Re: The Lunar Landings

[Ludo]

Buzz Aldrin's response to the dis-believers!

http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936

A brilliant navy right hook from Buzz there - Bart Sibrel deserved every bit of it, he was behaving like a total a**hole (he even admitted it two weeks later).

[DaveR]

Buzz Aldrin's response to the dis-believers!

http://www.break.com/index/buzz-aldrins-feeling-on-a-fake-moon-landing-2362936

A brilliant navy right hook from Buzz there - Bart Sibrel deserved every bit of it, he was behaving like a total a**hole (he even admitted it two weeks later).

What a jerk that guy was, calling Buzz a coward when all he's ever done in his sad life is make up crackpot conspiracy theories.

[Ludo]

What a jerk that guy was, calling Buzz a coward when all he's ever done in his sad life is make up crackpot conspiracy theories.

agreed.

[Ludo]

This was one of the photos I took the evening I met Buzz at the Royal Geography Society in London - it was a meeting I will never, ever forget. He did not seem like a liar to me.

[born2run]

Personally I think the moon does exist

Ali G - Buzz Aldrin

 L0L

[Fester]

What a jerk that guy was, calling Buzz a coward when all he's ever done in his sad life is make up crackpot conspiracy theories.

agreed.

Hmm, but they do say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, do they not?

I'm glad I started this debate, its fascinating.
But, what it demonstrates most clearly is that for those who believe the landing were genuine then no amount of examples or dissent will make them stop and think, 'hey, that's a good point, I'm not so sure now'
Equally, for those who doubt the authenticity of the lunar landings, then no amount of 'proof' will make them accept it.

I remain undecided.

[Ian]

Hmm, but they do say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, do they not?

I doubt many servicemen from WWII would agree with you on that.

On a slightly different point, reverting to the observation you made about the technological capability to provide remotely tilting cameras at the mission time, NASA have always made sure that their spacecraft are equipped with 'old' technology. The Mars Rover, for instance, uses the same processor set as an Apple Mac from the early noughties.  The reason for this - and it's the same that made Cisco use 'old' tech for the Olympic BB and TV switching and routing systems - is that using 'old' tech, which is well debugged and proven is a much safer bet when you're over 100 000 000 miles away from something that goes wrong.

what it demonstrates most clearly is that for those who believe the landing were genuine then no amount of examples or dissent will make them stop and think, 'hey, that's a good point, I'm not so sure now'

That's a tad presumptuous, as it implies that everyone but you approaches the debate with a closed mind.  Is it inconceivable that people have investigated both the claims of the conspiracists and the entire saga of the moon missions and made own decisions, based on evidence? 

 WWW

[Fester]

Hmm, but they do say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, do they not?

I doubt many servicemen from WWII would agree with you on that.

On a slightly different point, reverting to the observation you made about the technological capability to provide remotely tilting cameras at the mission time, NASA have always made sure that their spacecraft are equipped with 'old' technology. The Mars Rover, for instance, uses the same processor set as an Apple Mac from the early noughties.  The reason for this - and it's the same that made Cisco use 'old' tech for the Olympic BB and TV switching and routing systems - is that using 'old' tech, which is well debugged and proven is a much safer bet when you're over 100 000 000 miles away from something that goes wrong.

what it demonstrates most clearly is that for those who believe the landing were genuine then no amount of examples or dissent will make them stop and think, 'hey, that's a good point, I'm not so sure now'

That's a tad presumptuous, as it implies that everyone but you approaches the debate with a closed mind.  Is it inconceivable that people have investigated both the claims of the conspiracists and the entire saga of the moon missions and made own decisions, based on evidence? 

 WWW

Some of what you say is fair, other elements less so.
See the times of my posts, after midnight.. hence I am incredibly busy at the moment.
I have said from the outset that I have doubts but am open minded... and also added that I genuinely want to be wrong on this.
But, I will consider your points and respond when I return from work, late this evening.

I often wonder though Ian, whether you have ever in your life used the phrase, 'I could be wrong''

[Ian]

Certain personality types are more inclined to believe conspiracy theories -  but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you :-))) A good article about that is here.

One of Nixon's senior aides, G. Gordon Liddy,  wrote "The problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true."

As Michael Shermer, of Scientific American, writes "Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition. Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black helicopters and the New World Order. “When something momentous happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both equally fictional."

[Ian]

I often wonder though Ian, whether you have ever in your life used the phrase, 'I could be wrong''

Many times, Fester, especially when debating issues on which I didn't have the facts.  It's what pushed me to investigate things as thoroughly as I could.

[Ian]

See the times of my posts, after midnight.. hence I am incredibly busy at the moment.
I have said from the outset that I have doubts but am open minded... and also added that I genuinely want to be wrong on this. But, I will consider your points and respond when I return from work, late this evening.

Fair enough, F, and I apologise if I gave the impression I thought you were trying to duck the issue.  I've edited my previous post to remove the suggestion.

[Fester]

Evening all,
To be fair Ian (to you), I wasn't looking to duck the issue, instead there were 3 reasons why I didn't reply in full to each point.
1, Laziness on my part, as the post and links you made were quite long and I couldn't actually get round to studying them all in detail.
2, Your intellect is superior to mine, and if I devoted a year to it, I would not be able to discover sufficient material to combat or disprove your points.  You have beaten me up with your brain!
3, It has been a few years since I last investigated this matter and I needed to refresh my memory on the long list of issues which tweaked my suspicions.  I shall now have the opportunity to do that, courtesy of a fellow Forum member who visited me today to lend me a DVD documentary on the subject.

I shall get to grips with the topic again over the next few days, (family visitors again for the next 2 days!!)  then I shall revon here.

In the meantime, Ian, your logical and clinical points have indeed shifted my opinion.... and I thank you for them.
They may well be the correct explanation.   However, I am neither 100% convinced that it happened, nor 100% convinced that it didn't
Maybe I am destined always to be in that limbo.

In the meantime, seeing as certain forum members have PM'd me with supportive comments, but are reluctant to join in the debate, may I request an anonymous ballot be set up?
Question in 3 parts.
Are you 100% certain that the NASA Moon landings were genuine?
Are you 100% certain that the NASA moon landings were faked?
Are you unsure to any degree that the NASA moon landings were genuine?

By the way...Moderators are not allowed to vote multiple times! 

[Ian]

I am neither 100% convinced that it happened, nor 100% convinced that it didn'tMaybe I am destined always to be in that limbo.

Descartes would argue that we can never really know anything for certain:

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum  I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I exist

[Ian]

I've set the poll up, F, but not used the final question, as its structure would lead almost everyone to vote on that  option.

[Bri Roberts]

That being the case, Ian, then won't members be left telling a fib when having to answer one of the two remaining options?