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.

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.

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?



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.



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.



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.

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?

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.

I have to tell you that you went up a notch in reply to my provocation.
Brownie points there.
Measured, it suits you (no tailoring pun intended)... carry on in that vein.
We may become buddies yet!

Well, at least you have a sense of humour. Which is more than can be said of most these days ...

Your debating style is rubbish. I reject your claim that your cryptic question "settles everything", and unless you are able to articulate a point from your strange cryptic question style, I have no clue what your point is. I suspect neither do you. Oh, and your trademark triple lol smileys comes over a bit hysterical.

It was about as cryptic as a punch in the face. I couldn't make the point any more obvious without GIVING you the answer on a plate (thus freeing you of any obligation to think).

You can reject the fact that by the time light has traveled 150 million kilometers any falloff in intensity SHOULD be so minuscule it cannot be detected by the human eye anywhere on the moon. But bear in mind that the night sky is what it is precisely because of this phenomenon.

What? The night sky "is what it is" because of what? You're making no sense!

As for the rest - sorry, riddles just don't cut it. If you could reveal to the world what fall off in intensity on the images you are presumably talking about, and how this supports whatever point it is you want to make, then I could indeed think about it. Humour me - make your actual point. You know you want to.


But then you're the one who said there was air on the moon, so you're perhaps not the go-to man for parachute advice.

A classic case of saying 'you're missing the point' when what should be said is 'perhaps I am not explaining myself enough?'
Give the chap a chance Mugwump.
You know what you are trying to say, but FA doesn't.
Neither do I at the moment.
Be specific and deal in particulars would be my advice ...
Not that you'd want it of course.

Facts.

Having reliable and tested evidence that doesn't fall down. Pretty simple really. All that Moon truthers have is ideas and assumptions. They apply psuedo-scientific thinking to various arguments while ignoring counter-arguments that provide evidence against their own ideas. Like I said before, truthers don't have a particular interest in the actual truth, just their version of it. It doesn't help that your fellow truthers have a varied scale of wild ideas rather than a focused point.

A sad aspect of this stupid, cynical and baseless attack on NASA over the moon landings is the sweeping aside of the geuine efforts of a team of thousands of workers.
The achievenent was stupendous. A moment never to be forgotten in the ascent of man.
Monumental!
One of THE greatest moments of all time and in my lifetime. Lucky me and lucky us!
Hang your heads in shame you lamebrains who denigrate that effort.
You don't deserve it!

.

I don't know what more you want me to say which isn't saying what I've already said countless times.

Take a regular torch. It's not the sun. But it doesn't need to be because light behaves in exactly the same fashion (with one or two exceptions which really only apply in theoretical environments).

The Inverse Square Law states that [ilight intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the source[/i. Roughly translated this means that you lose the MOST of your light CLOSEST to where it originates and as the distance increases this falloff diminishes toward zero [iat an ever diminishing rate without ever reaching zero[/i.



In the illustration above HALF of the total output will be lost in the first few inches. Double the distance and it is reduced to a quarter and so on etc. But the important point in relation to this discussion is what's taking place at the other end of the scale. The reason we see starlight across vast distances is because even though its intensity is ALWAYS falling - the further light travels from the source the longer it takes to do so. Plug the numbers into any calculator and you can immediately verify this.

If the Apollo photographs are genuine then the single light source illuminating the subject (the sun) is 150 million km away. At that distance most of its intensity has been diluted and the rate of falloff drops to negligible levels. Sure, it's still higher than what it would be if we were viewing the sun from the other side of the galaxy. But we aren't seeing the kind of colossal bites taken out of luminosity that we witnessed early on.

Consequently we should see [ino appreciable difference[/i in the luminosity of any part of the moon exposed to direct sunlight and not interfered with by shadow. Now, there are some complicating factors relating to a variety of issues which can result in the distant background looking slightly duller and/or desaturated (especially on the earth where this question is further complicated by our atmosphere which scatters light and can function as an enormous softbox).

But if you are looking at an Apollo photograph in which there are significant differences in luminosity that would require you to alter your camera's shutter speed and/or f/stop to correctly expose each area - and these discrepancies cannot be explained by the sun's light being obscured by some object - it has either been [itampered with in post-production[/i or it was [iphotographed in a studio environment[/i.

The reason I say the latter is because we ALREADY KNOW that light intensity can fall-off in pretty dramatic fashion - provided the source of light is CLOSE TO the subject (compare position 1 to position 4 in the illustration).

I'm clueless as to how pointing out this simple and obvious truth has morphed into wild accusations about the moon being a hologram and such. This argument is strictly confined to the validity of the Apollo photographs - although I do think it has wider implications insofar as NASA's trustworthiness is concerned.

Take a look at the original NASA stock. We see this issue cropping up time and time again (notice I DO NOT say ALL). Just as we see other problems such as harshly backlit subjects which - despite the astronauts carrying NO SECONDARY SOURCES OF ILLUMINATION - are perfectly illuminated from the front.

Bear in mind that in order to achieve the above you have to supply CLOSE TO the same amount of light in the opposite direction in order bring the subject within the tonal range of the camera. Which means you either have to set up a portable flash-unit to fill in the shadow areas - or (maybe) use a very efficient reflector (neither of which the astronauts carried). Without it the subject MUST BE reduced to a pitch-black silhouette. [uThere's simply no room for debate on this question. [/u

Don't believe me? Try it yourself. It isn't a difficult experiment to set up.

This is why I draw the distinction between natural light and theatrical (make-believe) light.

Now, if you don't mind I'm calling it quits on repeating the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Quite frankly, I'm bored rigid with the whole issue and there's only so much stupidity I can take.

I mean, if you have any genuine interest in this question you'll spend five minutes setting up two or three simple experiments which will tell you more about photography and light than NASA seems willing to divulge. It really is THAT SIMPLE.

That's a word - not an answer. Besides, I know plenty of facts which aren't. Can we be sure you can tell the difference? I have my doubts.

I should add that you really don't help your case by CONSTANTLY injecting every post with tedious terms such as "Moon Truthers" which are solely meant to evoke an [iemotional reaction[/i in the reader and [idraw a line under any further thought[/i.

I mean, it might draw a few cheers from the peanut gallery. But it's a very poor substitute for contributing something of value to the discussion.

So, once again: what PRECISELY would it take for you to first DOUBT and then DENY the Apollo program?

Brian "D:REAM" Cox = faithist
Mugwump, canon accredited photographer = truther

I know which side I'm on.

Well, I think it certainly begs the question - why is the BBC through it's premier spokesperson on issues relating to physics and astronomy (a former employee of the prestigious CERN laboratories), attempting to shore up the Apollo story with a experiment which is completely bogus? I find it impossible to believe that the BBC didn't know that independent experiments have proven that you don't need mirrors placed on the moon to bounce light back to earth. So either Cox isn't half the scientist we are led to believe or he's a willing participant in what can ONLY be described as a CONSPIRACY to mislead the public.

If someone can come up with another explanation I'll gladly listen to it.

The best of the best, the cream of the cream at NASA, taken on and demolished by a Saints fan.
One man versus the combined mind power of the cream of scientific humanity.
And it 's 1-0 to him is it?
I can buy that!
A man who's very basis for assertion is 'my guess would be'.
Fook my pit cap!!!!!!

LISTEN to HIS explanation of IT. Do YOU think HE hasn't ADDRESSED it?

You've managed to find every conspiracy out there but none of the debunks or explanations. Odd that.

Well, that's the really COOL thing about science that everyone seems to have forgotten: authority counts for precisely zero. I mean it's useful as a contextual framework for discussion. But if something is right it really doesn't matter one iota whether the person putting it forward is up against the entire weight of the scientific community. Besides, I'm not arguing anything you couldn't figure out for yourself if you simply stopped accepting everything organisations such as NASA say at face value.

Precisely WHAT makes you so sure they would only ever tell you the truth? There's no basis whatsoever for such blind faith. If I argued that any other government department only ever dealt in facts you'd rightly laugh me off this board. Yet we are supposed to believe the minute anyone at NASA crosses the threshold of JPL or the Johnson Space Centre they are suddenly overwhelmed by an overriding urge to tell the truth? Seriously?

Understand that I am NOT saying there is no space program or even that we haven't gone to the moon. I just don't believe the official NASA line on Apollo. I think there are very good reasons for this many of which I haven't discussed.

Suffice to say that you should ALWAYS be suspicious of any scientific claim which is bolstered less by the evidence than worthless appeals to authority and personal attacks against critics. If the argument is good enough no further input is necessary. Which means the argument likely ISN'T good enough.

[uThe 25 Rules of Disinformation.[/u

Even though I agree that we have seen an increase in the activities of so-called Internet "sock puppets" whose motives are questionable on forums and social media (especially insofar as "hot" topics are concerned) - I think we also have to remember that just about everyone ([umyself included[/u) commits one or more of the below sins without necessarily having some nefarious and hidden reason for doing so.

However, I do think we should hold supposedly "professional" voices in the media, government and academia responsible for their statements.

I mean, I could tick off four or five of these warning signals in practically every news story I hear or read lately. Some are quite funny.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Come to think of it - I WOULD - say that, wouldn't I?





Suffice to say you should have confidence in your ability to figure things out. Most people are a hell of a lot smarter than they think. They just convince themselves that they are inferior.

Conversely Mugwump, some people are not as smart as they think they are, but convince themselves that they are, are overconfident and should accept that there are things that they can't figure out.


Without having to make things up to explain them.

If you are still wondering why anyone might question the validity or credentials of NASA officials I'm going to show you some clips which border upon the positively surreal.

Before I do - how many of you have ever streamed a live NASA press conference? I suspect the answer is - very few to none of you. My guess is you thought similar to me and expected a lot of eggheads talking dry-as-dust science-stuff which whilst probably fascinating isn't likely too entertaining and switched channels to Breaking Bad.

Hence I did a complete double-take when I stumbled across an interesting clip in one of Richard Hall's presentations. Before you follow the link let me set the scene. The year is 2012 and you are watching the conference NASA held to brief journalists following the successful landing of the Mars Curiosity rover.

Now, I don't know how many of you remember but owing to Curiosity's sheer size it was felt that the existing method of delivering probes to Mars (a succession of drogue parachutes slowing the entry vehicle to such a speed whereby the lander could be "dropped" whilst protected inside a series of air-bags which cushioned it on impact and the subsequent bouncing across the Martian surface until it rolled to a stop) just wasn't up to the job. I'm not exactly sure why this is so but it's not really important. NASA had to come up with a new system and after much deliberation they decided on what seemed like an incredibly complex arrangement (Murphy's Law, anyone?) whereby drogue parachutes were again used to slow the craft on orbital insertion but instead of dropping a giant airbag this time they released a fully-fledged flying vehicle with the rover attached beneath. Dubbed the "Skycrane" it immediately deployed a sophisticated sensor array that scanned for an optimal point of delivery whilst feeding real-time data to the onboard-CPU whose task it was to convert all this telemetry into a flight plan which was fed to the propulsion unit. Bear in mind that given the time it takes for a signal to leave Mars, arrive on Earth and then return it was impossible for NASA to exert any control over this critical phase. The Skycrane needed to be fully autonomous and any screw up would likely result in Curiosity being rendered a thin smear of metal spread across a hundred miles of Martian soil. Provided everything went well the Skycrane would arrive at its desired location and hover using its rapidly diminishing reserves of propellant whilst Curiosity was lowered to the surface on a series of tethers. Once successfully on the ground a signal would be sent telling the Skycrane to cut the tethers and then expend its remaining fuel clearing the landing site completely and crashing safely.

Now, I remember thinking at the time something like, [i"That's sure sounds like a horribly complicated solution"[/i but like most people I was bedazzled by NASA's reputation for delivering technical wizardry and thought no more of it. The eggheads would figure it out.

Well, it turns out that the egghead who is among those chiefly responsible for the Skycrane is one Adam Seltzner.

Take a close look at [url=https://youtu.be/x-4cRW_T5Xg?t=1299Seltzner talking to the assembled press about HIS Skycrane.[/url And before any of you complain that I've somehow mixed up NASA with a Monty Python sketch - I haven't.

And don't just concentrate on Seltzner's completely inexplicable behaviour. Listen CAREFULLY to the reaction of the PRESS. Can anyone guess at the nature of what seems like a very big JOKE?

What are we meant to think of stuff like this?

Started watching it , but it soon showed its agenda as being prepared by the mischief makers.
Stopped watching it.
The guy said he didn't know, to what to me looked like a set-up technical question.
Not a normal question.
He should know, in someone's estimation ... hence he's a patsy.
QED
Fooking laughable.

I can accept questions about his depth of knowledge, but to extrapolate it beyond that?
I'd call that guessing.
Mischief makers.