dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
"Washington Post" did an aritical about how the Moon Hoaxers are try8ing to exploit the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Landings.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread
- Thread starter JayUtah
- Start date
Linky?
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
50 years after Apollo, conspiracy theorists are still howling at the ‘moon hoax’
Money quote:
Money quote:
Conspiracy theories may seem strange and fringe, but they are not harmless. They often transmit racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic beliefs. In their most toxic form, these theories have led to violence, including mass shootings. Behind many conspiracy theories lurks a pervasive rage. Many researchers and communicators who deal with fringe conspiracy theories endure venomous and misogynistic threats and harassment.
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Well I don't know if they are harmless or not but they are stupid individuals. An irritant at best.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Well I don't know if they are harmless or not but they are stupid individuals. An irritant at best.
Well, they irritated the wrong person when they irritated Buzz Aldrin.
That video of him decking a moonbat who called him a liar to his face is a thing of beauty.
bknight
Master Poster
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
I just read another (Mitchell? ) gave some CTer a boot to the ass as well, some years back.
Hadn't heard that one before.
Hadn't heard that one before.
bknight
Master Poster
Yes it was Mitchell and the same bozo was on the receiving end, Bart Sibrel.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Some people never learn.....
Aldrin showed he remembered what he learned he was on the West Point Boxing Team...wrong guy to piss off.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Behind every skeptic lurks a man who just wants to punch people who annoy him.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,102
<alarmed, checks over shoulder>
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Don't worry, the punchman is on your side. Such as it is.
Edited by zooterkin:
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11.
Edited for rule 11.
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by zooterkin:
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11.
Edited for rule 11.
How much does stupid cost? $36.54
https://www.amazon.com/We-Never-Went-Moon-Americas/dp/1545393575/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
In The Comment at Amazon, I see moonbats, and they don't know they are moonbats.
Last edited by a moderator:
bknight
Master Poster
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing, of course. The Atomic Energy Commission doesn't grant security clearances. Kaysing was essentially a librarian. Anyone who has access to classified materials, even just to file them on the shelf, must have some degree of clearance to see and handle them. That doesn't mean he knows what they meant.
People point to his security clearance as evidence that, if there was a smoking gun, he would have seen it. But he has no smoking gun. He just has a pile of inexpert inferences that he drew from largely public information. For example, Kaysing claimed you should be able to see "trillions of stars." That the astronauts didn't report such a stunning sight is evidence in his mind that they didn't really go. But of course nothing about "trillions" of stars comes from a security clearance. Kaysing was just pandering his layman's misunderstandings to an eager audience.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I have never understood the "no stars" argument. My goto on that one is "go try photograph stars, see how that works out for you". So far, no response.
Re stars: in addition to still, film-based photographs, there were some videos, right? These are also film-based, right?
If so, then maybe the videos could be processed to show stars. Here’s my idea:
Assume x frames per second. Assume the individual frames, with sky in them, can be registered, as in each pixel can be associated with an (RA, Dec) position. To an accuracy of ~5”, say (yeah, I’m ignoring the challenge of converting a film frame to pixels).
Pick the brightest stars that were in the sky. Stack all registered patches of film frame with these stars in them. The signal - the stars - will add; the blank/black sky will not (essentially just noise, which won’t be correlated). Maybe the signal will rise above the noise?
If so, then maybe the videos could be processed to show stars. Here’s my idea:
Assume x frames per second. Assume the individual frames, with sky in them, can be registered, as in each pixel can be associated with an (RA, Dec) position. To an accuracy of ~5”, say (yeah, I’m ignoring the challenge of converting a film frame to pixels).
Pick the brightest stars that were in the sky. Stack all registered patches of film frame with these stars in them. The signal - the stars - will add; the blank/black sky will not (essentially just noise, which won’t be correlated). Maybe the signal will rise above the noise?
Childlike Empress
Banned
Poll finds 57 percent of Russians (up from 40% in 2011) believe the Apollo landings were fake while only 24 percent believe they happened as announced. While reading, bear in mind that the website is the exact opposite of (hehe) Sputnik News, though. US state-sponsored propaganda.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Poll finds 57 percent of Russians (up from 40% in 2011) believe the Apollo landings were fake while only 24 percent believe they happened as announced. While reading, bear in mind that the website is the exact opposite of (hehe) Sputnik News, though. US state-sponsored propaganda.
Argumentum ad populum is, of course, a fallacious argument in matters of fact.
Dave