Talk:Moon landing hoax
(→This article) |
Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (→This article) |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:::::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&feature=related Mythbusters did it] {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | :::::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&feature=related Mythbusters did it] {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
Okay, but what also about the all the document contradiction I post in my reasearch [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Lucho/moon#Discrepancies_in_NASA_documents over here]. How come official document contradict official language by men involved? [[User:Lucho|Lucho]] ([[User talk:Lucho|talk]]) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | Okay, but what also about the all the document contradiction I post in my reasearch [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Lucho/moon#Discrepancies_in_NASA_documents over here]. How come official document contradict official language by men involved? [[User:Lucho|Lucho]] ([[User talk:Lucho|talk]]) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Take a look at the [[Gish gallop]] article. This style of debate is very difficult and time consuming and confusing. It is far better to go point by point. Start with your best argument, be specific, provide the sources, and let us address that point. You can then offer counter-points if you like. Just like what happened with the flag waving. tmtoulouse 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
== OJ Simpsons was framed! == | == OJ Simpsons was framed! == | ||
Revision as of 19:00, 18 May 2010
I don't have a link for this at the moment, but I once saw a documentary about it, they investigated this case very thoroughly and even interviewed ex-cia agents and ex-Presidential advisers and senators. It turned out there really was a movie, directed by Stanley Kubrick, which was made in case the Apollo 11 mission would fail (which it didn't.) Some pictures that ended up in Nasa's archives and, over the years, in the media, were actually from the movie, explaining why some pictures really do look fake. MiddleMan 10:14, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- That's hilarious, and would make a great addition. The "accidental" hoax, due to a possible planned hoax in case reality didn't work! humanbe in 13:13, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- I would like a source on this. Interesting. It would show that such hoaxes are not only possible, but actually planned in advance. Heart♥Gold tx 14:51, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, a popular movie who's name escapes me now, was built on this premise...it may be what youre referring to.162.82.215.199 14:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Capricorn One, I think. Of course, "many" diversions of one kind or another are planned in advance. Spin control always works best when thought out before the crisis. humanbe in 14:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, Carpricorn One, starring OJ Simpson. It was about faking a Mars landing but pretty much the same premise. olliegrind 15:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Capricorn One, I think. Of course, "many" diversions of one kind or another are planned in advance. Spin control always works best when thought out before the crisis. humanbe in 14:58, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, a popular movie who's name escapes me now, was built on this premise...it may be what youre referring to.162.82.215.199 14:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- I would like a source on this. Interesting. It would show that such hoaxes are not only possible, but actually planned in advance. Heart♥Gold tx 14:51, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- I could prove to you that there are hidden tapes showing a faked moon landing...they called it a "simulation", but we all know the truth. I can't cite it right now, because it's still classified and the government won't let us print it.--PalMD-yada yada 15:09, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- What's that movie that ends with all the "data" on what happened in the movie being stored in a some giant, anonymous warehouse somewhere? humanbe in 15:15, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Raiders of the Lost Ark--PalMD-yada yada 15:16, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- Good point PalMD, but you should read about the Northwoods document and McCollum memo for counterpoints.Heart♥Gold tx 15:17, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- What's that movie that ends with all the "data" on what happened in the movie being stored in a some giant, anonymous warehouse somewhere? humanbe in 15:15, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
HEY!
This is all true. According to my brother's doctor's wife's dog groomer's son, (who plays Frisbee golf with a guy whose sister used to do porn films where she met a technician who worked with Francis Ford Coppala's second assistant director's administrative assistant's "husband" who told her it was ALL TRUE. ~~ CЯacke® 10:30, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
- The caricature you use here is a model for dismissing any questioning of events that goes against the mainstream. (I do not personally object to it being applied to the Moon Landing, but in other cases, it is a diversionary tactic.) Heart♥Gold tx 22:41, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
- It's more a caricature of "evidence" that is no better than an urban legend. As opposed, say, to "I have two anonymous (but identified in my notes) sources from the White House on record that Dick Cheney eats live chickens" from a real reporter. humanbe in
- I'd like to see a real world example. Nevermind, I am sure they exist, but people don't take them seriously. Heart♥Gold tx 22:59, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
- A real world example of what? My "cite" pretty much tracks the Woodward/Bernstein Watergate investigations. The "my sister's ex-brother-in-law worked with a guy who knew..." sort of thing is really just Lulz, in this venue (RW). Not meant to make fun of your articles. Just the Moon loonies, in this case. Relax :) humanbe in 23:49, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
- Plus the "fact" that some of these conspiracy theories (the "moon hoax") require 30,000 people (hyperbole) to be "in on it". But people still lend more weight to the theory than they rightfully ought to; the computers in the late 1960's didn't have half the computational power of, say, your cellphone but they got the job done. Okay it took a three acre building to house them but hey, when we do flea markets we take some old payphones we have laying around the joint...I tell 13yo's that "these are what cell phones used to look like". ~~ CЯacke® 23:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
- Watergate actually happened, right? I wonder how many people had to be in on the faux polish attack on Germany. Big secrets can be kept (at least from citizens of the U.S., e.g., see Manhatan Project....oh, wait, the Russians new more about that program than our vice president at the time.) Heart♥Gold tx 08:47, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
- Yes, WG happened. Of course, the "scandal" that drove RMN form office was not the break-in, it was the cover up that tied the top of the executive branch to it. A good example would be Tonkin. You've got a bunch of navy guys, most of whom aren't sure what happened, and one or two who do know. They can be ordered to keep quiet and they will, at least while they are enlisted (they are not told why to keep quiet). Then you have a handful of exec branch people and brass, all of whom desire the result. And, of course, all they had to do was "misinterpret" events, not make them happen. Things like the MLH require lots of people to keep it secret, from long before it is even faked. And, of course, long after. It would be easier for me to "believe" that the first one or two were faked, but then we got there - requiring far fewer people "in on it" and since we get there in the end, not much to really reveal. Oh, we need to add that one (didn't really get there 'til '75, or something). humanbe in 12:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
- Watergate actually happened, right? I wonder how many people had to be in on the faux polish attack on Germany. Big secrets can be kept (at least from citizens of the U.S., e.g., see Manhatan Project....oh, wait, the Russians new more about that program than our vice president at the time.) Heart♥Gold tx 08:47, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
- I'd like to see a real world example. Nevermind, I am sure they exist, but people don't take them seriously. Heart♥Gold tx 22:59, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
- It's more a caricature of "evidence" that is no better than an urban legend. As opposed, say, to "I have two anonymous (but identified in my notes) sources from the White House on record that Dick Cheney eats live chickens" from a real reporter. humanbe in
Closed Minded confusion
I love rationalwiki, but I am confused why it is so closed minded (or at least appears to be) I mean, the odds of anyone (including the minds of rocket scientists) pulling off such a hoax with thousands of people and no one smuggling some evidence whatsoever is staggering. However, as the probability is still there, we as rational people should do our very best to find more conclusive proof that humans landed on the moon in 1969. If we don't, conservapedia wins (cp is neutral on this topic, but you know what i mean). P.S. eventually, space travel will be so popular, everyone will be able to see the flag and crater they left firsthand.— Unsigned, by: 144.92.44.153 / talk / contribs
- What exactly would be "more conclusive proof" than what we already have? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:39, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, we have the rock, the video, the people, the technology, the capsules. What more do we need?--Bobbing up 17:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Not to mention the budgets. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- And the fact that the Russians (The Soviet Union!) confirmed it.--Bobbing up 17:47, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- True, but they could be in on it, too! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:49, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Ah. A conspiracy!--Bobbing up 17:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- When you think about it: About the entire American government apparatus would have had to work together to pull off this alleged hoax. By comparison, a conspiracy with the Soviets seems practically reasonable. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:04, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- "I am confused why it is so closed minded"
- When you think about it: About the entire American government apparatus would have had to work together to pull off this alleged hoax. By comparison, a conspiracy with the Soviets seems practically reasonable. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:04, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Ah. A conspiracy!--Bobbing up 17:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- True, but they could be in on it, too! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:49, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- And the fact that the Russians (The Soviet Union!) confirmed it.--Bobbing up 17:47, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Not to mention the budgets. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, we have the rock, the video, the people, the technology, the capsules. What more do we need?--Bobbing up 17:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
To paraphrase Orac, it is possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out uselessly onto the sidewalk.--
-PalMD --If it looks like a donut... 18:16, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
"The Moon is farther than the Sun, ergo - hoax"
Where should I put these guys? (Krishna fundamentalists?) Should I rename the "Flat Earth" section to something like "Total rejection of all science", or? --ZooGuard (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This article
Why does this article have no real good sources or arguement in favor of the moon landing as hoax? Do you want me to add? Lucho (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Probably becuse there aren't any. ^_^ But seriously, if you're planning to put in content that alters the POV of this article, please discuss it here first. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- That fine. I have a paralel article here where I have what I want put in this article. What you think? Lucho (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Boring, old, pro-conspiracy bullshit to be honest. - π 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It not "pro-conspiracy," it more scepticism and pessimism anout moon landing "truth." I can improve through edits, though, to make it more sceptical. Lucho (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- So, you want to paste in a "the moon landings were a hoax" article, copied in its entirety from elsewhere, in to our article about the moon landing hoax conspiracy nutters? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It not "pro-conspiracy," it more scepticism and pessimism anout moon landing "truth." I can improve through edits, though, to make it more sceptical. Lucho (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Boring, old, pro-conspiracy bullshit to be honest. - π 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- That fine. I have a paralel article here where I have what I want put in this article. What you think? Lucho (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we start simply. This has a bit of a feel of a Gish gallop to me. Can you identify what you think is the single best pro-conspiracy argument, and the best source for that argument? tmtoulouse 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard to identify one particular example when so many are good. But let start with obvious one, the waving American flag. There is no wind on the moon, so flag waving is not really possible. Lucho (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is wind the only possible source to increase the kinetic energy of a flag? Is there no other possible source for energy? tmtoulouse 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Funny, I thought that this is a fake argument promoted by covert NASA shills to discredit the real hoax arguments... (Seriously, I've seen a hoax proponent claim this.)
- Anyway, do you care to elaborate what makes you think the flag is waving? When exactly it's waving? --ZooGuard (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!" 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)You mean this vid? If it was wind causing it, it'd be far more consistent. You can quite clearly see it only waves when they're touching it, it takes a while to settle down after that because there's no atmosphere (well, a negligible atmosphere).
gnostic 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mythbusters did it
gnostic 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mythbusters did it
- (EC)You mean this vid? If it was wind causing it, it'd be far more consistent. You can quite clearly see it only waves when they're touching it, it takes a while to settle down after that because there's no atmosphere (well, a negligible atmosphere).
- "Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!" 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but what also about the all the document contradiction I post in my reasearch over here. How come official document contradict official language by men involved? Lucho (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Take a look at the Gish gallop article. This style of debate is very difficult and time consuming and confusing. It is far better to go point by point. Start with your best argument, be specific, provide the sources, and let us address that point. You can then offer counter-points if you like. Just like what happened with the flag waving. tmtoulouse 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
OJ Simpsons was framed!
I actually saw this argument somewhere some years ago.
OJ Simpson was framed for the murders because he had exposed the moon landing hoax.
No, really. In 1978, OJ was attempting an acting career, and was in a movie called Capricorn One about a hoax mission to Mars. Said movie was inspired by the moon landing hoax. And since OJ brought the truth about the moon landing hoax to so many people, The Conspiracy made it look like he committed a double murder.
MDB (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- OJ was acquitted. Frame fail. Conspiracy theory fail. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)