Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Skinny Splash said:
Just wondering Jay and company if the inspired and grossly misunderstood Fatty Dash ever published this tidbit I came across while doing some Spring cleaning

...snip...

Best to you , Patrick (And the spirit lives on & on & on & on & on & on & on
Click to expand...

so...what you're saying is that they landed on the moon where they said they landed?
 
Skinny Splash said:
Just wondering ......

snip repeat waffle.....

So it turns out the Lick Observatory staff had indeed almost the exact BET numbers on the evening of the landing.
Click to expand...

It turns out that this entire assumption resides in the recent account of Wampler, that a) contradicts the observatory director from an account in 1969! b) contradicts observable data.

The observable data being that Wampler refers to receiving said co-ordinates and then working "through the night". Fail.

The Moon set on the observatory at 11.37pm and naturally "through the night" seems a bit of a stretch.

And your follow up comment is what exactly?

Mine is, who is more likely to be correct, the observatory director from 1969, or Wampler from a year or two ago, when his account is provably flawed.
 
Erock said:
Mine is, who is more likely to be correct, the observatory director from 1969, or Wampler from a year or two ago, when his account is provably flawed.
Click to expand...

This was covered at length at Apollohoax. And I'm sure the poster here is well aware of that, since he refers to his brother by the nickname he first used there, not the nickname he used here.

Since it was Patrick's argument and Patrick is dead, I don't see the point. Yes, we're well aware of what Patrick published. Yes, it has been satisfactorily addressed. Yes, it is quite likely that Skinny Splash knows it was addressed.

And Patrick brought it up again here, as the opening post in what became a meandering, repetitive, Homerian epic of a thread leading to Patrick's ban, of which thread this is the tail end. Yes, it has been addressed here too.

Why bring it up again? Is the brother arguing exactly the same points according to exactly the same discredited evidence? Is the brother willing to stand in loco fraternis and pick up the debate where his brother left off? Or is this just a very, very long fringe reset?
 
Skinny Splash said:
Just wondering Jay and company if the inspired and grossly misunderstood Fatty Dash ever published this tidbit I came across while doing some Spring cleaning, It may very well have but I am much too busy to pour through the volumes and scrap heaps and wanted to wish all you Skeptics a Happy New Year if you do indeed believe in such a concept as happiness:
Click to expand...

It's interesting you admit that Patrick and Fatty Dash were the same person, since Patrick1000 denied being fattydash in these two posts here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466877&postcount=119

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466982&postcount=124
 
billdun262 said:
It's interesting you admit that Patrick and Fatty Dash were the same person, since Patrick1000 denied being fattydash in these two posts here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466877&postcount=119

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7466982&postcount=124
Click to expand...


Patrick was one of the most obviously dishonest members I've encountered in this forum, whether he was living in a fantasy world or outright lying. I doubt he was fooling anybody. He obviously wasn't fooling his brother.
 
Last edited:
Hey has anyone asked Jango if he'd like to take up Apollo denial as a side hobby?
 
abaddon said:
He has already done so elsewhere. That ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

Dang I missed that historical moment. Does anyone have the replay?

Has he gone for the hollow or flat earth yet - he could go to the CT Olympics if he does.
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
Dang I missed that historical moment. Does anyone have the replay?
Click to expand...

Here's the relevant paragraph.
Jango said:
But deciphering what's said between what's legitimately real and believable to not legitimate and not believable, I suppose, would vary from one person to another, given the fact of different levels of attained knowledge or logical thought process. Take vampires for instance, you know, Dracula? Has the U.S. Congress ever investigated vampires? No. No they have not. But they have investigated UFOs. And more than once. To me, that lends more credence to the notion of UFOs and no credence to the notion of vampires. The moon landing hoax is another one. There were no investigations by the U.S. Congress to determine the legitimacy of NASA putting man on the moon. No blue-ribbon panel either. There haven't been legitimate calls in the press, by the press or any one with a shred of credibility, to open up a debate about the moon landing. But that phenomena exists in the JFK assassination. We know that the government isn't withholding evidence about the faked moon landing because we know NASA put men on the moon and did so more than once. But we know the government is withholding information about the JFK assassination and there wasn't a uniform consensus among government officials, even as high ranking as POTUS, to doubt the explanation offered by the Warren Commission. It also exists in 9/11.
Click to expand...

It's part of an even longer, even more meandering post in the psychology-of-conspiracism thread. It's not clear here that he's advocating a hoax.
 
I'd take his comments as not supporting a Moon hoax.

Thanks for posting that Jay!
 
Hans said:
I'd take his comments as not supporting a Moon hoax.
Click to expand...

That's the impression I got too, since he clearly means to contrast it with the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory in certain respects.

The problem is that in his haste to draw the contrast, he's misstated the historical, governmental, and scientific underpinnings of Apollo. Congress investigated NASA a number of times during the Apollo era, especially after Apollos 1 and 13, and the astronauts themselves after the Apollo 15 stamp incident. The U.S. Senate's investigation into Apollo 1 was particularly scathing, with some members of the committee accusing NASA outright of being callous, evasive, mercenary, and patronizing. Believe me, if there were any skeletons in NASA's closet, the Senate would have found them. And there were, and they did, in the form of Gen. Sam Phillips' unfavorable review of North American Aviation, one of the prime contractors. Ultimately the report was put back into proper context, but history does not recount that Congress simply left NASA to their own devices.

As for "blue ribbon panels," the entire western aerospace community participated in Apollo development. In addition to the work done directly by NASA and its contractors, the professional journals and conferences at the time were largely concerned with exploring concepts that might apply to Apollo. The myth persists that Apollo was built and operated in secret. And there was still debate in the industry over the propriety of NASA's operations right up until the end.

Jango is right about the media attention. There just isn't any. The closest thing to a journalistic treatment of the hoax theory was Bruce Nash's program that aired on Fox in about 2001. (Nash is the producer of Modern Marvels.) Both Nash and Fox got a pretty black eye for it. Because Fox News and Fox Entertainment were completely separate companies at the time, who just happened to share a broadcast channel, it was pretty funny to watch Fox News debunking a program that had aired on their own network. As penance, Fox Home Video took over distribution of Spacecraft Films products, an education production house that restores and packages the NASA film and video archives.

NASA hired journalist Jim Oberg to write a rebuttal to the hoax theories and paid him an advance of $15,000 to do it. I think it was ABC news who got wind of this and reported it, whereupon the public backlash was so outspoken against NASA for wasting taxpayer dollars on such nonsense that NASA canceled Oberg's contract. Last I spoke to Oberg about it, he was going to write the book anyway for a different publisher. But this was several years ago and the book has not come forth. Hence I suspect he's abandoned the project.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
Click to expand...

If that is addressed to me, I am only trying to clarify the information provided so that I do not draw any wrong conclusions.
 
abaddon said:
Indeed, because Jay had facts and science and the antipodiean had nothing but a potty mouth to offer.
Click to expand...

Actually except for one post, he kept his temper and vocabulary in check. His science was wrong, of course, but he only lost his composure on one post. That post was naturally moderated, and he used that as an excuse to claim "censorship" and effectively resign the debate shortly thereafter. Some have speculated he was trying a sort of suicide-by-moderator. I haven't been back to read that thread in years, but some people have reported to me that Jarrah went back and deleted many of his posts in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom