lost NASA images found...

[Ctuchik]

only if i can have a jolt cola supermarket up there to.

 

[Wij]

Ineresting piece on the hoax theorists...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?_r=1

 

[Scouse]

because no matter who that third party is there will always be some stupid twat that wont trust it. usually the same persons that run around thinking the coverment have implanted stuff in his head just to spy and/or kill him, so he's gotta run around with a tinfoil hat.....

True. You can't please everyone. But it doesn't mean your standards of evidence should dip

 

[Ctuchik]

that was a nice read for sure.

hehe, they even managed to get Adam Savage in there


but its like he said. the theorists tell US to keep an open mind, but their own is so closed not even atoms can penetrate it...

 

[rynnor]

Alot of people seem to get confused between History and Science - Science is objectively provable by experimentation - History where it consists of human events generally isnt.

History is about a consensus of belief - there are always dissenting opinions and that is perfectly natural - if a belief gains enough popularity it becomes the new consensus.

Conspiracy theories are just a dissenting opinion - to characterise those who hold them as close minded whilst simultaneously closing ones mind to their opposing view is completely hypocritical - amusing tho

Its interesting to see how some people identify with a belief so strongly that they react on an emotional level to those who question that belief - it demonstrates the psychological pressures that gave rise to religions.

Such people are on both sides of the 'fake moon landings' arguement but alas seem to lack the self knowledge to recognise their mirror on the opposing side

 

[Furr]

By stating that history is based upon belief and who has the biggest public consensus shows only that you yourself do not really have a grasp of how history develops and the differentiation between historical evidence and interpretation. History is not merely based on who has the most of amount of support for a certain idea when it comes to things that can be shown as evidence but has its own method and analysis of the time line.
There are things which can be considered historical facts because they are supported by a wealth of evidence and can be justifiably be proven to be true or to have existed. That certain things existed or happened can not be argued against without legitimate proof to suggest otherwise. That there was a battle of Stalingrad can be shown to be true because there is existing evidence from sources at the time and there is evidence on the ground to prove it, this is historically accurate and is something that can be considered part of the record of human events.
What you are trying to describe is the way in which events can be interpreted by differing views on a subject, for instance there was debate on the issue of the dark ages. It was believed that this was a time of backward development and that most if not all of the mechanisms of the roman empire were completely forgotten only to be 'rediscovered in the renaissance. Modern historical evaluation has however shown this not to be true. In this case a theory describing past events has come to be proven to be inaccurate with more recent evidence. This is similar to what you propose as 'history'. However in the same vein it is a misconception that before Columbus sailed to America most people in medieval Europe believed the Earth was flat which was simply not the case but instead a modern myth. That a number of people believe it to be true does not make it so.
In this context the moon landings can be considered a fact because there is enough evidence to prove they happened and beyond some laughable analysis of recent times nothing to argue to the contrary. To believe they did not take place is akin to not accepting that evolution takes place. By arguing the opposing corner is just as irrelevant and only shows a lack of understanding on the conspirators of the events in question.

 

[rynnor]

By stating that history is based upon belief and who has the biggest public consensus shows only that you yourself do not really have a grasp of how history develops and the differentiation between historical evidence and interpretation. History is not merely based on who has the most of amount of support for a certain idea when it comes to things that can be shown as evidence but has its own method and analysis of the time line.

The problem with evidence is that it can be interpreted in many ways - and peoples pre-conceived ideas often lead them to find the supporting evidence and ignore that which contradicts it. I am afraid that history really is a set of beliefs that certain things occur - over time what we believe about history today will go out of fashion and new interpretations of evidence will occur.

How many theories of what Stonehenge is have there been? 5, 10, 50 - probably more than a hundred and there will be more in the future

There are things which can be considered historical facts because they are supported by a wealth of evidence and can be justifiably be proven to be true or to have existed.

How do you 'prove' a historical occurence - you really cant - all you can do is show evidence to support a given occurence - it can never be proven - tomorrow someone may come along with even better evidence to the contrary.

That there was a battle of Stalingrad can be shown to be true because there is existing evidence from sources at the time and there is evidence on the ground to prove it, this is historically accurate and is something that can be considered part of the record of human events.

Interesting choice of event - considering how few of the Germans survived the camps our information on the battle comes almost entirely from Communist Russia which after the battle had great purges of the city's defenders due to their becoming regarded as too independant - many were killed/packed off to siberia so most of our information on the battle is probably communist propaganda

To believe they did not take place is akin to not accepting that evolution takes place.

No it isnt - again you have fallen into the trap of muddling science with history - evolution can be proven because the theory allows you to make predictions about things you havent seen yet - historical events dont.

 

[Furr]

I feel you still miss the point by focusing on the events i mentioned, history as a discipline contains a number methods that are distinctly reminiscent of what you consider 'scientific'. Have a look at historical method , historiography and the prominence of sources from a respectable source , or even on wikipedia to gauge that its not simply a case of the evaluation of evidence that decides what is considered a 'fact'.

You mention stonehenge which is also a bad reference as it is pre historic rather than historic, but the ideas can still be translated over. What you are talking about is the theory of what stonehenge was used for. That is indeed up for interpretation but what is not is information such as carbon dating, artifacts retrieved from the site and the stones themselves from which the theories are crafted.

My original point about Stalingrad and your critique is also relevant. our history does not merely come from communist Russia about this battle. Scan over the references Anthony Beevor used in his work and he notes archival works , first hand experiences of those who were there , contemporary journals and articles as well as media . But you can also go there and see the battle scars and there are still thousands of skeletons left in the fields that can be stumbled upon that show what took place.

Being a bit more sensationalist and moving a bit closer to modern times how could someone prove september 11 took place? not the motives behind it but that it was an actual event 40 years from now? the rubble would have been removed and the graves may fade but items showing the event will still exist in videos, newspapers and first hand accounts. How are the moon landings any different in simple truth?

The basic line is that there is a difference between evidence and interpretation that i cant hammer home enough.vI don't wish to get too bogged down in the handful of events and the specifics of each case and I hope i have not confused the issue at hand by using them. I merely wanted to make relevant some of the issues im trying to convey about your positon.

I understand your position on historical events ie " history is written by the victors " and that our views of what has happened can shift and change with time and that there can be wildly conflicting views over the same event. But what remains are real tangible items. I feel the message that you are evoking is that 'nothing can be proven' but that is really more a philosophic point along the decarte route rather than way to approach the real world. Its all well and good to question everything and not believe that anythings ever actually happened but when it comes to the past its a case of occams razor, if the evidence heavily favours a set of events and there is only smattering of differing views you work with what you have and accept that it was probably what happened. In the case of the moon landings ( back to the original point ) I think you can guess where i place my money.

 

[rynnor]

I understand your position on historical events ie " history is written by the victors " and that our views of what has happened can shift and change with time and that there can be wildly conflicting views over the same event. But what remains are real tangible items. I feel the message that you are evoking is that 'nothing can be proven' but that is really more a philosophic point along the decarte route rather than way to approach the real world. Its all well and good to question everything and not believe that anythings ever actually happened but when it comes to the past its a case of occams razor, if the evidence heavily favours a set of events and there is only smattering of differing views you work with what you have and accept that it was probably what happened. In the case of the moon landings ( back to the original point ) I think you can guess where i place my money.

I agree with that pretty much - it is the most likely explanation that things happened as they are generally accepted to have happened but I see no shame in people questioning things if they think they have found a flaw in the generally accepted interpretation of events (even if they are wrong ).

It seems an unhealthy situation where people are persecuted for holding a minority view?

I like Occams razor but it does have a flaw in that sometimes really unlikely events really do happen with multiple entities - its a good rule of thumb but all rules have exceptions.

 

[Tom]

GET TO FUCK

 

[00dave]

bloody hell tom calm down, you sound like you're getting really worked up over the whole thing.

 

[Wij]

It is a bit annoying though. If someone came on here spouting this about the holocaust we'd all go mad.

 

[00dave]

Hardly the same though is it? Denying the holocaust isn't about being a wanker it's about being just plain evil, chaotic evil if you like.

Basically the moon landings were a pissing contest that america likes to remind the world that they won. Other than that it was a huge waste of time and money because it seems to have achieved nothing whatsoever.

If you look at the majority of conspiracy theorists most of them weren't alive during any of the moon landings which is probably why they have a hard time believing in it. The same reason why I have a hard time grasping the importance of it, some guys went to the moon grabbed a few rocks years before I was born and nobody has even thought about doing anything with it since.

I mean don't get me wrong I know it was an important event in history/science but it's importance is just lost on me because it hasn't happened in my lifetime.

 

[tris-]

The theorists will have a field day with that shit, you cant see anything except a blob and a shadow.

Looks like a paintbrush job to me.

 

[Zenith.UK]

It is a bit annoying though. If someone came on here spouting this about the holocaust we'd all go mad.

Apollo thread in Godwin's shocker!

 

[Wij]

Apollo thread in Godwin's shocker!

Hitler never had chance to be a holocaust denier

 

[Wij]

Hardly the same though is it? Denying the holocaust isn't about being a wanker it's about being just plain evil, chaotic evil if you like.

Basically the moon landings were a pissing contest that america likes to remind the world that they won. Other than that it was a huge waste of time and money because it seems to have achieved nothing whatsoever.

If you look at the majority of conspiracy theorists most of them weren't alive during any of the moon landings which is probably why they have a hard time believing in it. The same reason why I have a hard time grasping the importance of it, some guys went to the moon grabbed a few rocks years before I was born and nobody has even thought about doing anything with it since.

I mean don't get me wrong I know it was an important event in history/science but it's importance is just lost on me because it hasn't happened in my lifetime.

But the point is we believe the holocaust happened because there's good evidence for it and the 'evidence' the deniers have is shit. Same for the Moon Landings.

 

[Ctuchik]

But the point is we believe the holocaust happened because there's good evidence for it and the 'evidence' the deniers have is shit. Same for the Moon Landings.

aye, the comparison might be a tad on the extreme side but the philosophy around it is still valid. as in both of these events have strong historical facts and evidence that certain groups of ppl refuse to believe in no matter what.

and about the ppl that deny the holocaust, its not all about being evil even tho many are. its just as much about what their parents taught(sp?) them.

have a friend that didnt believe in it untill we took him over to germany to show him, but that still didnt make him evil, he had quite a few friends that were both jews and coloured. he just had a poor upbringing from his parents that managed to convince him that it was all a scam.

but i suppose that taking the moon landing deniers to the moon is a tad far fetched

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

but i suppose that taking the moon landing deniers to the moon is a tad far fetched

...but potentially very amusing, "Yeh yeh its just a film set, open the door and poke your head out."

 

[00dave]

But the point is we believe the holocaust happened because there's good evidence for it and the 'evidence' the deniers have is shit. Same for the Moon Landings.

There is no evidence that the holocaust didn't happen, but there is debatable evidence that might suggest the moon landing was fake. I don't believe it was faked before you jump down my throat.

 

[Tom]

but there is debatable evidence that might suggest the moon landing was fake.

No there isn't.

 

[00dave]

No there isn't.

It is debatable evidence, doesn't mean it's true, but it is there.

Although I remember seeing a fake moon landings site and one of their arguements was that that movie had a similar plot anf that was proof lol.

 

[Rulke]

I agree with that pretty much - it is the most likely explanation that things happened as they are generally accepted to have happened but I see no shame in people questioning things if they think they have found a flaw in the generally accepted interpretation of events (even if they are wrong ).

It seems an unhealthy situation where people are persecuted for holding a minority view?

I like Occams razor but it does have a flaw in that sometimes really unlikely events really do happen with multiple entities - its a good rule of thumb but all rules have exceptions.

Occams razor?

A) We were able to use Rockets (in development since the war) and simple newtonian physics to land on the moon

or

B) The whole thing was filmed in a studio and the media as well as dozens of countries around the world (including the US's great Rival) were bribed or bullied into covering it up for 40 years.

Every single piece of "evidence" of a hoax can be explained by simple common sense or has been disproven by reliable sources (ie scientists who can point a laser at the moon and have it reflect back when it hits reflectors left there by the Apollo astronauts)

And don't forget Mythbusters busted a whole bunch of hoax myths!

 

[rynnor]

Occams razor?

A) We were able to use Rockets (in development since the war) and simple newtonian physics to land on the moon

or

B) The whole thing was filmed in a studio and the media as well as dozens of countries around the world (including the US's great Rival) were bribed or bullied into covering it up for 40 years.

Well I'll play devils advocate here - but firstly I'd say that people who think the moon landings were fake have a variety of theories as to how and the one your on about comes from that spoof documentary 'dark side of the moon?'. I dont think anyone seriously holds such views

The most credible alternative theory would be that they intended to put a man on the moon but something went wrong or they decided the risks were too high.

Seeing as the original intention was true you wouldnt have to hoodwink thousands - probably less than a hundred would need to know.

You'd still send up a something to land on the moon in order to relay the signals in a convincing manner - no-one on earth could tell if anyone got out so no need for collusion with the Russians.

Even the film could be assembled innocently enough - presumably the astronauts trained in their suits and maybe practiced dis-embarking from the lander - seems likely this would have been filmed?

Btw this isnt a serious theory however I hope it shows that things are not quite as cut n dried as some would say.

Final point - if I were a conspiracy theorist I might be deeply suspicious of the sudden flurry of 'debunking the hoax myth' type stories that have appeared recently - tbh they'd be much better advised just to ignore them

 

[rynnor]

But the point is we believe the holocaust happened because there's good evidence for it and the 'evidence' the deniers have is shit. Same for the Moon Landings.

Well ignoring the fact that tarring people who dont believe in theory X as 'probably holocaust deniers' being incredibly offensive I shall answer your point as if it were serious.

Millions went through the camps and thousands survived them, the Nazis didnt really bother trying to hide them until the final weeks so the Allies had everything from the buildings, the inmates, the guards, the rotting heaps of corpses, the 'final solution' documents etc. etc.

Counter that with the moon landings - we have some signals beamed from the moon, some bits of film that could easily be reproduced on the earth and some moon rocks that could have been recovered by a robot - oh and 3 guys who say they went there - hopefully you can see the orders of magnitude difference in the amount of evidence for these events?

 

[Tom]

You cannot reproduce such footage in Earth's atmosphere, with Earth's gravity. It is utterly impossible.

Seriously, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Ctuchik]

You cannot reproduce such footage in Earth's atmosphere, with Earth's gravity. It is utterly impossible.

well, with todays movie technology you probably could make a pretty ok reproduction, but 40 years ago, i'd say the chances would be pretty damn small at best

they might have been able to reproduce the footages of the lunar lander alone, without any of the astronauts there, but other then that it wouldn't have been possible.

and i still claim that former soviet is the biggest evidence we have. i'm pretty certain that they did everything they could to prove that it was a hoax, and despite popular beliefs, were atleast just as technologically advanced as USA at the time. and as far as i know they havent even hinted that it was.

 

[Tom]

Nope. No way to reproduce the footage of the astronauts on the surface. I'll leave it for others to explain why, but in Earth's gravity, and outside a vacuum, its impossible.

 

[rynnor]

You cannot reproduce such footage in Earth's atmosphere, with Earth's gravity.

Well I assume they had vacuum tanks else how did they test half the kit - as to gravity I cant see how it made much difference to the film - the guy getting out the lander still dropped very fast.

Somebody raised something about the dust but it wasnt very convincing - its not exactly hi quality film and you dont know the speed it was filmed at - if you can find something that categorically couldnt happen at full earth gravity please post it?

 

[Tom]

Sigh. Since you don't know—moondust is like silica dust, extremely fine. In an atmosphere it will cloud. Not in a vacuum though, it'll just maintain a set trajectory dependant upon the forces acting upon it. 1/6th gravity in other words.

Then you have the size of the 'set'. The largest vacuum chamber available today couldn't possibly house the 'set', let alone the single light needed—which would have to be seriously far away to avoid fuzzy shadows.

Oh, and we know exactly what speed the film was, it was realtime. You can't slow film down to make astronauts appear lighter than they really are, while not also slowing down the speed of the dust kicked from their feet, and the motion of the flag. Its impossible.