View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 30 Nov 2012, 06:18

...Conspiracy and Questioning

Americans, certainly, and perhaps all the cultures of the world, love the idea of conspiracy as an explanation of how and why many events have happened. It plays to their innermost fears and hostilities that there is a well-organized, well-financed, and Machiavellian design being executed by some malevolent group, the dehumanized \them,. which seek to rob \us. of something we hold dear.
As one scholar defined a conspiracy, and this represents a practicable approach to the topic, as \the attribution of deliberate agency to something that is more likely to be accidental or unintended..4 This certainly happens often enough. And in all cases these tend to be exaggerated, expanded, and complexified with every retelling.
More: http://www.smithsonianconference.org/ap ... ndings.pdf

Quick view: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... JE1Ba1hnOw
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Nov 2012, 09:56

funny...

and the Cold War and deep psychological need for US exceptionalism don't count for anything?

how about wireflashes, risks of failure, technical impossibility (size and power of rocket, protection required, radiation from solar flares and the van Allen belt, calculating docking rendezvous perfectly), fake moon rocks that don't match genuine unmanned probe samples, strange studio lighting artifacts, no stars in any pic whereas probes show stars, backdrop hills that look exactly like hills in Hawaii, accelerations and decelerations that are clearly impossible in science and engineering, magic movie cameras that 'flip up' with a remote when LEMs take off, staged photos that couldn't take place with cameras mounted on chests with no viewfinder, 250F heat that would fry camera film, not enough battery capacity in suits or the LEM to actually run air-conditioning, the lunar rover can't actually fit in the LEM when you look at the plans, the hatchway from the LEM base and the ascent module is too small to get through in a spacesuit, there isn't enough room to move in the cockpits with a suit, Mike Collins' crazy slip-up in post-mission interview, the so-called astronauts' clear evasion today, blue-coloured oxygen-rich skies while supposedly travelling in deep space, flipping water all over the cockpit in zero G on the live mission that could jeopardise instrumentation, taking hammers to the moon (why would you?), no tyre-tracks around the rover in many pics, no blast crater or disturbance whatsoever under the 'lander', potentially pics of one mission seen on the foot of the LEM on another mission(?), flags clearly waving in the breeze in footage, the same identical footage of one rover excursion while going in both directions, missing landers in pics (moved with cranes), artifacts of light bulbs in the sun in computer analysis, appearance of ScotchLite screen imperfections in computer analysis, and so on and so forth. Thanks Smithsonian for attempting to close off the legitimate objections. Very 'scientific' of them, eh, as they bend scientific enquiry and normal healthy scepticism to aid in the US imperial hegemony project and a grand deception.

You're a sad and tragic agent provocateur and disinformation artist, really?, I'm over the fakery -- a fake pseudoscep that works for the govt to scramble information. You can't even masquerade as a genuine pseudoscep successfully, let alone a genuine sceptical thinker.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 30 Nov 2012, 10:27

Wait- so you think the government would pay someone to post on this site that has about a half dozen regs and a couple dozen lurkers?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Nov 2012, 11:07

Arouet wrote:Wait- so you think the government would pay someone to post on this site that has about a half dozen regs and a couple dozen lurkers?

Quite possibly, because there could be thousands of readers, and a lot of Google search returns. Winston would have to give us some traffic stats. Then there can be the voluntary, self-appointed 'patriotic' types who will always argue bull-headedly on behalf of the govt for nuttin'. Ref Walter Sobjak again.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 30 Nov 2012, 12:21

Arouet wrote:Wait- so you think the government would pay someone to post on this site that has about a half dozen regs and a couple dozen lurkers?


Of course. What other possible explanation could there be ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Nov 2012, 12:26

really? wrote:
Arouet wrote:Wait- so you think the government would pay someone to post on this site that has about a half dozen regs and a couple dozen lurkers?


Of course. What other possible explanation could there be ?

Wait - you don't mean you actually think like this without being paid????????
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 30 Nov 2012, 12:56

So how much do you think really gets paid? And is it just really, or some of the rest of us as well?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Nov 2012, 13:11

I find it interesting that there is a humungous para up there highlighting over two dozen serious anomalies with the moon landings, and a tiny para questioning really?'s bona fides, and for some reason the pseudoscep tag team is all hung up and diversionary on the little para and trying to steer conversation away from the big one. It's really interesting. No actual consideration of the 'science' of the landings or attempting to show why the dodgy stuff can't be real etc. Just an obsession with diverting the topic. Just attempts to derail threads and query other posters' thought processes. Very interesting. Not even pseudosceps?

I'll just keep pasting in the big para from time to time so it works its way up the google rankings, and freshens up the topic from time to time, will that be OK?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 30 Nov 2012, 19:05

SydneyPSIder wrote:I find it interesting that there is a humungous para up there highlighting over two dozen serious anomalies with the moon landings, and a tiny para questioning really?'s bona fides, and for some reason the pseudoscep tag team is all hung up and diversionary on the little para and trying to steer conversation away from the big one. It's really interesting. No actual consideration of the 'science' of the landings or attempting to show why the dodgy stuff can't be real etc. Just an obsession with diverting the topic. Just attempts to derail threads and query other posters' thought processes. Very interesting. Not even pseudosceps?


Can you think of any reason, other than conspiracy, for that?

I'll just keep pasting in the big para from time to time so it works its way up the google rankings, and freshens up the topic from time to time, will that be OK?


You'll have to ask ninja about that.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 30 Nov 2012, 22:21

SydneyPSIder wrote:I find it interesting that there is a humungous para up there highlighting over two dozen serious anomalies with the moon landings, and a tiny para questioning really?'s bona fides, and for some reason the pseudoscep tag team is all hung up and diversionary on the little para and trying to steer conversation away from the big one. It's really interesting. No actual consideration of the 'science' of the landings or attempting to show why the dodgy stuff can't be real etc. Just an obsession with diverting the topic. Just attempts to derail threads and query other posters' thought processes. Very interesting. Not even pseudosceps?

I'll just keep pasting in the big para from time to time so it works its way up the google rankings, and freshens up the topic from time to time, will that be OK?


Delving into the thought processes is important because understanding from where and why a person believes a conspiracy will help others in the process of evaluating the veracity of these supposed truths a ct'er expresses.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 30 Nov 2012, 23:58

I'm actually just as interested in the thought process as I am about the issue (actually, in this case more interested because I don't find the moon landing topic to be particularly engaging).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Dec 2012, 09:38

really? wrote:Delving into the thought processes is important because understanding from where and why a person believes a conspiracy will help others in the process of evaluating the veracity of these supposed truths a ct'er expresses.

It's based purely on the evidence, my friend. Purely on the rational engine in my head presented with disturbing hard evidence. It's far more interesting to delve into the head of a pseudoscep, although slightly disturbing.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Dec 2012, 09:40

Arouet wrote:Can you think of any reason, other than conspiracy, for that?

Something we call here 'sheer bloody-mindedness'. Ref Walter Sobjak again.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 01 Dec 2012, 10:22

Though I don't get the reference - at least you see other possibilities!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Dec 2012, 11:15

Arouet wrote:Though I don't get the reference - at least you see other possibilities!

perhaps google it? but that's just another manifestation of sheer bloody-mindedness, I guess. Being continually cryptic, uncommunicative and disingenuous doesn't help either, unless the aim is really? to bring the site down or render it irrelevant. (Make that Walter Sobchak, must get our eastern European transliterations correct.)
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron