Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:04 pm  

And if you want a reason why NASA might be used as a "front" behind which a covert space program is operating (for many years out of Vandenberg AFB?) perhaps we should take a look at photographs returned by Lunar Orbiter V in 1965.



According to NASA - this "boulder" was dislodged by "moonquakes" which sent it tumbling down into one of many lunar canyons. The only problem is that it then started tumbling UPHILL.

I think it's important people look at this from the perspective of those charged with interpreting such photographs. Remember, NASA is a MILITARY outfit. The people at the top of the tree don't gaze down on these pictures like everyday space enthusiasts. They look at them much in the same fashion as those people who when browsing aerial reconnaissance photographs of Cuba in the mid-sixties suddenly caught site of some very suspicious long, rectangular boxes offloaded from Russian freighters.

To an everyday person a 70ft+ "rock" rolling uphill is a curiosity. To a military man it's an alarm bell which just won't stop blaring in the back of his skull.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:23 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:
Aww, feeling inadequate again, Mugs? there, there, don't take on so!

Stop flattering yourself.

Short answer: It depends.

So. Yes.

Longer answer:

1. I don't see the direct relevance.

You don't see the RELEVANCE of knowing how far away the light source is when it effectively settles the question of whether this photograph is bogus or not - which is the VERY THING we are debating?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:30 pm  

Moving on from the Apollo question - bearing in mind what has been said about the electro-gravitic drive which is alleged to have been installed in the Nazi "Glocke" and the TR-3B - can anyone else think of an experimental electro-magnetic device based upon CONTRA-ROTATING FIELDS which was also pushed by a former Nazi?

Clue - it's very BIG and twice as EXPENSIVE.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:52 pm  

On the subject of life on Mars I encourage everyone to watch this very short five-minute clip made by Ron Bennett in which, if NASA is to be believed, zombie beasties are roaming about the surface of Mars. It also discusses the two tests which were conducted by the Viking probes that - according to NASA's own criteria laid down BEFORE launch - positively confirmed the first extra-terrestrial life.

On the subject of life on Mars I encourage everyone to watch this very short five-minute clip made by Ron Bennett in which, if NASA is to be believed, zombie beasties are roaming about the surface of Mars. It also discusses the two tests which were conducted by the Viking probes that - according to NASA's own criteria laid down BEFORE launch - positively confirmed the first extra-terrestrial life.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:52 pm  

tigerman1231 wrote:

That is my point you say man went to the moon FACT? But were you there yourself and see it with your own two eyes to conclude that it is FACT to yourself?
You are saying it is FACT because you have been told it is FACT. Now that is a FACT

What's the point in showing reality deniers facts and evidence?

It doesn't matter how many facts and how much evidence I put here, moon truthers will always dismiss it regardless. So I wont waste my time. There's always some reason or other, often dipping into the ludicrous. Truthers seem to have a lax idea about burden of proof. It's not really up to me to try and convince you of something that clearly happened, was witnessed by an entire planet, monitored by every Nation and expert that could. If you make the claim then you have to show how it's correct. There isn't one bit of evidence from truthers that can't be shown to have an alternate explanation.

You can't really use that 'were you there? you can't prove it then' fallacy as it surely applies to yourself to. Making anything you conclude equally invalid. Better to just think of a better argument.

It's fact because it's been proven to be a fact. Not because I've been told. You choose not to accept reality on this subject.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:18 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

What's the point in showing reality deniers facts and evidence?

Again, that's a weak argument. Reality isn't majority rules. A person can deny reality for good reasons and bad reasons. Isaac Newton, Ignaz Semmelweiz, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo and a host of other luminous intellects too numerous to mention were, at some point, labelled "reality deniers".

They denied "reality" precisely because they weren't satisfied with "facts" deemed indisputable.

Throughout this debate we see those who aren't satisfied with the official explanation tarred as intransigent. This is a classic example of projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto others and damning them for it.

So far the Apollo adherents haven't budged so much as an inch. This is despite the fact that there are very good reasons to doubt at the VERY LEAST some of the evidence.

I can't speak for anyone else but when I've seen arguments supporting the fake-moon landing theory which I don't agree with I have said so (such as the oxygen-rebreather system or questions relating to shadow directions). How many examples of such have we seen from supporters?

And whenever the debate ventures into potentially hazardous territory which side uniformly switches from attacking the EVIDENCE to attacking the INDIVIDUAL?

I mean, that kind of stuff might put off other people but it certainly doesn't bother me.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:36 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Again, that's a weak argument. Reality isn't majority rules. A person can deny reality for good reasons and bad reasons. Isaac Newton, Ignaz Semmelweiz, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo and a host of other luminous intellects too numerous to mention were, at some point, labelled "reality deniers".

They denied "reality" precisely because they weren't satisfied with "facts" deemed indisputable.

Throughout this debate we see those who aren't satisfied with the official explanation tarred as intransigent. This is a classic example of projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto others and damning them for it.

So far the Apollo adherents haven't budged so much as an inch. This is despite the fact that there are very good reasons to doubt at the VERY LEAST some of the evidence.

And whenever the debate ventures into potentially hazardous territory which side uniformly switches from attacking the EVIDENCE to attacking the INDIVIDUAL?

I mean, that kind of stuff might put off other people but it certainly doesn't bother me.

The difference between the examples of Newton, Einstein, Copernicus etc and Conspiracy theorists today is that when they changed peoples perception of reality they could prove it with evidence and tangible results. It was tested and put under scrutiny and their ideas and breakthroughs changed the world. Plus, they didn't deny reality. They were attempting to further the knowledge of what was already known. Newton is a good example. Hailed as one of the greatest scientists ever, which he undoubtedly was, and his contribution to modern science is not in dispute. He also tried to do the same thing with Alchemy, with no success. The reason? It was obviously not real.

Conspiracy theorists think they're like scientific Newton, but they're actually Alchemy Newton.

You're right in so much as those who have doubts haven't budged their stance on these threads, but that says more about conspiracy theorists than the rest of us. I'm quite willing to change my mind with proper evidence. It doesn't matter what the subject. Moon truthers will never budge, and that's why there's no point in debating.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:38 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

The difference between the examples of Newton, Einstein, Copernicus etc and Conspiracy theorists today is that when they changed peoples perception of reality they could prove it with evidence and tangible results. It was tested and put under scrutiny and their ideas and breakthroughs changed the world. Plus, they didn't deny reality. They were attempting to further the knowledge of what was already known. Newton is a good example. Hailed as one of the greatest scientists ever, which he undoubtedly was, and his contribution to modern science is not in dispute. He also tried to do the same thing with Alchemy, with no success. The reason? It was obviously not real.

People like Newton were CURIOUS about the world they lived in BEFORE they were ever scientists. As for evidence and results - given that you aren't interested in hearing their side of the story you really have no idea whether they have provided either. And yes, Galileo denied "reality" as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. As did a host of other scientists who butted heads with organised religion.

Newton is a particularly good example of someone who at first denied reality and then once he rose to a position of power and influence attempted to IMPOSE IT upon others - going so far as to ruin the reputations of many of his peers. If Isaac Newton wasn't beyond CONSPIRING to undermine the scientific achievements of his colleagues why should we think something similar isn't possible today?

Very little is widely known about Newton's time spent dabbling in alchemy and it's difficult to comment. However, given some of the recent cryptic comments made about so-called "red mercury" - not to mention the ongoing rumpus about "Cold Fusion" I wouldn't be so quick to close the door. Like most people I figured the experiments carried out by Pons & Fleischmann were a royal bust. But a string of extremely suspicious deaths of scientists working independently yet within the same field (such as Eugene Mallove) lead me to suspect that there's something more to this than meets the eye. After all, if you are the chairman of a major energy infrastructure provider with operating costs running into the billions (say oil or nuclear) how enthusiastic are you likely to be about a bunch of scientists who claim to be able to deliver low-energy nuclear reactions in a beaker - for a few dollars?

Conspiracy theorists think they're like scientific Newton, but they're actually Alchemy Newton.

This is a one-size-fits-all (and consequently - UNSCIENTIFIC) definition you've basically pulled out of thin air. Given the mundane criteria which constitutes a "conspiracy" as defined by the dictionary I very much doubt you fail to qualify also.

You're right in so much as those who have doubts haven't budged their stance on these threads, but that says more about conspiracy theorists than the rest of us.

There you go again - setting up this "them" and "us" dichotomy which has about as much basis in fact as half the guff spouted in this thread.

I'm quite willing to change my mind with proper evidence. It doesn't matter what the subject. Moon truthers will never budge, and that's why there's no point in debating.

Go on then TELL US what criteria would make you first DOUBT the Apollo story and then DENY it? And don't say something daft like "NASA admits it was all a hoax" because I think you are smart enough to realise that if NASA really did fake those landings they aren't likely to own up to it.

Most "moon truthers" I know budged quite significantly from believing in the Apollo program lock, stock and barrel so that statement is ridiculous from the start. You think people give up their beliefs lightly? You think people WANT TO admit that things they derived an immense amount of pleasure and intellectual stimulation from for years - decades even are a fabrication? If so this is the most ridiculous thing you've added to this debate. Just look at the outrage two or three posters have managed to attract in this thread.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:47 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Again, that's a weak argument. Reality isn't majority rules. A person can deny reality for good reasons and bad reasons. Isaac Newton, Ignaz Semmelweiz, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo and a host of other luminous intellects too numerous to mention were, at some point, labelled "reality deniers".

They denied "reality" precisely because they weren't satisfied with "facts" deemed indisputable.

Throughout this debate we see those who aren't satisfied with the official explanation tarred as intransigent. This is a classic example of projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto others and damning them for it.

So far the Apollo adherents haven't budged so much as an inch. This is despite the fact that there are very good reasons to doubt at the VERY LEAST some of the evidence.

I can't speak for anyone else but when I've seen arguments supporting the fake-moon landing theory which I don't agree with I have said so (such as the oxygen-rebreather system or questions relating to shadow directions). How many examples of such have we seen from supporters?

And whenever the debate ventures into potentially hazardous territory which side uniformly switches from attacking the EVIDENCE to attacking the INDIVIDUAL?

I mean, that kind of stuff might put off other people but it certainly doesn't bother me.

Aren't you the one who called FA a pompous prat or something like that?
When he was irritating you with his Science vs your philosophical speculation?

I will tell you this, in my estimation FA is a credit to logical thought and evidence-based Science and you are a lightweight in comparison?
Nay ...a disgrace!
Go and bore your mates down the pub about how you are the smartest guy on the planet ... and so misunderstood.
Was that good enough?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:09 am  

If you wish to strap yourself into FA's understanding of light and sound that's your business. But for your own sake - carry a spare parachute for when his doesn't open.