Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil
> 
>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)

You win.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=nw20090903102100719C618601


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:57:43 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
>> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
>> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
>> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
>> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.
>
>	Satellites?

IIRC Goonhilly in Cornwell (UK) was used as a relay. I've got a vague memory of
an American military base somewhere in Turkey being used too.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
>> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)
> 
> You win.

Google too.
http://picturehost.net/b0b/OnionOnGoogleNewsPage.jpg

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> >I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
> >theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
> >make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

> I'm not sure it's really worth my time, there's not going
> to be any proof that misplacing the tapes is incompetence
> as NASA claims, vrs intentional as I suspect.

  So because there's no absolute proof either way, you choose to believe
the most implausible explanation rather than the simpler, plausible one?
And this even in the light of everything else (mentioned in this thread
and all those debunkin sites).

  Again, think about the alternatives:

1) Due to bureucracy, carelessnes or whatever, they lost some material.
It's not like this kind of thing has never happened to any big organization.

2) There was a conspiracy and some of the material was faked, and everyone
involved and everyone who ever suspected foul play has kept quiet for the
past 40 years.

  Which explanation is more plausible to you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
> years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
> would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
> people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
> fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
> instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
> quack.

  That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
but many are.)

  A common claim is that the Big Evil, ie. the government secretly controls
everything, performs assasinations of unwanted people, has supersecret elite
forces which perform all kinds of illegal secret activities (such as the
assasinations, as well as kidnapping people, etc), and that they will destroy
anybody who tries to expose the truth about the government secrets.

  The amusing (and at the same time sad) thing is that these people honestly
don't seem to see the contradiction here. *They* are supposedly exposing all
the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
government is assasinating anybody doing so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> >>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> >> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)
> > 
> > You win.

> Google too.
> http://picturehost.net/b0b/OnionOnGoogleNewsPage.jpg

  What I find amusing is that the satire article at Onion doesn't say that
Armstrong confessed to the hoax. It clearly says that Armstrong "had been
convinced by a conspiracy theorists that it was a hoax" (including his
historic first step on the Moon). Which of course makes absolutely no sense.
(How can he not know at the time he was just participating in a hoax, and
only be convinced later?) Yet some people just bought it without thinking
about it for a second.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:44:19 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Which possibility seems more plausible?
>> 
>> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more 
>> plausible than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
>> 
>
>http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

Not the only one :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Not the only one :)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm

I'm just giggling madly. How could you even transcribe that into your own 
publishing system without realizing it's a joke? Are they just 
cut-and-pasting content without even reading it to make up their "newspaper"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
> amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
> but many are.)

BTW, if you want amusing conspiracy theory, rent the movie "Conspiracy 
Theory" staring Mel Gibson. If you haven't seen it, you should. The acting 
is excellent if nothing else. Listen closely to things going on in the 
background too. :-)

> the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
> government is assasinating anybody doing so.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
"The fact that this man is alive is proof that Loose Change is bullshit." :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But.. The same people that "think" they managed to do this also thing
> that a Florida man who once worked as a janitor at a lab, by the name of
> Lazar, is actually a physicist who had every scrap of evidence,
> including his own SSN, school records, birth records, etc. **all**
> erased by the NSA and CIA, and replaced by ones showing he was a
> clueless, uneducated fool, to hide the fact that he worked on the secret
> projects to reverse engineer alien space craft. You know.. The stuff
> that we came up with, like gravity drives (oh, wait, no, we haven't
> managed that one) or micro chips, the later of which work so well, that
> there are dozens of research projects trying to replace them with light
> based chips, quantum computers, and even, in some obscure circles, new
> classes of analog systems... None of which work *anything* like a
> transistor, but I am sure the same people think where "reverse
> engineered" from the same glowy flying space ships, in a secret
> building, that Mr. Lazar worked with.

I always liked, as a kid, the explanation that something was too complex
for us mere humans to create that we had to borrow the technology from
aliens. It makes for interesting stories with really absurd devices.

But to look at the things we have made, and still be able to say "Humans
aren't capable of making that from scratch," seems to be either
intentionally insulting or very egotistical. The first because they know
better and just prefer to think aliens did it, the latter because they
can not understand it themselves so no one else would be able to either.

> These people make my head hurt...

Mine too. Now, if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray, I
could convince everyone that the moon landing was not faked.

Post a reply to this message