Miscellaneous Apollo hoax discussion

[sts60]

There has been not very much in the way of Apollo "hoax" discussion lately. I'd like to ask the moderators to permit an open-ended discussion of whatever Apollo hoax claims people are interested in discussing.

My first item is actually a meta-claim: a former poster here claimed on the JREF forum that this board is basically afraid of his super-duper hoax-bustin' revelations, that one wouldn't be able to post his information here.

This is a testable claim, so let us perform an experiment: Here is the information which supposedly this board will not - must not permit to be seen. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487) Feel free to peruse, but as extended discussion of threads in other forums is frowned upon here, I'll only summarize - it's the usual spammorhea of links to YouTube videos about government conspiracies and whatnot. Some Most are actually related to Apollo, most some are to a variety of unrelated conspiracies which the poster uses as an appeal to generic conspiracy to support his views. The poster has been repeating the same arguments for years, while claiming that the truth is regularly suppressed. But if direct reference is permitted here, then this hoax meta-claim fails.

[Luckmeister]

If the poster has been repeating the same arguments for years, I doubt if any debunking would get through to him and if the arguments are nothing new, aren't they well covered by just referring people to Clavius.org? That's what I usually do with HBs I run into outside of BAUT.

With a quick look at the link, I saw nothing specifically referring to a part of the hoax discussion that supposedly is not allowed at BAUT and I don't want to look at all the YouTube videos or 126 pages of thread posts to find it. The only thing I can think of is if it violates the no politics rule.

Also, I would think an open-ended single-thread metadiscussion at BAUT without effective compartmentalization would become increasingly difficult to sift through as it grows.

[Swift]

Also, I would think an open-ended single-thread metadiscussion at BAUT without effective compartmentalization would become increasingly difficult to sift through as it grows.
Good point, and I can't say I'm loving this whole idea. If this person wants to come here and debate, great, but remotely picking apart his stuff seems unsportsmanlike. But we can see how it goes. I think people are jonesing for some CT.

By the way, if any Hoax Believers are tempted to use this thread to advocate their position - Don't! Start your own thread if you are going to advocate.

[sts60]

The most important thing is that the information is available directly from David C/rocky/FatFreddy88/cosmored/etc. by following the link above. I'm not particularly interested in the dreck itself. But its existence by reference on this forum directly falsifies his claim that his "information" would not be allowed here. Anyway, I have doubts this thread will really grow, since I'm not going to simply bash someone who's not here (and that is against the rules anyway). Thanks, mods, for the indulgence.

[Hornblower]

I recommend that we marginalize this Apollo hoax stuff by refraining from initiating any discussion of it.

[gwiz]

The guy has got nowhere on any of the non-woo forums he has joined. He has just been completely humiliated in a poll on one of his claims at JREF.

Ignore him.

[Luckmeister]

The guy has got nowhere on any of the non-woo forums he has joined. He has just been completely humiliated in a poll on one of his claims at JREF.

Ignore him.

I think one aspect of delusion is taking pride in being the only one who believes something rather than experiencing humiliation. Even without money involved, if people broadcast their beliefs enough, they will attract a small group of followers who think they're a genius; the internet is tailor-made for that. Also, if one is selling something, any publicity, even negative, can increase sales. If that weren't the case, drug companies wouldn't have successful TV ads containing 15 seconds of positive info and 45 seconds of listing the many possible horrible side-effects.

[gwiz]

I think one aspect of delusion is taking pride in being the only one who believes something rather than experiencing humiliation.
In this case, his claim was that the majority of people watching rather than participating in the thread agreed with him. The poll showed that they didn't.

[glappkaeft]

Ahh a new version of the old USENET classic, "the lurkers support me via private email".

[LaurelHS]

Ahh a new version of the old USENET classic, "the lurkers support me via private email".
We need a link to some song lyrics (http://barb.velvet.com/humor/lurkers.html) here. :dance:

[Luckmeister]

We need a link to some song lyrics (http://barb.velvet.com/humor/lurkers.html) here. :dance:

That is sooooo good! :D

[R.A.F.]

We need a link to some song lyrics (http://barb.velvet.com/humor/lurkers.html) here. :dance:


Why is it when I read this lyric....

My lurkers will post round my throne.

...I think of a toilet?

[captain swoop]

If this is the future direction of this I will close it. Does anyone have anything constructive to add?

[sts60]

I have no objection. The existence of this thread proves its point.

[R.A.F.]

If this is the future direction of this I will close it.

I apologize for my "attempt" at humor.

[vonmazur]

I think, of course this is just my opinion, that a lot of HB'ers are suffering from Aspbergers' Syndrome, or some other psychological deficit...Any criticism just reinforces this condition....I have no good idea on what to do with this situation...

Dale

[HenrikOlsen]

I think that's a base slander of people with Asperger's·

[Swift]

I think, of course this is just my opinion, that a lot of HB'ers are suffering from Aspbergers' Syndrome, or some other psychological deficit...Any criticism just reinforces this condition....I have no good idea on what to do with this situation...

Dale

I think that's a base slander of people with Asperger's·
OK, now we're done.

Accussing people of a "psychological deficit", even if the are hoax believers, is inappropriate, and just comes across as a slam on those we may disagree with.

If someone has a real good reason to reopen this thread, Report this post, but you will need a real, real good reason.

[Swift]

Thread reopened upon a request to add a relevant comment. Anything else inappropriate, and it will be closed again.

[Sticks]

I have been diagnosed with Aspergers and I am not a HB, in fact I made two videos myself debunking their claims here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ay3tUi68E) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N5Aou5BfhM)

To assume we are all HB's is a generalisation which is wrong and insulting

[Jeff Root]

The assertion was the other way around: Not that people
with Asperger's syndrome tend to be hoax believers, but
that hoax believers tend to have Asperger's syndrome.
Probably very few people who have Asperger's syndrome
would be considered hoax believers.

I don't know whether I have it myself, since I've never
asked for a diagnosis when I had the opportunity, but a
friend, referring to the community of people interested in
space, science, science fiction, and technology ("nerds")
replied to me when I asked her a question about it ten
or twelve years ago that "We all have Asperger's."

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Swift]

The assertion was the other way around: Not that people
with Asperger's syndrome tend to be hoax believers, but
that hoax believers tend to have Asperger's syndrome.
Probably very few people who have Asperger's syndrome
would be considered hoax believers.
Frankly, either way, it was stated as an extraordinary claim/opinion with no proof.

Now, with moderator mode on - I thinking this is a very borderline topic for discussion on BAUT. I'll leave this thread open for the moment, but it is on thin ice.

[Eclogite]

Let's set aside talk of Aspergers. However, it strikes me as probable - based largely on personal observation and a passing knowledge of psychology - that those who readily accept conspiracy theories in general have a particular way of viewing the world and reaching conclusions about it that differ from those with a scientific education, or a passion for science.

Consequently, seeking to make the case that there was no hoax by approaching this as a science problem is likely to fail. We can mount well researched, evidentially substantiated, logically presented arguments that will be wholly convincing to those who are already convinced, but do nothing for the 'believers'. Why? Because they are believers. We are assaulting there belief system with facts and since the two are at odds our facts must be wrong, or lies, which only goes to prove that there must be a conspiracy. It is circular, it is illogical and it is very real.

Therefore, as Vonzamur suggests, there is no easy way of changing their minds and perhaps the best we can hope for is to minimise the confusion of others by patiently repeating the logical arguments against the hoax believers at every opportunity. (And by avodiing insulting them, since I never found and argument could be won which opened with the lines "I think you are an idiot and another thing....")

[R.A.F.]

In this case, his claim was that the majority of people watching rather than participating in the thread agreed with him. The poll showed that they didn't.

He flat-out denies the accuracy of those results...without providing any evidence except his "beliefs".


Hate to say that it is "typical", behavior, but I seem to be seeing more of it when it comes to "alternative" thinkers.

[R.A.F.]

....and since when did flat out denial become some sort of debate "tactic"? It is the equilivent of sticking one's fingers, in one's ears, and saying naw, naw naw, naw...

[Gillianren]

I've said it before, and I've said it again. Blaming conspiracist thinking on Asperger's, or indeed any mental disorder, is far too simple. There are probably some HBs who have it and probably plenty more who don't. There are HBs (I name no names) who probably think the way they do because of paranoid schizophrenia. And there are probably plenty who are completely neurochemically healthy and have other reasons for their belief. It's a pattern of behaviour, but the causes for that pattern are not universal. Not anywhere near it.

[slang]

....and since when did flat out denial become some sort of debate "tactic"?

November 2nd, 1972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argument_Sketch). Apparently Kaysing published in 1974. It simply cannot be coincidence.

[Swift]

It simply cannot be coincidence.
Yes it is.

[ravens_cry]

Yes it is.
I believe the appropriate meme response is to mention that I have perceived what you have done in this post, or something of that ilk.

[Jeff Root]

The weird thing is that I thought of that sketch a few
hours ago, about the time that slang and Swift posted.
I doubt I've thought of it in the previous six months.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Spoons]

....and since when did flat out denial become some sort of debate "tactic"? It is the equilivent of sticking one's fingers, in one's ears, and saying naw, naw naw, naw...

But, and of course you know this R.A.F., they mostly aren't there to debate so much as to "spread the real truth about how you are being duped and I'm not" or something similar. Usually the facade of debate is just to either troll for responses (which can be twisted into further fuel for their claims - "they're onto me, they're trying to stop me telling the world") or to try to get the passing reader to think there may be a legitimate argument being put forth.

[Spoons]

It's a pattern of behaviour, but the causes for that pattern are not universal. Not anywhere near it.

And some are just bored and find it darn entertaining. I used to read heaps of conspiratorial stuff on the web when I had a super boring job and nothing to do, and when you read too much of it and not much else it can start to warp your thinking a little bit. Even me, and I'm not warped at all! :shifty:

[Tom]

But, and of course you know this R.A.F., they mostly aren't there to debate so much as to "spread the real truth about how you are being duped and I'm not" or something similar. Usually the facade of debate is just to either troll for responses (which can be twisted into further fuel for their claims - "they're onto me, they're trying to stop me telling the world") or to try to get the passing reader to think there may be a legitimate argument being put forth.

Not a troller for sure, I have a relative who sincerely believes that everything on youtube and the internet is true, the government is out to get us, money is useless, we need to grow gardens, we didn't go to the moon, OKC and 9/11 were conspiracies, HE is right, and trying to save us all. This isn't a passing delusion, and he has lost friends, family, and nearly everything else. I don't know if there's a "mental illness" that causes this, or if he simply read too much and went overboard. Needless to say, he's not invited to anyone's house, ever.

Is there something to this, and can you change his mind (medically, psychologically) other than a daily whuppin'? Which of course, won't work, because I am eating government infested produced mind controlling food...

Seriously, we are all having a problem with this guy, and there ain't no telling what's next. People like this are few, and can be a real problem. It's easy to ignore on a message board, but real life is something else.

[JayUtah]

This isn't a passing delusion, and he has lost friends, family, and nearly everything else. I don't know if there's a "mental illness" that causes this, or if he simply read too much and went overboard.

Yes, from what I've been told that would be a diagnosable condition. Delusion disorder becomes clinically significant when it causes occupational, social, and family problems.


Is there something to this, and can you change his mind (medically, psychologically) other than a daily whuppin'?

Yes, there are treatment options. Whether he's amenable to them is another story.

[Tom]

Thanks Jay. Apparently doctors are involved in the conspiracy too. "amenable" would be finding something that fits his thinking.

[JayUtah]

Thanks Jay. Apparently doctors are involved in the conspiracy too. "amenable" would be finding something that fits his thinking.

Naturally. States differ on what conditions qualify for an involuntary commitment, even for examination. But usually some sort of intervention is necessary. My understanding is that anti-anxiety medications like Klonopin are effective, but naturally you'd need a medical diagnosis and not some guy spouting on the Internet.

FWIW this topic came up at JREF recently and I had the opportunity then to converse with some psychologists of my acquaintance with the clinical aspects of conspiracism. Belief in conspiracy theories is considered a delusion disorder with dimensions of paranoia, but it does not rise to clinical attention unless there are significant real world consequences to the belief. In other words, believing that Apollo didn't land on the Moon is not itself a concern. But if that belief motivates someone to spend all his time skulking about NASA centers, stalking astronauts (cough, cough), or scouring one's house for NASA bugs, then this is a condition that has progressed to the point where it needs attention.

[Tom]

Do you have a link to that? I'm not sure what actions can be taken, but more info is always good!

[Sticks]

FWIW this topic came up at JREF recently and I had the opportunity then to converse with some psychologists of my acquaintance with the clinical aspects of conspiracism. Belief in conspiracy theories is considered a delusion disorder with dimensions of paranoia, but it does not rise to clinical attention unless there are significant real world consequences to the belief.

And as I pointed out earlier has nothing to do with whether someone is on the Autistic Spectrum, as autism is not a mental health issue, although some mental health issues may occur as a result of the autism, just like they can occur as a result of any other disability.

As my special interest is science I went down the same path as JayUtah here and many others who trumpet that the Moon landings happened.

[JayUtah]

And as I pointed out earlier has nothing to do with whether someone is on the Autistic Spectrum...

Agreed. My understanding is that those are completely different phenomena with no connection to each other.

[JayUtah]

Do you have a link to that? I'm not sure what actions can be taken, but more info is always good!

Not really; it depends on what state you live in. Each state has its own laws and procedures regarding intervention on suspicion of mental disorder. Most require evidence that the prospective patient is a danger to himself or others. So at this point we have exhausted my knowledge of the subject and you should really be talking to a licensed local mental health professional to get more information. Sorry.

[Gillianren]

And as I pointed out earlier has nothing to do with whether someone is on the Autistic Spectrum, as autism is not a mental health issue, although some mental health issues may occur as a result of the autism, just like they can occur as a result of any other disability.

This is one opinion that is not shared by most mental health professionals. Autism is a mental health issue, but it is not the same mental health issue as, say, paranoid schizophrenia. (Which is one diagnosis the most extreme HBs may have.) The autism spectrum does appear in the DSM, however.

[Tom]

Sorry, I thought you may have discussed it at JREF; I see it was other discussions. Thanks.

[Bobbar]

Naturally. States differ on what conditions qualify for an involuntary commitment, even for examination. But usually some sort of intervention is necessary. My understanding is that anti-anxiety medications like Klonopin are effective, but naturally you'd need a medical diagnosis and not some guy spouting on the Internet.

FWIW this topic came up at JREF recently and I had the opportunity then to converse with some psychologists of my acquaintance with the clinical aspects of conspiracism. Belief in conspiracy theories is considered a delusion disorder with dimensions of paranoia, but it does not rise to clinical attention unless there are significant real world consequences to the belief. In other words, believing that Apollo didn't land on the Moon is not itself a concern. But if that belief motivates someone to spend all his time skulking about NASA centers, stalking astronauts (cough, cough), or scouring one's house for NASA bugs, then this is a condition that has progressed to the point where it needs attention.

Sounds about right. Some of the extreme cases can be downright disturbing.

Case in point, this one particular YT commenter and his army of socks. For the last 3 years I've seen him commenting on a huge volume of any and all Apollo related videos. (Pretty much all the most popular ones I've come across.) They have constantly spammed the same narrow selection of comments, day in and day out. Posting things like, "APOLLO DISNEY 11 THE SEA OF FAKE TRANQUILITY FAKE IT ;LIKE NASA", over and over, all day, everyday, for years, under what has to be hundreds of different socks. (I'm pretty sure his accounts are getting closed for abuse/spam)

All the while he maintains that everyone who tries to correct him is the same person, who has hundreds of socks, and is seeking to destroy him.

It's so strange to see someone put so much energy into what amounts to no more than the hysterical screaming of hoax claims, while claiming that everyone else is crazy.

How does that happen?!

[Axof23]

Chronic seeking for attention? People are bored with their lives and have no real accomplishments. Creating their own belief and defending it may give them the sense of accomplishment.
Maybe that's why the very same people if one theory gets totally and irreversaly hammered (like the world doesn't end on 26 may) they jump with their whole energy on another equally strange theory.


Sounds about right. Some of the extreme cases can be downright disturbing.

Case in point, this one particular YT commenter and his army of socks. For the last 3 years I've seen him commenting on a huge volume of any and all Apollo related videos. (Pretty much all the most popular ones I've come across.) They have constantly spammed the same narrow selection of comments, day in and day out. Posting things like, "APOLLO DISNEY 11 THE SEA OF FAKE TRANQUILITY FAKE IT ;LIKE NASA", over and over, all day, everyday, for years, under what has to be hundreds of different socks. (I'm pretty sure his accounts are getting closed for abuse/spam)

All the while he maintains that everyone who tries to correct him is the same person, who has hundreds of socks, and is seeking to destroy him.

It's so strange to see someone put so much energy into what amounts to no more than the hysterical screaming of hoax claims, while claiming that everyone else is crazy.

How does that happen?!

[ClaudiaT]

I think the most significant developments in world of the Apollo program hoodwink are those elucidating what it was that motivated all of the lying and inconsistencies about the seeing and not seeing stars. We now know that this had something to do with ICBM guidance schemes. The missiles sighted stars. The American missiles sighted one star, the Russian missiles sighted two. If the missiles could see stars, and they did and they do, then the astronauts would have as well. So this is what they were lying about. If they said they saw stars at times, it would have drawn attention to the fact that what the manned space program was really about was developing star sighting systems to guide the nuke carrying ICBMs and the nuke carrying submarine launched missiles too. This is a great development, our finally understanding what the astronauts were hiding with all of the lying about star visibility.

[Shaula]

If the missiles could see stars, and they did and they do, then the astronauts would have as well. So this is what they were lying about. If they said they saw stars at times, it would have drawn attention to the fact that what the manned space program was really about was developing star sighting systems to guide the nuke carrying ICBMs and the nuke carrying submarine launched missiles too. This is a great development, our finally understanding what the astronauts were hiding with all of the lying about star visibility.
And you really think the cheapest, easiest way to test a star tracker for use in the LEO environment was to send one to the Moon?

There was no need at all to send people into space to test star trackers. Balloons would do it. Satellites would do it. Planes would do it.

[Van Rijn]

If the missiles could see stars, and they did and they do, then the astronauts would have as well. So this is what they were lying about. If they said they saw stars at times, it would have drawn attention to the fact that what the manned space program was really about


They did say they saw stars at times, and this has been discussed in other threads. They just didn't see stars when there was too much sunlight and when they had better things to do than go looking for stars. If you search for them you should be able to find the threads.

[ClaudiaT]

Yes , they often saw stars. Alan Shepard wrote in the "Moonshot" book that it was easy to see stars.

[ClaudiaT]

I don't believe Apollo tested star trackers by sending rockets to the moon. I agree, there was never a need to send men into space to do this and probably most of the time men were not sent into space.

[captain swoop]

So what is your point here?

[Strange]

most of the time men were not sent into space.

True, over the entire history of mankind, it is only recently that men have been sent into space.

[HenrikOlsen]

I think the most significant developments in world of the Apollo program hoodwink are those elucidating what it was that motivated all of the lying and inconsistencies about the seeing and not seeing stars. We now know that this had something to do with ICBM guidance schemes. The missiles sighted stars. The American missiles sighted one star, the Russian missiles sighted two. If the missiles could see stars, and they did and they do, then the astronauts would have as well. So this is what they were lying about. If they said they saw stars at times, it would have drawn attention to the fact that what the manned space program was really about was developing star sighting systems to guide the nuke carrying ICBMs and the nuke carrying submarine launched missiles too. This is a great development, our finally understanding what the astronauts were hiding with all of the lying about star visibility.
Blanket statements like you make are not easy to take serious unless you address specific cases.
Could you please list some specific cases where you think they were lying and/or inconsistent and explain why you believe it shows they're lying?

[ClaudiaT]

Blanket statements like you make are not easy to take serious unless you address specific cases.
Could you please list some specific cases where you think they were lying and/or inconsistent and explain why you believe it shows they're lying?

Not a blanket statement. We are all familiar with this. Let's not pretend or kid ourselves here. Armstrong said he saw no stars from the surface of the moon. Shepard wrote in the "Moonshot" book that stars were easily seen and Shepard emphasized the accuracy of his statements in this interview here, (not to mention elsewhere). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XNv6_6x7D0

One can go on and on about this silly business. Now we know what it was all about. Apollo in part occurred as they were targeting cities and military targets with ICBMs. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were a part of this ambitious program to find Moscow by way of the stars. Simple enough really.

[Strange]

Not a blanket statement. We are all familiar with this. Let's not pretend or kid ourselves here. Armstrong said he saw no stars from the surface of the moon.

As has been explained so many times before, he saw no stars from the surface because he was in bright sunlight.

[HenrikOlsen]

Not a blanket statement. We are all familiar with this. Let's not pretend or kid ourselves here. Armstrong said he saw no stars from the surface of the moon. Shepard wrote in the "Moonshot" book that stars were easily seen and Shepard emphasized the accuracy of his statements in this interview here, (not to mention elsewhere).
<snip>
So from this logic we can conclude that if I say I saw stars 12 hours ago, and I say that I can't see any stars now, this means I'm lying about at least one of the times? Because I'm not saying the same thing?
Even though it's currently day (just after midday and I'm sitting in a easterly window so there's not even a chance to see the Sun) and it was a cloudless hight 12 hours ago?

And yes, we are all familiar with this, though I don't think we quite agree on the meaning of "we" and "this" in that sentence.

[Shaula]

One can go on and on about this silly business. Now we know what it was all about. Apollo in part occurred as they were targeting cities and military targets with ICBMs. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were a part of this ambitious program to find Moscow by way of the stars. Simple enough really.
And for anyone still reading: Ridiculous. So the argument is: In order to build better maps of the stars to navigate via them some genius decided that they would travel much, much further out than missiles needed to and land people on a huge, bright, reflective thing. This is by far one of the least credible, least well though out justifications for manned spaceflight I have ever heard. Harvesting cheese-trees on the Moon is more likely. Especially given that before the Moonshots there were military satellites doing things like missile warning and conveniently able to get all the data required from a more relevant position without requiring an enormous space program.

This is pretty much on a par with me claiming that Ford put Curiosity on Mars in order to test its suspension systems before they use them in the new line of off-road vehicles.

[ebastogne]

Any other MIT ALUMs out there get the latest MIT Tech Review? It features a portraiture of Buzz with what my gf calls a "weird leather face". The mag's Jason Pontin wrote a fine perspective article on the "paucity of innovation" in these, our modern times, trotting out Apollo as the standard against which projects might be measured. Too bad! Were it only 1/2 true! OMG, I am so tired of this tired and weary line. How many times have I crossed this theme in MIT publications over the last 25 years, let alone science, technology, engineering publications at large.

Attending MIT as both an undergrad and grad student, didn't take me long to sniff this one out. Buzz didn't land on no moon. Take a look at that pseudononsense he's fed us in those ridiculously bizarre books of his, especially on his specialty topic of navigating through space and achieving rendezvous of one frankly non-credible sort or another.

As a pitch man hawking the notion of new efforts in space, Aldrin could not be more lacking in credibility. I wish he would just go away. I am so disgusted by Apollo and am embarrassed quite frankly by it all being part of MIT's legacy. I am of course in the minority, but nevertheless, there are more than just a handful of at MIT who feel similarly.

[Shaula]

So your evidence to counter all the non-Buzz derived evidence there is that he did land on the Moon is "I don't trust his leathery face" and "I don't believe his books"?

Well, I'm convinced...

[ravens_cry]

I don't agree with Edger Mitchell's view on UFO and the paranormal in general, and most people on this board probably don't think James Irwin's search for Noah's Ark was fruitful endeavour. Is that evidence Apollo was fake, because I disagree with their views on some topics?
Forgive me, ebastogne, but I am not following your train of logic, and I do not think I am the only one with this difficulty.

[Van Rijn]

Buzz didn't land on no moon. Take a look at that pseudononsense he's fed us in those ridiculously bizarre books of his, especially on his specialty topic of navigating through space and achieving rendezvous of one frankly non-credible sort or another.



Please provide an example of a "non-credible" argument, and show, with appropriate technical detail, why it is not credible. Just saying he isn't credible isn't enough.

[ravens_cry]

Please provide an example of a "non-credible" argument, and show, with appropriate technical detail, why it is not credible. Just saying he isn't credible isn't enough.
In fact, one might even say it is non-credible, no? :whistle:

[Alan G. Archer]

Welcome to the forum, ebastogne.


Any other MIT ALUMs out there get the latest MIT Tech Review? It features a portraiture of Buzz with what my gf calls a "weird leather face". The mag's Jason Pontin wrote a fine perspective article on the "paucity of innovation" in these, our modern times, trotting out Apollo as the standard against which projects might be measured. Too bad! Were it only 1/2 true! OMG, I am so tired of this tired and weary line. How many times have I crossed this theme in MIT publications over the last 25 years, let alone science, technology, engineering publications at large.

The MIT Technology Review article by editor in chief Jason Pontin, "Why We Can't Solve Big Problems (http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429690/why-we-cant-solve-big-problems/)," was published in the November/December 2012 issue. The 82-year-old "weird leather face" as described by the gf can be viewed here (http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/2012/11/), a photograph of the cover of the issue. I think the leathering is caused by being 82 years old. It happens.

Buzz Aldrin's article in the same issue: "The Imperative to Explore (http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429711/the-imperative-to-explore/)."


Attending MIT as both an undergrad and grad student, didn't take me long to sniff this one out. Buzz didn't land on no moon. Take a look at that pseudononsense he's fed us in those ridiculously bizarre books of his, especially on his specialty topic of navigating through space and achieving rendezvous of one frankly non-credible sort or another.

Please elaborate.

[Swift]

ebastogne will not be responding, they were banned as a sock puppet of a previously (multiple times) banned member.

People like ebastogne have a severe lack of "a life".

As this thread seems to be just sitting there as a magnet for Hoax Believers who do not wish to start their own threads, it is closed.