http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmNz2-IS7gY#t=160s

Heh heh heh.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmNz2-IS7gY#t=160s


humor is always a sure bet against nutjobs.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 12:40 AM, nemesis wrote:
> humor is always a sure bet against nutjobs.

But how do you tell the jokers from the ones who are serious?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmNz2-IS7gY#t=160s

There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
theory (eg. just the sheer *size* of the six lunar landing projects is
so enormous, with so many people involved from within and outside NASA
and the government, that it's quite a stretch of the imagination to think
that nobody has leaked out any evidence or claims during the last 40 years),
but I think these are the clearest and most convincing arguments:

1) If they never went to the Moon and at most only stayed at low Earth
orbit at all times, how did they manage to send radio signals always from
the correct direction?

Almost nobody understands the difficulty of this. I once asked this to
a conspiracy theorist (in real life), and he couldn't understand what the
problem is, even after I explained. He couldn't answer the question either.
For some reason most people think this is a completely trivial question,
even though it isn't.

You can't send the signals from a low orbit because the source of the
signal would be moving at about 5 km/s and hence would be sending signals
from the wrong location in the sky most of the time. Also the location would
be changing very rapidly (now it's directly above you, a minute later it has
moved over 300 kilometers to the side; that's like 45 degrees of change for
a typical low-orbiting satellite).

In fact, you can't send the signals from any orbit around the Earth because
you cannot possibly send them always from the correct direction all the time.

Trying to send signals from multiple satellites at the same time would mean
that many signals would be coming from wrong directions. Also, no matter
how many satellites you have, the signals would still be coming from the
wrong direction when measured from different parts of the Earth.

The only way to always send the signals from the proper direction is to
actually send a probe in the exact planned trajectory around the Earth and
from there to the Moon, then orbiting the Moon, and then back.

Well, you know what? They already had a probe like that: The lunar module.
And with people inside, so they could react to anything that was being said.

2) It's unquestionable that there's a corner-box reflector on the surface
of the Moon. How did they get it there without anybody noticing? Missions
are not exactly covert. It's not like you can just launch a rocket and
nobody will notice (especially the Soviets). Also, if you have followed
the Mars rover projects, you'll see that landing a delicate instrument is
far from trivial.

Well, you know what? They already had a perfect lander to place the
reflector on the Moon: The lunar lander. And since it was already orbiting
the Moon, what better way than to use it. (And while you are at it, why
not put people in the lander?)

3) Geologists from all around the world have been studying the lunar rocks
brought back by the lunar missions for the last 40 years. There's no question
that they are from the Moon. Nobody has given any demonstration of how you
could fake them here. (Sure, many conspiracy theorists claim that they can
be faked, but nobody has yet presented a viable method for this.)

Or perhaps all the geologists in the world are also in the conspiracy.

Of course there's an easier solution: Since we already have a lander on the
Moon, why not bring some rocks back with it?

4) Perhaps the most decisive argument of all:

The Japanese SELENE project took detailed height map data from the surface
of the moon in 2007. If you take this height map data and render the
landscape from the places where the photos have been taken, looking in the
same directions, the shape of the landscapes are identical.

There are hundreds and hundreds of photographs, taken from six different
locations, and from varying places within those locations. They all match.
Every hill, every valley... All match, and from all the places where the
photos were taken.

Exactly how was NASA able to fake the photos so perfectly? Did they send
six rovers to the surface of the Moon to take photos from different
locations? In the 1960's? And without telling anybody? And they all worked
perfectly, without failure? And nobody noticed? And they kept all this data
secret?

Or perhaps also the Japanese space program is also in the hoax?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
> theory

IMO there is only one:
F' off you idiot.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>> theory
>
> IMO there is only one:
> F' off you idiot.

Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>> theory
>>
>> IMO there is only one:
>> F' off you idiot.
>
> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>

Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 09:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>>> theory
>>>
>>> IMO there is only one:
>>> F' off you idiot.
>>
>> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>>
>
> Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place 
clearly /wants/ to believe it. quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id 
potius credit. If somebody /wants/ something to be true, it is pointless 
to try to prove that it is false.

(Alternatively, some probably don't /believe/ it to be true, but pretend 
they do just so they can argue about it on Internet forums... It is 
equally pointless to try to win that argument.)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2012 1:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 09:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>>>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>>>> theory
>>>>
>>>> IMO there is only one:
>>>> F' off you idiot.
>>>
>>> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>>>
>>
>> Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME
>
> DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
>
> Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place
> clearly /wants/ to believe it. quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
> potius credit. If somebody /wants/ something to be true, it is pointless
> to try to prove that it is false.
>
> (Alternatively, some probably don't /believe/ it to be true, but pretend
> they do just so they can argue about it on Internet forums... It is
> equally pointless to try to win that argument.)
>
Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their 
opinion, and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize 
that, "Yeah, I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why 
that is?" But, its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, 
and an internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often 
even persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, 
when one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really 
challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you 
can tell which is which some times.

And, no, this isn't just anecdotal. There are people that have admitted 
it was being so challenged that led to them to really looking at why 
people disagreed with them. Its often the first nail, or the last, in 
the coffin, of their "assumption" that, since everyone is being so nice 
every place else, some subject is an matter of opinion, not fact, and 
that their side of it might actually be right. As some have described 
it, "Not everyone can be reached the same way." Some, I would argue, 
have been so sheltered in their own, and semi-related, communities, that 
the mere fact that someone not only doesn't agree, but flat out denies 
the reality of their position, and doesn't take it seriously at all, is 
a complete shock to them.

This is hardly a surprise, when everyone from the news media, to most 
"discussion forums" try to be fair, and "balanced" to the point of never 
calling anything what it really is, and treating every assertion as 
something they either can't have an opinion on, as moderator, to 
actually serious enough to bother talking about.

Its like the moron recently, Akin, and his nonsense about rape. The 
utlra-liberal magazine Huffington Post slapped "sparks controversy" in 
the title of their article, at least in the Email blurb for it. As 
though, somehow, the fact that some high ranking theocrat said it made 
it "possibly true, therefor its worth reporting it as a possible 
argument, not as the pure third hand bullshit, that came out of yet one 
more 'family first' religious group, who are promoting an idea that has 
been both argued, and refuted, over and over again, since some moron 
first proposed it, two centuries ago."

No, have the guts to say what is the truth in such case, "You are 
talking bullshit, and an idiot for believing it." Give them links, 
evidence, facts, etc. to back it up, but don't pull the BS position of, 
"Lets sit and chat about it." Because, if you are dealing with someone 
that has any hope of being swayed by evidence, pretending that their own 
arguments are worth examining and you are merely sharing a different 
"opinion" of reality, will only leave them walking away with the false 
sense that either a) they won points, or b) you are the one with the 
inability to see reality. Any chance you had to present them with the 
uncompromising reality that you don't think their opinion is worth 
squat, and that their sources are either wrong, misinformed, delusional, 
or lying, just walked out the door (or went to find some other 
blog/discussion group, where they can be, again, treated like their 
opinion is worthy of standing toe to toe with reality).

And, it does work. But it doesn't work with everyone, which is why you 
also need to people willing to sit down and, (shudder!) treat some of 
them like they have something worth arguing against. It all depends on 
who you are dealing with.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2012 08:35 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Some, I would argue,
> have been so sheltered in their own, and semi-related, communities, that
> the mere fact that someone not only doesn't agree, but flat out denies
> the reality of their position, and doesn't take it seriously at all, is
> a complete shock to them.

I still remember reading "Darwin's Black Box" for the first time, and 
being all like "WTF? How can you print such /obviously/ false statements 
and claim it to be fact? OMG!"

If you reflect on this for a moment, you will realise that actually 
anyone can print anything they like. But /usually/ any book which 
purports to contain scientific fact actually /does/. It was rather 
shocking (to me) to find one containing such utter gibberish.

I don't mean the fact that the book questions evolution; there are 
several /valid/ objections that might be voiced. I mean the way the book 
holds up a few examples which fail to demonstrate that evolution doesn't 
work, and then says "now that we have PROVED that evolution is false, 
and therefore ID is clearly true" - wait, WTF? Are you mental? You 
haven't PROVED anything yet! And even if you had, the conclusion does 
not follow.

The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the 
scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily 
restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and 
deities. Um, yeah, that's /precisely/ what separates science (the thing 
that allows the book you wrote to be printed in the first place) from 
folklore and myth (which brought with them no process at all).

But I digress...

> No, have the guts to say what is the truth in such case, "You are
> talking bullshit, and an idiot for believing it." Give them links,
> evidence, facts, etc. to back it up, but don't pull the BS position of,
> "Lets sit and chat about it."

Because if you do that, you add legitimacy to their insane claims.

Post a reply to this message