Wagging the Moondoggie

I am always suspicious when people double-down on stuff with insults and ad homs and no argument:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/623134591818289152

And then here is Buzz "I-argue-with-my-fists" Aldrin backing up Cox:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/623298809431355393

No addressing arguments. Just insults.

Like I said, I don't know if we went to the moon or not. I am skeptical but not ready say that we didn't go to the moon. But this is what passes for intelligent debate? By people who should do just that? I mean, this isn't reddit.... Oh wait, it's Twitter. Nevermind. Debate over!

Maybe we should just look at the tapes. Oh. They were erased! Debate over again!
 
I read this thread all the way through a couple of weeks ago - I'm not sure why, because it is so long and there are so many other things that I haven't looked into that I think are more important to look into than whether the moon landing was hoaxed (e.g. the 9/11 thread), but I did it anyway. Afterwards, I figured that I wouldn't play necromancy with the thread by responding, and besides, who really cares what I think? I'm not an expert, and casual opinions are a dime a dozen. But since Stinky Fruit Jackson has revived the thread, and since the whole point of the thread was to solicit opinions... here goes.

Full disclosure: I started with the view that the moon landing was very unlikely to be a hoax, and that the evidence would have to be very compelling to change my mind.

I switched it up between reading the articles at the original link (I didn't make it all the way through them), and checking into the other links and resources posted in this thread. Unfortunately, at the time I got around to reading this thread, some of the linked YouTube videos had already been taken down, and I also chose not to fully watch through every one of the linked videos and resources - basically, I figured that with so many people in the thread, the best evidence would come to the surface in the thread itself, so I didn't need to cast my net too widely.

My initial reaction to the articles linked to in the OP was that there were some interesting points made that at least on the surface deserved a closer look or think about. But then I read several pages of the thread about it on the forum that Paul linked to, and I very quickly recognised that the author had made so many elementary errors, and so very clearly lacked the requisite knowledge and background to make judgements about space and space flight, that his judgement - at least on this issue - couldn't be trusted, and that it wasn't worth digging deep into the articles to see if he had any genuine points - and besides, any of those genuine points would have, I assumed, made their way explicitly into this thread, but I didn't actually see anything particularly compelling (except see next paragraph) in here. So, the articles themselves weren't enough to convince me - at least, not from my very skeptical starting position, and thus the very limited energy I was willing to devote to "hunting for clues that I'm wrong".

The discussion in this thread did raise an interesting potential/apparent anomaly, in particular the sound of hammers striking in a vacuum, and I do not know how to account for this - but then, I'm not a physicist, not even a self-educated one (beyond a few classes in 1996 in an undergraduate engineering degree which by now I've largely forgotten), and I don't think I'm qualified to assess this. I'll just say this: it's very intriguing, but it's not enough in the face of the weight of evidence that the landing was real to change my position - which is definitely not set in stone, just very hard to budge.

So... that's it. Really, I doubt that anyone cares or wanted to know what I thought, but somehow I felt compelled to post, so now, whether or not you wanted to, you do...
 
I read this thread all the way through a couple of weeks ago - I'm not sure why, because it is so long and there are so many other things that I haven't looked into that I think are more important to look into than whether the moon landing was hoaxed (e.g. the 9/11 thread), but I did it anyway. Afterwards, I figured that I wouldn't play necromancy with the thread by responding, and besides, who really cares what I think? I'm not an expert, and casual opinions are a dime a dozen. But since Stinky Fruit Jackson has revived the thread, and since the whole point of the thread was to solicit opinions... here goes.

Full disclosure: I started with the view that the moon landing was very unlikely to be a hoax, and that the evidence would have to be very compelling to change my mind.

I switched it up between reading the articles at the original link (I didn't make it all the way through them), and checking into the other links and resources posted in this thread. Unfortunately, at the time I got around to reading this thread, some of the linked YouTube videos had already been taken down, and I also chose not to fully watch through every one of the linked videos and resources - basically, I figured that with so many people in the thread, the best evidence would come to the surface in the thread itself, so I didn't need to cast my net too widely.

My initial reaction to the articles linked to in the OP was that there were some interesting points made that at least on the surface deserved a closer look or think about. But then I read several pages of the thread about it on the forum that Paul linked to, and I very quickly recognised that the author had made so many elementary errors, and so very clearly lacked the requisite knowledge and background to make judgements about space and space flight, that his judgement - at least on this issue - couldn't be trusted, and that it wasn't worth digging deep into the articles to see if he had any genuine points - and besides, any of those genuine points would have, I assumed, made their way explicitly into this thread, but I didn't actually see anything particularly compelling (except see next paragraph) in here. So, the articles themselves weren't enough to convince me - at least, not from my very skeptical starting position, and thus the very limited energy I was willing to devote to "hunting for clues that I'm wrong".

The discussion in this thread did raise an interesting potential/apparent anomaly, in particular the sound of hammers striking in a vacuum, and I do not know how to account for this - but then, I'm not a physicist, not even a self-educated one (beyond a few classes in 1996 in an undergraduate engineering degree which by now I've largely forgotten), and I don't think I'm qualified to assess this. I'll just say this: it's very intriguing, but it's not enough in the face of the weight of evidence that the landing was real to change my position - which is definitely not set in stone, just very hard to budge.

So... that's it. Really, I doubt that anyone cares or wanted to know what I thought, but somehow I felt compelled to post, so now, whether or not you wanted to, you do...

I enjoyed reading your thoughts, Laird.

What about the International Fake Station?
 
I enjoyed reading your thoughts, Laird.

What about the International Fake Station?

I watched the video when you first posted it; I haven't watched it since, so this is from memory - please correct me if I get anything wrong. The video seemed to have only two pieces of "real" evidence, which is what I'm "really" interested in:

  1. That in a video of the ISS (a spacewalk, I think) a bubble appeared which could not be possible in a spacewalk, only in a simulated spacewalk in a water tank.
  2. That an odd motion in a video supposedly of the interior of the ISS was not possible if the ISS was really orbiting the Earth, only if the scene was filmed in an aeroplane making a temporary maneouvre to simulate zero-gravity.

So, again, as for the sound of a striking hammer in a vacuum, I don't know how to explain these anomalies. But, on the other hand, they are not enough for me to throw up my hands and say, "Right! That's it! The whole danged thing is a fake!" There's just too much other evidence going the other way that I wouldn't know how to explain if these were genuine anomalies. For example: even the producer of the video believes that we both can build and launch into orbit a space station, and that we have done so. I don't understand then what would be so impossible given that we can do all that about actually putting people into it, nor why we would fake that. Who would benefit from such a deception? To what end would it be purposed?

And even if we are faking that people are up there living in the ISS, then where do the astronauts go when they are pretend-launched to the Station? Do they eject at some point in their flight and float back down to Earth? Why is it that nobody notices this? And how about their returns to Earth from the station after having lived up there for some time - are these not monitored by independent tracking stations (potentially any person in the right place at the right time with enough technology to do so), and if so, are these independent tracking stations in on the conspiracy too? If not, why has nobody (potentially anybody in the right place at the right time with the right technology) not piped up and said "Hey, wait a minute, based on my observations, there was no return flight back from the ISS as there was supposed to be at that time in that location?"

And that's just the start of what would need to be explained if the whole thing's a fake. So, let me close similarly to how I closed my other post: my position that people genuinely are up there living in the ISS is not set in stone, it's just hard to budge.
 
Found this and thought I'd share it. I don't have a firm opinion on it:

Hahahahahahahaha!! Awesome Show,Great Job! (I love Tim and Eric)

I thought that guy, Adam is it? (Never heard of him) was part of the parody until I realized this was supposed to be legit.

I especially loved this gem:
"Preliminary data scooped out of the sieve of the cacophony of the control room" ????? Word salad.

Universe x 2= tube :D:D:D:D
 
Hahahahahahahaha!! Awesome Show,Great Job! (I love Tim and Eric)

I thought that guy, Adam is it? (Never heard of him) was part of the parody until I realized this was supposed to be legit.

I especially loved this gem:
"Preliminary data scooped out of the sieve of the cacophony of the control room" ????? Word salad.

Universe x 2= tube :D:D:D:D
tim-and-eric.jpg
 
Back
Top