Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 159
  1. #81
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    John Ma,

    Firstly, your question has already been answered in this thread. Taking pictures of the landing site is not the simple thing many people assume it is. But be patient, these pictures will come in time.

    Secondly, NASA has already been to the moon and taken pictures but you think these pictures are fake. Why would you think additional pictures of the landing site taken by NASA are real when you think the pictures they have already taken are fake?

    NASA could take a million pictures of the landing site and some people will keep saying they are fake. If you don't believe the overwhelming evidence which is already available, it is unlikely you will believe another handful of pictures. So in my opinion it is certainly not worth the money to take more pictures just for the sake of satisfying the conspiracy believers - because they will still not believe the pictures are real. So what's the point?
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  2. #82
    John Ma
    Guest
    If landing is a lie, all other country can't find the landing relics, European's picture didn't show up months ago.
    Why European's lunar satelite can't find the relics? they said they need time to process the data, but I have been waiting for their data for half a year now? Fox documentary mentioned Japanese will launch a lunar satelite in 2002 to shot the relics, but Japanese gave up their plan. Why? Aerospace industry of every major country need big fund to run their business, it is no good to seek the truth to them. The king's new dress is always told by some 'kids'.

  3. #83
    Kristin
    Guest

    Moon Hoaux---> Americans are idiots

    Sorry, but it doesnt quite add up. There is no gravity on the moon!!! If you add in all the scientific factors nothing from those pictures is correct. FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!

    Quote
    Quote: Dave
    Edit (21st January 2004): In response to the large number of emails I've been receiving about this topic, I have created a section on my personal website about the Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory. It answers all the common questions like "Why are the flags waving?" and "Where are the missing stars?".

    ----------------------------------------------

    I've been having the old "moon hoax" debate yet again on another forum. This time an innocent kid was shown the Fox program "Did We Land on the Moon?" as part of his official school course. The teacher apparently presented this program as a serious documentary. Like many people the kid now doubts whether the moon landings ever took place.

    For those of you who don't know, this Fox "documentary" is a shameless piece of misleading garbage which should never have been allowed to air. It uses a lot of "evidence" based on film and photographic images which any first-year film student could see right through. But apparently the professional TV producers who made this documentary have no understanding of simple exposure techniques, lens characteristics, etc.

    There was one part of this program that sticks in my mind: An interview with a conspiracy theorist talking about the "missing stars" - a film shot which shows a starless sky. Now the camera operator who shot this interview must have known that this was a simple exposure issue. So must the producer, editor, and anyone else with any smattering of video/film experience. And yet the program could find no way to explain the missing stars.

    In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that this program is a deliberate deception. It is inconceivable that a professional television production house could have been fooled for a minute by the absurd pseudo-evidence presented by the interview subjects.

    The people responsible should be brought to account.

  4. #84
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    John, it might surprise you to learn that not everyone is working to your timetable. Although I'm not fully conversant with ESA's agenda, my understanding is that they hope to release some photos of the landing sites but the SMART-1 orbiter is in a relatively high orbit so it won't be easy. I do hope that some photos will be forthcoming but I am happy to be patient. In the meantime, the absense of such photos is not evidence of anything at all, or in other words, "The absense of evidence is not evidence of absence".

    It's a common misperception that spacecraft could snap photos of landing sites just like you snap photos of your cat. This is not the case - it's vastly more complex and difficult than that.

    Kristin, if you're going to say things like "there is no gravity on the moon" then you probably shouldn't be calling anyone else an idiot.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  5. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    John, I think your English is fine. It's certainly better than my Chinese.

    ...after all of my students realized Y2K was a conspiracy of US IT industry...

    No. The IT industry were the ones arguing that it was okay and that airplanes wouldn't be falling from the sky, etc. I know because I was working in the computer industry at the time. Nobody wanted to do Y2K-related work because (a) it was tedious and uninteresting, and (b) it was a short-term affair with no potential for growth. The Y2K fiasco was the work largely of a few doomsayers in government, one of whom (I'm sorry to say) is the senator from my state. Very shrewd, politically speaking. If Y2K caused problems, he could say, "See, I told you so." If nothing happened (as was the case) then he could say, "See, my efforts were successful." The IT industry hates him because he gained credibility at their expense by saying that the country was in bad shape because of their laziness.

    ...all of my student believe my judgement now.

    That doesn't make your judgment correct.

    ...you know more science, technology and logic doesn't mean your believe is correct.

    Sound logic based on a accurate and complete view of the relevant facts is much more likely to result in correct belief than saying, "I believe I was right about something else, therefore I am right about this."

    NASA can easily prove that I am wrong if they take some picture of the landing relics by using their telescope camera or something else.

    NASA currently does not have the technology to take recognizable pictures of the Apollo artifacts on the lunar surface. It is by no means "easy" to image the surface of the moon at resolutions of .2 or .3 meter per pixel, the resolution necessary to see the equipment for what it is.

    If you really spent 30 billion US$ for the landing ... it is worth to spend a little money to take some picture of the landing relics.

    Not according to the U.S. taxpayer. They disagreed with providing even $15,000 for a noted space author to debunk the conspiracy theory. Why do you think they would approve for $100 million or more in order to confirm an accomplishment from 30 years ago, that is being questioned irrationally and deceptively by a few profit-minded authors?

    You can never win an argument against the irrational and malicious, and NASA knows this.

    Is my logic wrong?

    Yes. The general public doesn't need the kind of proof you propose, and the conspiracy theorists won't accept the kind of proof you propose. Therefore the lack of effort on NASA's part to provide verification is perfectly justified.

    As long as Dave is using this forum to discuss not only the matter at hand but also the meta-issue of pseudoscientific belief and polemics, this is a good opportunity to raise a point. Conspiracy theorists frequently adopt a tactic whereby they ask for just a little bit more evidence than is possible to provide at some given moment. It has several effects. First, it distracts from the conspiracists' wholesale inappropriate rejection of existing evidence. Second, it conveys the illusion that the conspiracists are reasonable people by suggesting a standard of proof they would be willing to accept. But third -- and most importantly -- it perpetuates the debate.

    I discovered some years ago that the last thing the conspiracy theorists want is for the question to be decided either way. If a definite answer is provided -- even one in their favor -- then they don't get to publish their books and videos anymore. They don't thrive on truth; they thrive on controversy. And perpetuating that controversy is what keeps them in business. So they will adopt a perpetual policy that suggests the answer may be forthcoming very shortly, but is not yet available and we shouldn't make up our minds yet.

    If landing is a lie, all other country can't find the landing relics, European's picture didn't show up months ago.

    The ESA has not claimed yet to have imaged the Apollo landing sites at appropriate resolution. The only other attempt was from the Japanese, and if I recall correctly they lost their funding. Those things happen.

    So at best you have an argument from silence. Did we disbelieve the sinking of the Titanic until it was found in the late 1980s? No, the evidence prior to that was quite sufficient to support belief. Similarly we do not require direct observation of the Apollo landing sites in order to believe the missions took place. The evidence that exists is quite sufficient to support a belief in Apollo's authenticity.

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    There is no gravity on the moon!!!

    I think you had better consult a physics book.

    If you add in all the scientific factors nothing from those pictures is correct.

    What "scientific factors" do you mean? The ones described by the conspiracy theorists -- non-parallel shadows, etc. -- are about as scientific as Road Runner cartoons. The techniques they use to "analyze" the Apollo photographs have no basis whatsoever in science or mathematics. They're just mumbo-jumbo intended to put a semi-plausible face onto a bunch of predetermined conclusions and thereby to separate the gullible from their money. These authors have no training or experience in science.

    I've spoken with conspiracy theorists such as David Percy, and I'm firmly convinced they know their arguments are bogus. They won't talk to, or allow themselves to be questioned by, people with legitimate expertise. And with good reason: they really can't speak intelligently about their work. It's meant to deceive, not to reveal.

  7. #87
    John Ma
    Guest
    Dave and JayW:
    Reasonable argument. It is first time to discuss something with American. I spent many years to argue Chinese experts and communist leaders that we canít see the Great Wall from the moon, it is extremely hard work, their logic is very simple, American astronauts did see it, I try to tell them from the point of resolution, but no one listen to me, I am not trust-worth to US sideís message. There is even an article about See-the Great Wall-from-moon in whole countryís primary schoolís Chinese textbook. Their extended opinion is that since US can see the Wall from the moon, so all defense industryís top-secret research canít keep secret because US can watch it from the space. It is the deep reason which caused me hate the stupid country and skeptical to US moon landing. Their most serious problem is trust US propaganda too much, although their engineers and researchers have very excellent math and science background (I realized it from my experience in a top Japanese unversity).
    Fortunatelly, Chinese first spaceman's first sentence to answer the ground question is "I haven't see the Great Wall". My tear was on my face when I heared it in Canada!!!

  8. #88
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Thanks for the message John. Just a quick note - we're not all from the USA. I'm from New Zealand.

    Many of us are watching China's space programme with great interest and we wish your country all the best in your endeavours.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  9. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    Hello John,

    I think we've been individually the victims of our respective political leaders. If Nixon really did say the astronauts could see the Great Wall from space, then he did so without consulting any of the astronauts. If your leaders believed him over the objections of you and other scientists, then this just goes to show that your politicians and ours aren't very different. Your nation and mine are trying to overcome decades of mutual distrust. That will not come easily. But it will be through the patience of you and me and other technically proficient people to help our political leaders understand what they need to about technology in order to guide their nations effectively.

  10. #90
    lyly
    Guest
    hello all,

    i heard about and saw 'conspiracy theory: did we land on the moon?' at a friend's house. he had it on his comuter. i am now trying to find it on the net in order to place the link on a skeptic website (placing the video would be to heavy) where i come a lot. just to know what they will have to say to that. i have cruised through the nine pages of this thread, and found several links to the video, but none of them seems to work for me. maybe because they're already to old? if anyone would happen to have another link, i'd be very happy with it. i am european and thus i can't watch it on tv, or point anyone i know to a broadcasting. apparently this video has caused a lot of commotion in the US? also, if in my further searching, i would find the video myself, i'll post it here.

    lyly

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube