Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 63

Thread: Miscellaneous Apollo hoax discussion

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,741
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ....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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    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!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    186
    Thanks Jay. Apparently doctors are involved in the conspiracy too. "amenable" would be finding something that fits his thinking.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    186
    Do you have a link to that? I'm not sure what actions can be taken, but more info is always good!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,008
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    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.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    186
    Sorry, I thought you may have discussed it at JREF; I see it was other discussions. Thanks.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    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?!

  14. #44
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbar View Post
    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?!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    16
    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.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,161
    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.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaT View Post
    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.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    16
    Yes , they often saw stars. Alan Shepard wrote in the "Moonshot" book that it was easy to see stars.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    16
    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.

  20. #50
    So what is your point here?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaT View Post
    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.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,197
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaT View Post
    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?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    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.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaT View Post
    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.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,197
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaT View Post
    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.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,161
    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.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3
    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.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,161
    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...

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,094
    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.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Quote Originally Posted by ebastogne View Post
    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.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Similar Threads

  1. Arp 334 A miscellaneous galaxy
    By RickJ in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Apr-03, 06:48 PM
  2. NASTA Apollo hoax discussion
    By NASTA in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-09, 07:50 PM
  3. "Apollo Moon Hoax" Hoax Planetarium Show - Boulder, CO
    By stu in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-17, 12:55 AM
  4. Yahoo! Apollo hoax discussion group
    By AstroMike in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-05, 06:08 AM
  5. Apollo 13 Hoax?
    By SAMU in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 209
    Last Post: 2001-Nov-24, 05:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: