Poll

What do you think?

Are you 100% certain that the NASA Moon landings were genuine?
16 (66.7%)
Are you 100% certain that the NASA moon landings were faked?
8 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Author Topic: Re: The Lunar Landings  (Read 57573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #180 on: December 17, 2012, 07:20:56 am »
Quote
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.

Well, if you want more stats that might help to explain that, remember that at least 50% of the population sport an IQ either the same as or lower than 100, by definition. By that reckoning, it's surprising to me that as few as one third lack the ability necessary to make an appropriate assessment of scientific progress. It ought to be nearer half.  But your final paragraph says it all, really. And in the US, where this sort of thing is fairly run-of-the-mill, we now find that the Sandy Hook shooter's parentage was a survivalist mother, creating her own little fortress. And there are still people going round wearing foil linings to their hats and claiming that microwaves give off 'rays' to which they're allergic...
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #181 on: December 17, 2012, 08:09:29 am »
[Well, if you want more stats that might help to explain that, remember that at least 50% of the population sport an IQ either the same as or lower than 100, by definition.
:laugh:


Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #182 on: December 17, 2012, 08:12:20 am »
In response to that, I would repeat something I said earlier.
That being, where sufficient doubt exists, there will always be the human propensity to debate, question and oppose.
I always find it odd that those who are 100% convinced that the Lunar Landings are genuine, feel it necessary to become borderline irate in the defence of the subject.
Personally, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince a 'seriously paranoid hermit'

To me, the most interesting point is not whether it happened or not, but that one third of those asked are 100% sure that it did not.
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.
It's not incredible really, mate. How many times have you told me stories about utter muppets you've encountered? These are the sort of people we're talking about.... ?{}?

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #183 on: December 17, 2012, 08:39:45 am »
What's the best way of fitting the foil inside a hat?  :laugh:
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #184 on: December 17, 2012, 10:12:03 am »
What's the best way of fitting the foil inside a hat?  :laugh:

I've put the foil inside my trousers, firmly held in place by my old cricket box!    _))*
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #185 on: December 17, 2012, 11:51:40 am »
Quote
That is incredible when it is so relatively recent, and in the age of television and media scrutiny.

Well, if you want more stats that might help to explain that, remember that at least 50% of the population sport an IQ either the same as or lower than 100, by definition. By that reckoning, it's surprising to me that as few as one third lack the ability necessary to make an appropriate assessment of scientific progress. It ought to be nearer half.  But your final paragraph says it all, really. And in the US, where this sort of thing is fairly run-of-the-mill, we now find that the Sandy Hook shooter's parentage was a survivalist mother, creating her own little fortress. And there are still people going round wearing foil linings to their hats and claiming that microwaves give off 'rays' to which they're allergic...

Steady on Ian, that argument assumes that only people of low IQ are within the category of those who are unconvinced by the Lunar Landings.
Given the results of the Forum poll, that would include quite a number of your membership!

I would have thought that the opposite was true, and that only people of low IQ would accept slavishly something as fact without challenging it?
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #186 on: December 17, 2012, 01:43:02 pm »
Quote
Steady on Ian, that argument assumes that only people of low IQ are within the category of those who are unconvinced by the Lunar Landings.

No, it assumes that those with insufficient intellect are most likely to be taken in by scams and conspiracy theorists.  The forum sample, BTW, is far too small to be significantly indicative of anything.

Quote
I would have thought that the opposite was true, and that only people of low IQ would accept slavishly something as fact without challenging it?

But that's exactly what those who subscribe to the conspiracy theorists' delusions are doing.  They're accepting - hook, line and stinker - every word of those who delight in misleading the masses.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #187 on: December 17, 2012, 02:46:57 pm »
.... or, they are accepting hook, line and sinker, what the Government is telling them.
Either possibility remains.

But of course, no Government could ever be involved a cover up involving misinformation could it?  :laugh:



Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #188 on: December 17, 2012, 03:11:01 pm »
.... or, they are accepting hook, line and sinker, what the Government is telling them.
Either possibility remains.

But of course, no Government could ever be involved a cover up involving misinformation could it?  :laugh:
Do you not think the Russians would have spotted it was a hoax and exposed it to ridicule the USA in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #189 on: December 17, 2012, 03:42:09 pm »
Probably paid to keep quiet! Must be about time to mention the Illuminati again!  :twoface:
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #190 on: December 18, 2012, 01:03:08 am »
.... or, they are accepting hook, line and sinker, what the Government is telling them.
Either possibility remains.

But of course, no Government could ever be involved a cover up involving misinformation could it?  :laugh:
Do you not think the Russians would have spotted it was a hoax and exposed it to ridicule the USA in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Yes Dave, that is a very good point.
I will put it with all the other good points on BOTH sides of this debate, both lists are very long and intriguing.
This is why I still sit on the fence on this subject.
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #191 on: December 18, 2012, 07:14:15 am »
Quote
I will put it with all the other good points on BOTH sides of this debate

 _))* _))* _))*

You must show me some of the 'good points' on the conspiracy side then find any scientist who agrees. BTW - I wonder if a gift subscription to this society might be an ideal Chrissie present for you, fester...

WWW
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #192 on: December 18, 2012, 07:18:13 am »
Merry Xmas, Fester!

Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8953
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #193 on: December 18, 2012, 07:27:31 am »
There are some pretty bright minds over there.  This is a cut 'n paste directly from their introductory forum:


General Introduction

Q: "Is this site a joke?"

A: This site is not a joke. We are actively promoting the Flat Earth movement worldwide. There are, admittedly, several non-serious Flat Earth posters, but they are fairly easy to identify.

Q: "I found a site called alaska.net - is it also a genuine Flat Earth site?"

A: No, alaska.net is a rather crude attempt at parody, either of this site specifically or the Flat Earth movement in general.

Q: "Why do you believe the Earth is flat?"

A: It looks that way up close. In our local reference frame, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. In addition, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

Q: "What should I do before starting a thread on Flat Earth Theory?"

A: You should ask yourself if it is a topic that is likely to have been brought up before. If so, there is a very good chance it is already addressed by the FAQ and you should be acquainted with what it says on the subject. Be forewarned, you will be directed to the FAQ if you come up with a commonly-asked question, so you might as well read what it says now. You should also run through a few threads in the relevant forum to see if there has been any recent discussion on the subject.
ยป
Physics

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,829 km (78,186 miles)   Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory. The celestial bodies are also being suspended above the Earth by photoelectric effect in the Bishop model.

Q: "Why are other planets round, but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

UPDATE:The theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration is currently being developed and reviewed by members. Once completed, Electromagnetic Acceleration will be used as an alternative in explaining sunrises, sunsets and horizons for the dark energy model only.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

Q: "Aren't the accelerating Earth models flawed? Wouldn't planes crash into the Earth as it rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is accelerating up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.

Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

Q: "In the accelerating Earth models, why does a feather fall slower than a bowling ball?"

A: It is due to air resistance. The Earth accelerates the air, and the air in turn accelerates the feather up faster than the bowling ball. In our reference frame, it appears that the feather is falling slower than the bowling ball.

Q: "In the accelerating Earth models, how does one reach terminal velocity?"

A: Once the acceleration of the object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object reaches terminal velocity.

Q: "Wouldn't the Earth crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball if it's indeed a disc?"

A: The dark energy model assumes that the Earth does not possess a gravitational field. What we know as "gravity" is provided by the acceleration of the Earth.

Q: "What would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would become directly affected by UA as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to it.

Q: "Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Furthermore, a non-inertial relativistic object experiences different rates of acceleration along its length according to Special Relativity, as it is impossible for both ends to accelerate at the same rate without FTL communication between them. The front end accelerates at a lower rate than the rear end. This is why g decreases at higher altitude.

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no mor
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: The Lunar Landings
« Reply #194 on: December 18, 2012, 07:40:45 am »
 L0L do people really believe that stuff? Clearly nonsense, but worlds apart from the lunar landing story.
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas