Debunking Nonsense

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Zipper730

Chief Master Sergeant
4,430
1,023
Nov 9, 2015
I'm not sure exactly what the rules are on discussions of this sort, but I'm not a person who believes we never made it to the moon.

However, I do find claims of this sort fascinating, though troubling, as I have a feeling there's some variable is either being misinterpreted, or deliberately miscalculated depending on motive (misguided or insane on one end; malevolent on the other).

I say fascinating because the analysis seems compelling, but troubling in that it seems to fundamentally stand in the face of observed facts because we've demonstrably put objects into orbit ranging from
  • Various small satellites like Explorer I (US)
  • Various manned space capsules such as Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (which were certainly put into orbit around Earth even before being sent to the Moon)
  • High orbital satellites such as Vela which were designed to track nuclear explosions: They reached 73,000 miles up
  • Put up space stations (humanity as a whole)
  • Done 135 space shuttle missions (US)
  • Put up orbital telescopes
  • GPS systems are dependent on satellites
as well as the fact that the Saturn V had an enormous lifting capacity, and bad ideas need to be challenged, else they'll spread like wildfire.

I figure most members here have the mathematical and physics skill to determine where an error lies as I'm not a math or physics expert, and my knowledge of rocket propulsion is not the best.
 
bad ideas need to be challenged, else they'll spread like wildfire.
Click to expand...

Yep, sure thing, but that's already happened. The problem with the moon conspiracy theorists is they have based their entire argument on the flimsiest of evidence, and there is a wealth of evidence to prove that we've sent 12 men to the moon and got them back safely. Firstly, there's the effort to get them there. You have to start with the Mercury programme, then Gemini, then of course there's the development of the hardware, those big Saturn rockets, first the 1Bs, then the gigantic Vs. Why go to all that effort and not try and get there?

And if you are going to fake it, at what point do you begin the ruse? After reaching orbit? They couldn't fake the rockets taking off, so did they stay in orbit, or did they head for the moon? Once you're in orbit of course, you have everything you need to get to the moon, so why not go that far? And then if you have found yourself inadvertently in lunar orbit, why not go down there? They practised it enough.

Next thing is, why fake it six times? Why not only two times or even once? And what about Apollo 13? Was that faked too? If so, why? And if it wasn't faked, why not cover it up if the actual moon landings were fake? The entire reason why the conspiracy theorists choose to believe the landings were fake is because they believe we couldn't actually get there. Apollo 13 provides the evidence they need to prove their point, but instead, it was not covered up; it was televised around the world. Doesn't make sense to cover up not being able to reach the moon and not cover up Apollo 13.

Let's also involve the Russians, who did try to get to the moon, but two of their big rockets exploded. They could have faked it, but didn't. Why could they have faked it? Because they were not completely honest about Gagarin's return to earth on his first flight. Originally, it was reported that he stayed with his capsule on landing, but it turns out he parachuted out of it before it returned to earth. Although this is a minor and irrelevant issue, it illustrates that the Soviets deliberately chose to misinform the world of their achievement, whilst not taking anything away from Gagarin, of course. So, the Soviets could have faked a moon landing but didn't. They had also been preparing for some time and had developed the hardware to land on the moon, too, but didn't fake it. This then raises the question of why the Americans might have done so, when they had everything at their disposal to actually reach the moon?

I had this discussion with a theorist once - left him flummoxed - somewhat surprisingly, he didn't know a thing about the actual moon missions or the hardware, or the enormous effort that went into planning it all, so I was able to shoot him down within minutes.
 
Last edited:
nuuumannn said:
Yep, sure thing, but that's already happened.
Click to expand...
Of course: I figure being able to properly analyze the data would be able to at least prove what can be done; If it can be done, then it raises a question: Why wouldn't they do it?

Debating isn't just about changing a person's mind but affecting the bystanders watching the debate.
Let's also involve the Russians, who did try to get to the moon, but two of their big rockets exploded.
Click to expand...
Had to do with vibrational resonances from all those little motors.
Because they were not completely honest about Gagarin's return to earth on his first flight. Originally, it was reported that he stayed with his capsule on landing, but it turns out he parachuted out of it before it returned to earth.
Click to expand...
Fascinating -- I never knew that.

vikingBerserker said:
It is hard to convince an unreasonable person regardless of the facts.
Click to expand...
Not always about directly convincing them: In debates you aren't necessarily trying to convert the person you are debating, but the bystanders.
 
Interesting article on this topic from the BBC:

The enduring appeal of conspiracy theories

Notably, efforts to persuade conspiracy theorists usually fail because they perceive that (a) they're smarter or better informed than you or (b) you're in on the conspiracy. Since it's impossible to prove a negative, you can never win that argument. Thankfully people are actually studying this topic and trying to find ways to reduce the impact of fake conspiracy theories...but I fear it will be decades before we make any real progress, and even then....
 
My view.
Internet is to blame. Problem is idiot in moms basement believes stupid. Finds other idiot who believes stupid. So idiots can be stupid together and push stupid through.
When I was younger we kinda took TV and newspapers at face value, as genuine. But now any nitwit can have a YouTube page and just produce garbage. And if it matches idiot garbage it reinforces thier nonsense.
Can I tell ya something real which is not a conspiracy? Shall I?
Ok...the UK once had a jetliner that could fly 60,000ft and could go Mach 2! No really! That is a joke! No way. Where's the proof?
 

I think there are two sorts of conspiracy theorists: those who disbelieve facts because of ideological reasons, i.e., Holocaust deniers,, climate change deniers, birthers, and the daniken-ites who think that pre-20th Century people were too stupid to do things like, oh, move large rocks (our failure to understand how is not evidence of their incompetence), and people who receive comfort from believing that there's some malign, clandestine overlords that are screwing everything else instead of just us.

You won't get rid of conspiracy advocates because they want to believe everybody else is as stupid as they are, and the Internet has been making it easier for them to reach out to each other than ever before. Every conspiracy that gets uncovered, from the czarist secret police publishing anti-semitic literature (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) to the Boston FBI office protecting Whitey Bulger gives them proof of their conspiracy theory that gingers are alien androids intent on wiping out the Danes*.



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

* No doubt one of the less bright will see this in a google search and start touting it.
 
I remember as a child reading about the statues on Easter Island. All accounts stated that no one knew how the statues there were made and erected. Then someone went to Easter Island and asked the islanders living there, it is really quite simple.

For my twopence worth, I don't believe Stonehenge was purely for religious rites or that what we see is any more than the base of a huge covered building. My completely non scientific theory is based on visiting in February, it was fffffing freezing with no shelter at all.
 
pbehn said:
I remember as a child reading about the statues on Easter Island. All accounts stated that no one knew how the statues there were made and erected. Then someone went to Easter Island and asked the islanders living there, it is really quite simple.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the "they couldn't have done that...." conspiracies are, at their core, racist: we, modern European people can't figure this out (although our medieval ancestors probably could) so those black|brown|yellow people obviously couldn't.


My exposure to Stonehenge was marginally; it was closed that day. Boy, though, one doesn't expect quite that much empty in England as there is on the Salisbury Plain.
 
swampyankee said:
Boy, though, one doesn't expect quite that much empty in England as there is on the Salisbury Plain.
Click to expand...

That's because The Plain is largely inhabited by Pongoes* and no civilized human being would go within several country miles of said creatures.

* Explanation: Pong = English slang meaning a bad smell. There's a saying that "where the Army goes, the pong goes"...ergo Army/Soldiers = Pongoes.

 
Last edited:
I don't think it is racist because they still say the same about Stonehenge. Not the erecting of the stones but their transportation. The archaelogists find it very hard to admit that the people who did it were very clever and organised. I have visited many such places and everything unknown is explained as a "religious rite", They never consider that buildings and burials were orientated North South or East West because it looks tidy or makes best use of the light and space. To me " a primitive religious rite" means "I don't know, and cant think of anything except religion".

Salisbury plain is wild in winter, the present day "druids" have a bit of a party on 21 December then get into their heated cars and go home, they don't spend a few weeks there getting soaked and dying of exposure.
 


Well, I did say "a lot," not "all." I won't get into modern druids. One of the Roman Empire's less-well publicized bits of genocide is the extermination of the Druid priests. Since the Druids didn't write down their equivalent of scripture -- it was passed down by the priests -- modern druidism is based on Roman writings and modern invention.
 
swampyankee said:
Well, I did say "a lot," not "all."
Click to expand...
I think a lot of it is envy, despite what is achieved in the modern age, no one could think of constructing something like the Pyramids, terracotta army or Taj Mahal, just for one persons burial, no one is that powerful any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Menu
Log in
Register