emberrassed at his own lack of basic scientific understanding on each and every point.
My friend, somewhat abashed, was convinced, and was more than a little annoyed that a major television network would present such garbage as "news."
Frankly, so am I, but the point remains
Indeed, fighting bad speech with good speech is the best way to offset this sort of thing.
That, and openly jeering at the Fox Media Whores perpetrating this disgusting fraud on the people of America whenever they show their faces in public (a little social humiliation is just what those clowns need. No, let me rephrease: a great deal of social humiliation is just what those clowns need).
Save their money (Score:2)
Maybe it's me, but I think that's the more important cause, since it's better to educate the truly ignorant first.
Stupid FAQ... (Score:2)
Re:Stupid FAQ... (Score:2)
What a shame (Score:2)
I have no doubt that the moon has been landed on, but it would have been such a fascinating read.
It sounds empty, but knowledge really is the antidote to ignorance. A book like that could only have added more interesting knowledge to the world.
Proof of the Moon hoax (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Proof of the Moon hoax (Score:5, Informative)
false authority syndrome (completely off topic) (Score:5, Funny)
Don't pretend to be someone you're not. Nobody's impressed anyway (in this case, all it goes to show is that you have some weird priorities).
Wasted effort (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wasted effort (Score:3, Funny)
Been there, done that [imdb.com].
as time goes by (Score:2)
Re:as time goes by (Score:3, Funny)
Re:as time goes by (Score:5, Funny)
We just don't want anyone going up there and bothering the monolith. It tells us it doesn't like it when the ape-people keep touching it. Monoliths are very fickle things...
Where's the money? (Score:3, Insightful)
The race to the moon cost so much mioney that it would hev been utterly impossible to pull off at aniy other time in US history. Only the mind-boggling economic excesses of the 1950's and 1960's gave us enough money to toss down that bottomless money pit.
We didn't go to the moon for research purposes. We went for purely political reasons: to beat those (in the lexicon of the day) "Godless bastards in Moscow" to the moon! The science was needed to get the job done.
There is no point in putting a reaserch station on the moon. The cost of maintaining a manned presence on the moon is (pardon the pun) astronimical. Ever breath of air, every drop of water, every bite of food must be sent there at tremedous cost.
The only useful scientific endeavor to put ion the moon would be telscopes on the far side, insulated from the light and radation of the Earth and it's noisy inhabitants.
As much as I like the idea of manned space exploration, and as much as I'd love to go to the moon, I just don't see it being in any way econimically feasable any time soon.
Should take inspiration from Hitchhikers Guide (Score:5, Funny)
The truth is obvious. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The truth is obvious. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The truth is obvious. (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder how many people hold similar beliefs with regard to their operating systems.
OMG... tux is only the FIRST penguin?
Ever notice that "conspiracy theorists"... (Score:5, Funny)
The Evil Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Now the conspiracy nuts can't trust each other....
Concluded: (Score:4, Funny)
What sort of conclusions can be drawn from this one-step-forward-one-step-back policy? Perhaps none. Perhaps that the posturing around the so-called "moon" expedition is exactly that. Posturing, and posturing that is still pertinent today.
But the real question that should be on your minds is, when will China reach the moon, and what will they find there? Will they find the footprints and detritus of the N(A)SA agents who purportedly reached the moon? Will they find the sovereign flag of the United States, claiming the entire Moon for our grand country? Or will they find a pristine moon, quite free of all evidence of a 1969 landing, and perhaps even quite different in character than the one shown in the 1969 films.
BUT
Will the communist Chinese even be allowed to reach the moon? Or will their vessel be struck down by an 'antiballistic' missile or laser, with the only information released to the public a Chinese government release describing a non-specific "failure."
I think that the meaning is clear. There is something that the N(A)SA doesn't want us to know about the 1969 moon landing films, OR the hoax surrounding them. Or there is something that they DO want us to know, and this book would not have contained it. The only thing that is clear, is that this book will not be published officially; and that will either lead us in the direction of the truth or away from it, and this may or may not be the intention of the evil N(A)SA and the so-called United States "Government."
Astrology (Score:4, Insightful)
Newspapers spend millions advertising their wares on the basis of which professional con artist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hastrologer they employ. Just think about that for a minute - more is being spent on promoting scandalous anti-science than many aspects of science that could really improve our lives. But then look at missile defence and you can see it is not just Rupert Murdoch who is to blame for that one.
Easy enough to disprove, (Score:3, Funny)
From someone who used to think it was real... (Score:3, Interesting)
To think that the government doesn't hide anything is lunacy. To think that the government doesn't lie is naive. What needs to be provided here is indisputable proof of the event. This was a scientific event and therefore must be (re)proven scientifically. Even when the private sector comes forward with photographic evidence of abandoned Apollo equipment, I still would not be 100% convinced. To be honest, I don't know what it would take to prove beyond a doubt that Niel Armstrong set foot on the moon. It might be easier to provide _real_ evidence to the contrary.
Am I alone in this vein of thought?
- OrbNobz
If a sig falls in a forum and noone is around to read it, was it really written?
Re:From someone who used to think it was real... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:From someone who used to think it was real... (Score:3, Interesting)
You ideas that proof of such an event is hard to come by definatively, is valid. But similar statements about Australia can be made. I have never been there - hvae you?
Something that might be persuasive without actually being proof of the landing, is the lack of proof of the fakery. It would be very easy to provide evidence of the faking if it in fact did occur in my opinion. How easy would it be to cover up the filming of a major motion picture? Not very.
There has not been one credible person to come forward explaining how the "fake" was carried out in any real detail. Where were the movie sets? Who made them? Who paid for them? Who did the filming? Where are the out-takes?
Nixon and his buddies couldn't keep the wraps on a couple of hours of audio tapes, yet NASA and how many other people managed to destroy all of the physical evidence of their fakery and managed to convince everyone who worked on it to keep their mouth's shut, for 30+ years?
Going to the moon was difficult, but no where near as hard as faking the whole thing successfully would have been. The moon visit just required some good engineering. The hiding of such a big fake I feel is virtually impossible.
If "they" are this good at coverups, and "they" control NASA, the USSR, and everyone else... then why the heck would anyone ever speak up against "them"? If I thought "they" were this powerful, I would be scared shitless. You would have to be *crazy* to try to fight against "them"...
Re:From someone who used to think it was real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Copied from the Bad Astronomy [badastronomy.com] site:
Fight Fire with Fire (Score:5, Funny)
The moon landing was real alright - they released faked photos and such because they actually established a nuclear missile base on the moon, in complete violation of international treaties.
But a few very perceptive people noticed some small discrepancies, so it was necessary to "guide" them into believing the moon shots were faked, so they would be dismissed as kooks.
Work this right, and we might get financing for some more trips to the moon, well equipped for an extended search for the hidden automated missile bases.
Favorite piece of evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Columbus next (Score:5, Funny)
The International Society to Disprove the Moon Landings (ISDML) had recently determined that Christopher Columbus had never set foot in North America, and that any evidence presented by the Imperial Spanish Court of Ferdinand and Isabela was indeed a hoax.
There is no proof that Columbus, nor any of the men in his three vessels, had ever crossed the Atlantic and landed in North America. The ISDML believe that any evidence to the contrary was generated as part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the Spanish Government in an attempt to convince the world that they were the winners in the "Sea Race" versus their rival nation, Portugal. All evidence was fabricated at an elaboratly constructed studio in Seville, in a blatent attempt to deceive the public.
In fact, the ISDML has failed to find evidence that Europeans have ever reached North America, nor that this 'fabeled' contined does indeed exists.
More information will be fortcomming.
The best challenge to conspiracy theorists (Score:5, Interesting)
Conspiracy theorists often get nicked by the sharpened edges Occam's Razor.
--Joey
Another hoax (Score:3, Funny)
The reason it was cancelled... (Score:3, Interesting)
The label of conspiracy is too important for the powers-that-be to allow this to happen.
Just look at what The New York Times is doing with the term [nytimes.com] today.
I worked at NASA for four years... you can't win (Score:5, Interesting)
I operated an instrument aboard the SOHO spacecraft for four years; during that time I fielded innumerable emails and discussions from crackpots who were convinced, variously, that comets were crashing into the Earth, that aliens were here, that SOHO was in fact a spy satellite, and that the sun was going to blow up.
The common thread was that NASA must be hiding something. In particular, writing from a nascom.nasa.gov email address, I was an "insider" and therefore not to be trusted -- if you're involved with NASA, these people will latch on to anything you say that seems to support them, but dismiss even the clearest, most well-documented rebuttals. After all, you're working for the government, of course you'd say that. :-P
Give me a break! Those people at Goddard were working their arses off just to keep the damned spacecraft working and the data flowing -- there was no time (or inclination or, most probably ability) to keep a giant dark secret about aliens or whatever.
Ditto the lunar journeys. Feh.
The Russians are, collectively, the best reason not to believe the Apollo revisionists -- if we really didn't send men on those spacecraft, the Russians had the technology to find out. They would've screamed bloody murder. Besides, why bother to fake Apollo 13?
See that (Score:4, Funny)
The Leaked NASA Video! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:LOL! (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh like the professional photographer that had no idea that light bounces? I about died laughing when somebody provided a visual rebuttal using legos.
Re:LOL! (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, for all those who were dissappointed that NASA is no longer making the book, the guy that runs the site link above appears to have his own book for sale. It's probably a rough equivalent.
Not really canceled (Score:5, Informative)
F-bacher
Re:Not really canceled (Score:4, Funny)
For a second there, I thought you had written "alternative ending" instead of "funding". Since NASA's not going to cough up the money, the new version will end up with the spaceship returning to Earth with Apes at the damn controls.
Re:Not really canceled (Score:3, Funny)
*Whew* I read that wrong and had to do a double take. I thought you said "with an alternative ending"... and I'm thinking "What, the moon was made of cheese after all?"
Re:Yes, the missions were fakes (Score:2)
> The Moon Landing was a camera trick.
A very elborate one in which they had to take a camera alllllll the way the moon! Sure seems like alotta work to fake a moon landing.
Re:I KNEW IT!!! (Score:5, Funny)
My point being... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, a book aimed at the general public might make sense -- there is a lot of bad science out there in general acceptance. A book targeting these problems, and not framed as a response to the conspiracy theorists, might make a lot of sense.
For all the fun folks make of conspiracy theorists, the term itself is a condemnation of skeptics run amok. I like the undercurrent of skepticism, of criticizing the accepted wisdom, but not with the disregard of the facts and, worse, dishonest hidden agenda of getting rich or getting on TV.
Re:My point being... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is the more complex and unlikely scenario: the Apollo program occured as "conventional wisdom" says it does, or the whole thing was faked with thousands upon thousnads of people involved, fake unmanned space craft travelling from Earth orbit to lunar orbit replying to radio chatter from Earth, fake moon rocks good enough to fool the best geologists around the world etc. etc.
Given the technology of the day it would be HARDER to fake the landings then to do it for real, not to mention the huge numbers of people involved staying quiet.
True skeptics don't automaticaly beleive everything they are told, but they are also able to logicaly analyze the evidence before them. No skeptic would beleive that the moon landings were faked.
Re:The moon is a ridiculous liberal myth (Score:3, Funny)
Two things wrong with this statement. Let me quickly clear things up:
(1) Really anyone is able to *ask* as Joshua did. It's just that not everyone gets a response like he did. Maybe this is just semantics, though.
(2) Joshua didn't ask to stop the rotation of the earth, but rather the movement of the sun across the sky. This proves that the earth *is* the center of the universe! But that's a whole other discussion.
Re:I KNEW IT!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Agreed. It's no laughing matter. The CIA has known all along that the moon is made of cheese.
Re:Well, it's too bad. I was hoping to read the bo (Score:2, Redundant)
It's amazing what a little article-reading can get ya.
Re:I know a little about conspiracy theories (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats only true if your evidence was gained through observation of the natural world. If however, you evidence was gained through a logical examination of the concepts involved, for example finding a logical contradiction in the definition of God, then its certainly possible. One such piece of evidence that applies to most of the popular Christian definitions of God is the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are logically inconsistent with each other.