• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

justintime said:
The only reason conspiracy theories are necessary is because they provide an alternate explanation when the original one cannot pass the mustard test.

1. The Moon Landing. It was well known the Soviets were ahead in the space program and America was lagging behind. The only way to beat the Soviets was to put the American space program of steroids. So all those involved in promoting the space race took them and made a movie of an American astronaut sprinting across the moon surface.

2. JFK assassination. JFK threatened the Soviets to stop their missile shipment to Cuba. or face nuclear retaliation. The Soviets had a simpler way to deal with JFK's belligerent behavior. They hired an assassin and armed him with a $10 rifle to proved there was no need for an escalated nuclear war. That even the leader of the free world's head pops when struck by a 10 cent bullet. It put an end to the nuclear Armageddon at a substantially lower cost.

3. 9/11 attack. Christians have been praying for the second coming of Christ for centuries. A final battle is to take place in the middle-east between the forces of good and evil. Catastrophic destruction and carnage is to be brought upon the region. The Jews and Muslims collaborated to move the battle scene a little closer to the American people looking forward to Armageddon and picked New York to give them a taste of what they were wishing for. Like they say...Be careful what you wish for.

I have many more alternate explanations and none of them are conspiracy theories, they don't have to be.
Click to expand...

Finally your real agenda on display, thank you.
 
justintime said:
The only reason conspiracy theories are necessary is because they provide an alternate explanation when the original one cannot pass the mustard test.

1. The Moon Landing. It was well known the Soviets were ahead in the space program and America was lagging behind. The only way to beat the Soviets was to put the American space program of steroids. So all those involved in promoting the space race took them and made a movie of an American astronaut sprinting across the moon surface.

2. JFK assassination. JFK threatened the Soviets to stop their missile shipment to Cuba. or face nuclear retaliation. The Soviets had a simpler way to deal with JFK's belligerent behavior. They hired an assassin and armed him with a $10 rifle to proved there was no need for an escalated nuclear war. That even the leader of the free world's head pops when struck by a 10 cent bullet. It put an end to the nuclear Armageddon at a substantially lower cost.

3. 9/11 attack. Christians have been praying for the second coming of Christ for centuries. A final battle is to take place in the middle-east between the forces of good and evil. Catastrophic destruction and carnage is to be brought upon the region. The Jews and Muslims collaborated to move the battle scene a little closer to the American people looking forward to Armageddon and picked New York to give them a taste of what they were wishing for. Like they say...Be careful what you wish for.

I have many more alternate explanations and none of them are conspiracy theories, they don't have to be.
Click to expand...

Ahh, a peek inside the fundie craziness that ties 9/11 et al. to Millennialism. Scott Sommers, take note.

If only one day that Apocalyptic woo well would run dry...
 
Anders Lindman said:
"Airbrushing has long been used to alter photographs in the pre-digital era." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbrush#Photo_retouching
Click to expand...

Proof by Wikipedia, I see. The section contains no references, and simply asserts that examples of photo manipulation (which are indeed prevalent throughout history) have been "airbrushed."

I, on the other hand, and several others in this thread, actually use airbrushes for what they're intended. And, separately, we also know how to actually retouch photos, and we've done it before. If you have a print the size of, oh, say, a movie poster, then airbrushing might be suggested. But I'd love to see you airbrush anything of significance on a 60 millimeter transparency. For that you need very small brushes and picks; the airbrush simply exudes too broad a stream at any nozzle setting.
 
rwguinn said:
No no no. Often all that can make these "theories" palatable Is lots of mustard-- like CMOT Dibbler's sausage onna bun...
Click to expand...



I was going to go with, "If it's got enough mustard on it, some people will swallow anything!"
 
justintime said:
The only reason conspiracy theories are necessary is because they provide an alternate explanation when the original one cannot pass the mustard test.
Click to expand...

That's conspiracy thinking in a nutshell. "Cannot pass the mustard test" is set up as some arbitrary standard of credibility, usually in complete ignorance of history or fact. An "alternate" explanation is held as some kind of default that holds when the "official" story fails to meet that arbitrary standard.

The problem is that when the alternate explanation is itself evaluated against the same "mustard test," (or, more often, against a very much lower standard) it fails even more egregiously. The line of reasoning you advocate here is consummately fallacious. It suggests that one theory prevails without that theory ever having been tested, simply because some other theory has treacherously been made to seem less true. It evades a meaningful test of validity for the proffered belief.

1. The Moon Landing. It was well known the Soviets were ahead in the space program and America was lagging behind.
Click to expand...

Nope. That is commonly believed among Moon hoax conspiracy theorists, but it's simply factually false. By the time Apollo 11 was launched, the United States actually had a three-to-one superiority over the Soviets in manned hours spent in space, a greater success rate at booster launches, and objectively more innovative technology.

Conspiracy theorists generally cut their analysis off at about 1962 and ignore everything that happened during the 1960s themselves, which was a well-documented set of game-changing events. The Soviet space program faltered because Krushchev was obsessed with setting records, not with actually building a viable space program. While this got them a few early records, it was not a sustainable effort.

2. JFK assassination. [snip] It put an end to the nuclear Armageddon at a substantially lower cost.
Click to expand...

The evidence attached to Oswald alone is to explain his actions. There is no need to suppose that anyone else hired him to kill Kennedy for some broader political purpose. Further, the "nuclear Armageddon" threat did not end with the Cuban missile crisis. It continued through the proxy war in Vietnam, through the escalation with Reagan's ABM treaty violation, and finally ended with the fall of the Soviet Union precipitated by the admission that they just couldn't keep up with escalating nuclear arms race.

The notion that the threat of nuclear war ended in the autumn of 1963 in Dallas is a pretty imaginative view of the subsequent history.

3. 9/11 attack. [snip]...Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

So the Jews and Muslims, both apparently and inexplicably accepting that the apocalyptic belief promulgated by some Christians is an historical inevitability, agree in secret to set aside their own millennia-old conflict and conspire to punish the Americans (because, obviously, that's where all Christians live) for that religious belief.

And somehow only the Muslims are getting punished for it, which wouldn't at all compel them to reveal their collaboration with the Jews in order to avoid sole responsibility for that uneasy and unprecedented alliance.

I have many more alternate explanations and none of them are conspiracy theories, they don't have to be.
Click to expand...

It's not clear whether you're claiming the Moon landings were a hoax, but it's fairly obvious that your other two are conspiracy theories.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
Phew! There's a challenge. Airbrushing 2,000,000 16mm film frames to fake moon landing footage. That guy must be the best and fastest airbrush artist in the entire universe!



I use an Aztek double action, Tamiya acrylics and thinners. Unless a white dove sits in the tree in the backyard, the augers will be wrong and the bloody Aztek will splatter, spit water, blow Dunkel Gelb back into my eyes, bubble in the cup or spray at 45 degrees to where I'm aiming.
Click to expand...

There's your mistake, Tamiya. I always use Vallejo Acrylic or Xracolor Enamel.
 
LSSBB said:
I take it occasionally at lunch. I will be asked to "Please pass the mustard". I have yet to fail, although being occasionally clumsy, I admit it is possible.
Click to expand...

You won't be able to cut the mustard?
 
Horatius said:
I was going to go with, "If it's got enough mustard on it, some people will swallow anything!"
Click to expand...

I took it as a cleverly-veiled (that's our justintime!) reference to the character Colonel Mustard in the board game "Clue." According to Wikipedia:
Colonel Mustard is the stock character of a great white hunter and colonial imperialist. He is usually a military man both dignified and dangerous.
Click to expand...

I mean, c'mon...follow the dots, people! Does it need to be any plainer that this is just the sort of character who would be up to such devious shenanigans as the Moon Landing, the JFK assassination, and 9/11? And who better to tip us off to these shenanigans than someone (like justintime) who can't understand why you can't eat more of a pie than you have?
 
JayUtah said:
That's conspiracy thinking in a nutshell. "Cannot pass the mustard test" is set up as some arbitrary standard of credibility, usually in complete ignorance of history or fact. An "alternate" explanation is held as some kind of default that holds when the "official" story fails to meet that arbitrary standard.

The problem is that when the alternate explanation is itself evaluated against the same "mustard test," (or, more often, against a very much lower standard) it fails even more egregiously. The line of reasoning you advocate here is consummately fallacious. It suggests that one theory prevails without that theory ever having been tested, simply because some other theory has treacherously been made to seem less true. It evades a meaningful test of validity for the proffered belief.



Nope. That is commonly believed among Moon hoax conspiracy theorists, but it's simply factually false. By the time Apollo 11 was launched, the United States actually had a three-to-one superiority over the Soviets in manned hours spent in space, a greater success rate at booster launches, and objectively more innovative technology.

Conspiracy theorists generally cut their analysis off at about 1962 and ignore everything that happened during the 1960s themselves, which was a well-documented set of game-changing events. The Soviet space program faltered because Krushchev was obsessed with setting records, not with actually building a viable space program. While this got them a few early records, it was not a sustainable effort.



The evidence attached to Oswald alone is to explain his actions. There is no need to suppose that anyone else hired him to kill Kennedy for some broader political purpose. Further, the "nuclear Armageddon" threat did not end with the Cuban missile crisis. It continued through the proxy war in Vietnam, through the escalation with Reagan's ABM treaty violation, and finally ended with the fall of the Soviet Union precipitated by the admission that they just couldn't keep up with escalating nuclear arms race.

The notion that the threat of nuclear war ended in the autumn of 1963 in Dallas is a pretty imaginative view of the subsequent history.



So the Jews and Muslims, both apparently and inexplicably accepting that the apocalyptic belief promulgated by some Christians is an historical inevitability, agree in secret to set aside their own millennia-old conflict and conspire to punish the Americans (because, obviously, that's where all Christians live) for that religious belief.

And somehow only the Muslims are getting punished for it, which wouldn't at all compel them to reveal their collaboration with the Jews in order to avoid sole responsibility for that uneasy and unprecedented alliance.



It's not clear whether you're claiming the Moon landings were a hoax, but it's fairly obvious that your other two are conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Huh- that "conspiracy thinking in a nutshell" (especially the bolded part) reminds me of another group of folks who "think" the same way (begins with a "c" and ends with "reationist"-); it's no surprise that JiT is both. Anybody who can believe anything is possible will believe everything is- that's the momentum of woo.

On the Moon Landing- it's hard to tell just what JiT is asserting here- that the folks at NASA "took them" (steroids, I think), to "beat the Soviets"- then contented themselves with faking a movie of a Moon-walking astronaut? In any case, it certainly seems like the sort of thing that the Soviets, being in such fierce competition with us, would just let pass, right? "Oh, those crazy Americans!! Ha! Let it go, comrade!"

On JFK- it seems that JiT is conflating the Cuban Missile Crisis of Oct 1962 with the assassination of over a year later as if they happened simultaneously; and that the Soviets decided that the best way "to deal with JFK's belligerent behavior" was to shoot him a year after it. (Not much on preventive maintenance, those Soviets) And, in order to "prove there was no need for an escalated nuclear war," they very sensibly took a step that would almost surely have led to one if their role in it was discovered.

I can't really follow his 9/11 scenario at all (more like I can't be bothered to try).
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
On the Moon Landing- it's hard to tell just what JiT is asserting here- that the folks at NASA "took them" (steroids, I think), to "beat the Soviets"- then contented themselves with faking a movie of a Moon-walking astronaut?
Click to expand...

He doesn't explicitly claim they faked the photographic evidence.

The steroid metaphor is apt, though. The Apollo project was well funded, impeccably documented, and was prefaced by the Gemini project which had no other goal than to learn how to do things in space preparatory to a landing on the Moon. Justintime is correct in saying that landing on the Moon within 10 years would require an enormous effort. Good thing we have the evidence of just such an enormous effort.

On JFK- it seems...
Click to expand...

Yes, as I mentioned in the preamble, most of these "alternative" theories require a pretty hefty ignorance of fact, history, and logic.

I can't really follow his 9/11 scenario at all (more like I can't be bothered to try).
Click to expand...

Don't. It makes zero sense.
 
justintime said:
1. The Moon Landing. It was well known the Soviets were ahead in the space program and America was lagging behind. The only way to beat the Soviets was to put the American space program of steroids. So all those involved in promoting the space race took them and made a movie of an American astronaut sprinting across the moon surface.
Click to expand...

And the Soviets, who carefully monitored the trip to the moon, never said anything. Huh.

Maybe they were afraid they would lose their jobs.
 
JayUtah said:
He doesn't explicitly claim they faked the photographic evidence.
...
Click to expand...

True. But given that his original assertion (about the Moon Landing) was made in the context of "provid[ing] an alternate explanation when the original one cannot pass the mustard test," and that yours is the original (and sensible) one, I don't think an inference of "faked," from "made a movie of an American astronaut sprinting across the moon surface" as the alternate explanation, is unwarranted.

I guess JiT could clear this up though, if he wanted to- it's hard enough sometimes to understand what he's saying, never mind trying to know what he's thinking. So, what say you, Justin- do you think the Moon Landing (and the photographic evidence for it) was faked?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
1. The Moon Landing. It was well known the Soviets were ahead in the space program and America was lagging behind. The only way to beat the Soviets was to put the American space program of on steroids. So all those involved in promoting the space race took them and made a movie of an American astronaut sprinting across the moon surface.
Click to expand...

aggle-rithm said:
And the Soviets, who carefully monitored the trip to the moon, never said anything. Huh.

Maybe they were afraid they would lose their jobs.
Click to expand...

The Soviets were more concerned of the edge Americans would have over them with the use of steroids in more earthy sports like the Olympics. Lance Armstrong is a good example of Russian concern.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Do you seriously intend this to be the answer to the question?
Click to expand...

What, you mean it doesn't make perfect sense for the Soviets to keep their knowledge that the US faked the moon landings totally a secret because they were more focused on the illicit doping activities of an athlete who wasn't even born until two years after the first moon landing took place?
 
It sounds like Justintime is saying the U.S. space program was literally on steroids -- as in, the pharmaceuticals.

How that would rationally relate to, well, anything is mind-boggling. Lance Armstrong? Neil Armstrong? How can this be anything except a chain-yank?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom