• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's probably just as well that Apollo happened before photographs were easily fakeable.

Any future human endeavours that come close to its audacity will have a much harder time persuading the wilfully ignorant they actually happened.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's probably just as well that Apollo happened before photographs were easily fakeable.

Any future human endeavours that come close to its audacity will have a much harder time persuading the wilfully ignorant they actually happened.
Click to expand...
I really doubt the willfully ignorant could get much harder to convince than they are now.
 
Which reminds me - hey, David C/FatFreddy88/etc.: you've said you live in Madrid. So I guess you're not far at all from Fresnedillas, are you? Just thought I'd ask while waiting for you to answer my questions.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's probably just as well that Apollo happened before photographs were easily fakeable.

Any future human endeavours that come close to its audacity will have a much harder time persuading the wilfully ignorant they actually happened.
Click to expand...


I've seen claims that most of the photos are fakes created during the 1990s with Photoshop--basically all the ones that didn't appear in Life at the time. :rolleyes:
 
Now, how in the world would you know that? What a puzzler.

I noticed on the Spurs forum that somebody signed on as Fatfreddy88 with the express purpose of annoying him (he is "cosmored" there). But, although he uses different handles at different times, he doesn't (AFAIK) pretend to be different people.
 
After having gone fairly deep in the the hoax claims and seeing the mountain of evidence of the landings, I'm starting to think that the moon hoax theory is probably better off being handled by psychiatrists than aerospace engineers.

*edit* No disrespect to any engineers, but it seems no amount of verified scientific evidence is going to convince some people. It's not about scientific evidence, it's about them.
 
Last edited:
HLP said:
After having gone fairly deep in the the hoax claims and seeing the mountain of evidence of the landings, I'm starting to think that the moon hoax theory is probably better off being handled by psychiatrists than aerospace engineers.

*edit* No disrespect to any engineers, but it seems no amount of verified scientific evidence is going to convince some people. It's not about scientific evidence, it's about them.
Click to expand...

No disrespect taken; the conspiracism phenomenon is clearly a psychological one regardless of what the specific theory is about.

We engineers can certainly respond to the questions that discuss the engineering involved with Apollo. And I've discovered that a number of lurkers prefer learning about Apollo engineering this way rather than from some dry technical manual. But in terms of convincing proponents, no -- the belief in a hoaxed Apollo does not derive from any sort of evidence, hence cannot be challenged by evidence.
 
HLP said:
After having gone fairly deep in the the hoax claims and seeing the mountain of evidence of the landings, I'm starting to think that the moon hoax theory is probably better off being handled by psychiatrists than aerospace engineers.

*edit* No disrespect to any engineers, but it seems no amount of verified scientific evidence is going to convince some people. It's not about scientific evidence, it's about them.
Click to expand...


Welcome, HLP. A point that I and others have made, here and elsewhere, many times: We don't spend time and energy debunking conspiracy theories because we expect to convince the true believers of the error of their ways; we do it mainly for the benefit of those who might come across the conspiracists' garbage and wonder whether any of it might have merit.

Another reason is that conspiracists regularly [Rule 10] on the graves of victims (in this case, all the astronauts who've given their lives in pursuit of space exploration) and some of us feel that someone should attempt to hold them accountable for this.

The foregoing aside, I'd be lying if I said that I don't sometimes enjoy using or watching others use certain conspiracists as rhetorical chew toys.
 
JayUtah said:
No disrespect taken; the conspiracism phenomenon is clearly a psychological one regardless of what the specific theory is about.

We engineers can certainly respond to the questions that discuss the engineering involved with Apollo. And I've discovered that a number of lurkers prefer learning about Apollo engineering this way rather than from some dry technical manual. But in terms of convincing proponents, no -- the belief in a hoaxed Apollo does not derive from any sort of evidence, hence cannot be challenged by evidence.
Click to expand...

I've learned a great deal from observing engineers such as yourself taking the time to answer questions and I appreciate that.

I've noticed that most hoax proponents never seem to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that every single engineer in the world not only disagrees with their claims, but can readily prove those claims wrong.

In my opinion, this point was especially proven over at IMDB.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Welcome, HLP.

The foregoing aside, I'd be lying if I said that I don't sometimes enjoy using or watching others use certain conspiracists as rhetorical chew toys.
Click to expand...

haha!


Thanks!

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. As I've gotten older, I have a much stronger appreciation of the space exploration achievements of the last 50 years and I get a little annoyed at people deriving claims from out of context information with little to no understanding of it.
 
HLP said:
I've learned a great deal from observing engineers such as yourself taking the time to answer questions and I appreciate that.
Click to expand...

I consider education part of my profession. The more people know about what we do, the more they'll help us help them.

I've noticed that most hoax proponents never seem to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that every single engineer in the world not only disagrees with their claims, but can readily prove those claims wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree; most are uncomfortable with the notion that there can be well-reasoned opposition to their belief. An article of their conspiracist "faith" is that anyone who disputes the conspiracy theory does so only out of ignorance. Hence when someone offers a reasoned objection, they shift horses and say that the expert must be ideologically or politically compromised. In other words, anyone who disagrees must either be stupid or evil.

In my opinion, this point was especially proven over at IMDB.
Click to expand...

I think that's why that particular proponent essentially "punched out" of the debate by posting one of his characteristically foul-mouthed rants that he knew would be deleted by the moderators. That gave him an excuse not to take the debate seriously, since he could play the censorship card. In any case, that hoax claimant is back safely at YouTube where he can control the debate, and he now has the departed Patrick1000 to keep him company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom