Unitentionally funny review of AFTHOTWTTM

[Daryl71]

I came across this "gem" on the IMDB tonight. The reviewer is from China, whose government is notorious for manipulating and suppressing facts. Maybe that's why I found it so funny. Also, it's been way too long I debunked an HB.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/usercomments

One important thing that has always been puzzling to me is that how come NASA hasn't done it again?

Last time I checked, NASA wasn't a rogue agency, spending money against the taxpayer's will.

After all, technology has advanced so much. We have never heard any big plans from the US government, or NASA about sending people to the moon ever again.

I'm guessing this guy never heard of Project Constellation or any of the plans to send Americans back to the Moon by 2018.

Why is that? Can they really say that all the information they have collected from the moon is already plenty and enough?

Obviously not.

North pole is so close, and so easy to get to, yet People are still there doing research.

It's doesn't cost $2 billion to send four scientists to the North Pole.

This film is good, because it didn't just give out random facts.

No, it's good because it doesn't give out any facts!

It actually showed the actual footage and evidence to support why the moon landing was faked.

As opposed to recreating the original footage using pantomime actors?

I was surprised to know that at that time, people already have colored camcorders, etc.

Actually, the first professional camcorder didn't come out until 1982, but whatever.

Before I watched this video, I thought that they only had black and white camcorders, and since the telecommunication technology was really bad, that is why the moon landing video clips all looked so blurry.

Here we see the convenient HB tactic of pretending that Apollo 11 was the only landing mission, and completely ignoring the fact that the video quality was bad because the images were sent through the LM's antenna. But I actually had to do research to realize that.

So if they had camcorders that can record things in color, why didn't they record them?

Did Bart Sibrel really say that none of the Apollo films are in color?

And if they can not transmit them right away, they should at least broadcast them later when they "returned" from the moon.

I'm getting increasingly confused by the reviewer's logic, but weren't they perfectly capable of sending back video real-time, but they didn't bother because the TV networks didn't care anymore?

And how about those colored pictures? According to this video, NASA only released about 20 or so pictures, that is it? come on, the government spent billions of dollars on the project, all they took back was 20 or so pictures?

At the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, there's literally thousands of high-resolution pictures taken during the Apollo missions. Amusingly, this is the complete opposite of the argument that the astronauts took too many photographs in the alloted time!

At that time, the US government felt the urgency and necessity to reach the moon first during the cold war time. It could boost national pride, and make the soviets fearful.

This is actually true.

So the government will try anything to land on moon whether it is real or fake.

You can't land on the Moon if it's fake.

And for those firm believers with their national pride,

Which doesn't explain why people from all over the world who use this forum and believe the Apollo missions were real.

just like those people who believe in their own religious god, telling them that landing on the moon was entirely faked, it would be as if part of their believe system was destroyed.

Years of laughing at hoax theories has actually strengthened my faith in Apollo, not destroyed it.

Therefore, there is no way that they will believe that it was staged.

Because most of the people who think it was staged seem to be off their rockers.

And soviets and the US were both competing against each other, how come the soviets never ever sent their people to the moon?

Because their rockets kept exploding.

Both governments were able to build many nuclear weapons, warships, etc.

Well, for one thing, most warships don't have to survive spaceflight and re-entering the Earth's atmosphere...

Why did the soviet just sit there and watch the people from the US landed on the moon without doing anything?

Were the supposed to try to shoot them down or something?

And ever since then, why didn't any other countries around the world ever try to send their people to the moon?

Lack of money, resources, political will, public interest, scientific know-how...

Only now, in the 21st century, China is the only country that is planning to send Chinese to the moon.

Well, at least the Americans won't have to send the Chinese to the Moon.

At that time, how many people had TVs in their private homes worldwide? And how many people even had their own home phones? So it should be easy to fool people at that time.

So color camcorders were common in the late 60s, but TVs weren't? What about the 600 million people who watched the Apollo 11 landing on their TV? And how would the lack of home phones fool people into believe the landings were real? Did the lack of home phones stop people from calling up others to tell them the landings were fake?.

One thing this video did not mention is whether they brought any rocks from the moon? I think that they did, this video did not spend any time discussing whether those moon rocks were real or fake.

So the reviewer is convinced the landings were faked, but isn't quite sure if the rocks themselves are real or faked. So it's entirely possible the moon landings are real but they forgot to bring back any rocks and had to fake them later.

No other countries has ever collected any moon rocks.

Except the Russians.

Each year, there are plenty of meteoroids hitting earth. So how can we be sure that those "moon rocks" are really from the moon, but not some meteoroid rocks?

You know, I'm pretty sure that 10-foot long core samples with no evidence of atmospheric heating don't just fall on Earth at random.

Another thing is the radiation belt. It was shown as two big circles surrounding the earth which can't possibly be true.

Yeah, but it must be true, because Sibrel said so!

Because the north and south pole areas seem to be free of radiation. So it was a technical error of its own.

So if the area above the poles really were free of radiation, this reviewer wouldn't buy into it because he's convinced otherwise.

Or it should at least explain to the viewers why the north and south poles were free of radiation, and why the spaceship can not go through those two ares without the radiation damage? This video is like one of the religious books, if you believe that religion, no matter how bad that book is, you still believe in the religion. Any small evidence will only make you believe it even more.

So if 99.9% of something is pure rubbish, the 0.1% that's actually true validates the remainder that isn't?

And for those who don't believe that it was a hoax, no matter what you tell them, they will still believe that it really happened.

Being in a position to easily refute any theory that's thrown at us puts us in an easier position.

For me, I am still open minded. Until that day when NASA sends another spaceship to land on the moon, I have some serious doubts that it really happened.

My head hurts.

[PhantomWolf]

Last time I checked, NASA wasn't a rogue agency, spending money against the taxpayer's will.

True, though another equally valid answer is, they did. 5 times.

back to the Moon by 2018

2020. Also Reagan's administration looked into moon returns back in the 80's, including using the shuttles, but decided against it.

I'm getting increasingly confused by the reviewer's logic, but weren't they perfectly capable of sending back video real-time, but they didn't bother because the TV networks didn't care anymore?

They still transmitted the TV coverage, though it wasn't screened live by most channels. It was used inhouse and I belived some of the more obsure channels did have 15, 16 and 17 on.

Were the supposed to try to shoot them down or something?

Might have been a bit hard, their rocket kept exploding.

Well, at least the Americans won't have to send the Chinese to the Moon.

I'd be a little worried if other countries were planning to send the chinese to the moon...

You know, I'm pretty sure that 10-foot long core samples with no evidence of atmospheric heating don't just fall on Earth at random.

No, they get dropped off in schedule by UFO's

[TheOncomingStorm]

[B}No, they get dropped off in schedule by UFO's[/B]

At Groom lake and transported by the masons.

[Occam]

At that time, how many people had TVs in their private homes worldwide? And how many people even had their own home phones? So it should be easy to fool people at that time.
That really does sum up the stupidity of these arguments. Are these people 6 years old or something, that 38 years ago is the dark ages in their minds?
Do they think television and telephones are a recent invention? Were the people of 38 years ago so ignorant that it was easy to fool an entire planet?

Good grief, sometimes I'm embarrassed to be part of the same species as these idiots.

[BertL]

I was surprised to know that at that time, people already have colored camcorders, etc.
I used to think the world used to be black and white too, because Laurel&Hardy and all of the other old films were in black and white.

[Van Rijn]

At that time, how many people had TVs in their private homes worldwide? And how many people even had their own home phones? So it should be easy to fool people at that time.
That really does sum up the stupidity of these arguments. Are these people 6 years old or something, that 38 years ago is the dark ages in their minds?
Do they think television and telephones are a recent invention? Were the people of 38 years ago so ignorant that it was easy to fool an entire planet?

Good grief, sometimes I'm embarrassed to be part of the same species as these idiots.

Supposedly that person is from China. I would suspect that TVs and phones were pretty rare there in "private" homes during the '60s. Either they are assuming the same applied to "developed" nations, or they don't think it matters (since we're not living in right-thinking countries ).

At the time of the moon landing, we had two TVs - a color TV, and the big old B&W one that was relegated to the basement. Of course, we were obviously members of the Illuminati elite, so it's no surprise.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Only now, in the 21st century, China is the only country that is planning to send Chinese to the moon....

Actually the Disney Studios have been planning this event for some time now.

[Paul Beardsley]

For me, I am still open minded. Until that day when NASA sends another spaceship to land on the moon, I have some serious doubts that it really happened.

My head hurts.

Mine too.

You know, NASA should have landed Apollo 12 close to the Apollo 11 landing site, thus proving Apollo 11 hadn't been a hoax...

Seriously, though, this "open minded" reviewer comes across as more idiotic than some of the hard-core HBs.

[torque of the town]

Seriously, though, this "open minded" reviewer comes across as more idiotic than some of the hard-core HBs.




I have made he very same observation on numerous occasions over the years with regards "open minded" opinion



David

[Maksutov]

Seriously, though, this "open minded" reviewer comes across as more idiotic than some of the hard-core HBs.




I have made he very same observation on numerous occasions over the years with regards "open minded" opinion



David

Was that before or after the "brain" fell out?

[Nicolas]

Why did the soviet just sit there and watch the people from the US landed on the moon without doing anything?
Were the supposed to try to shoot them down or something?

Yeah, now that would have been the ultimate PR stunt.

NOT!

It would have been cheaper for Russia to ask the US if they could pass by and carpet bomb, oh say the complete baikonour and star city compex.

Seriously though, I think -hope- that the author meant why didn't they try to go to the moon first. It appears he has missed the existence of the Russian manned lunar program.

[JayUtah]

For some reason, conspiracists seem to define open-minded as the unwillingness to draw a conclusion. Open-mindedness has much more to do with how you draw a conclusion, not whether you draw one. If one evaluates the available evidence without bias and gives each a fair shake on its merit, then it is appropriate to declare that the evidence strongly supports a conclusion if that's the case.

[Fazor]

Open-mindedness has much more to do with how you draw a conclusion, not whether you draw one.
Funny. From all the conspirasits and paranormal enthusiasts (and "professionals") I've run into that say they are open-minded, I thought it meant willing to believe anything without reason, except what the "so-called experts" say.

[torque of the town]

Was that before or after the "brain" fell out?

On reflection, it didn't seem to make all that much difference.

[JayUtah]

I have always measured open-mindedness in terms of how willing one is to question his own beliefs. And I have found far too many self-proclaimed truth-seekers who simply beat others over the head with the baton of Open-Mindedness (accusing the lack thereof) while refusing to accept that their own beliefs may be poorly founded, and then with the baton of Blind Faith while refusing to concede that they are simply relying upon their own favorite authories without question.

[Fazor]

And I have found far too many self-proclaimed truth-seekers who simply beat others over the head with the baton of Open-Mindedness (accusing the lack thereof)... *snip*

Yeah, they tend to be fairly hypocritical. Of course, the biggest difference I've noticed between those people and truely "open-minded" individuals, is the first desire to be right, while the later simply desires the truth.

[JayUtah]

I've long suspected that the desire to be right (rather, the desire to appear to be right) arises from an irrational inferiority complex, or perhaps from a sort of paranoia. Conspiracy theorists create a world for themselves in which they are the hero, and automatically possess whatever skills or traits enable that heroism. Thus they know all they need to about photographic analysis or finite-element methods or geology in order to act as an expert in those areas within the confines of their contrived universe. Legitimate expertise often erodes the credibility of that contrived universe, requiring increasing detachment in order to maintain the illusion.

The need to create such a universe can arise from a persecution complex or an inferiority complex. Often the conspiracist aspires to greatness, but has been denied it through traditional channels. I.e., he fails at traditional education, or is passed over for advancement. The conspiracy theory provides him a way to excuse the apparent success of the mainstream while simultaneously elevating himself above it; the mainstream only appears to succeed and maintains its hegemony by downplaying or discreding the fringe.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I've long suspected that the desire to be right (rather, the desire to appear to be right) arises from an irrational inferiority complex, or perhaps from a sort of paranoia.

I am convinced you are correct about the inferiority complex (at least in some cases). I think this is most obvious in those HBs that use the argument, "I may not have the technical qualifications but you don't need the technical qualifications to see that (insert evidence here) is fake".

The fact that these people are so ready to dismiss those that are better qualified than themselves suggest to me that they have an inferiority complex about their lack of education.

[JayUtah]

Very often we confused qualification with credential (or similar) when we need to maintain a careful distinction. Someone without formal training but with considerable practical experience would be considered qualified. Generally the best qualified people are those who have a combination of training and experience, since purely academic achievement may miss important practical details. Practical experience instills expertise through hard knocks. Formal training proposes to collect the comprehensive history of others' hard knocks and convey it somewhat less painfully. The credential (e.g., the degree) certifies that the holder has absorbed a certain predetermined amount of that knowledge.

But the confusion is important to rectify since we really only ask that a proponent demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. A proponent laboring under a feeling of inferiority might wrongly suspect that we're "calling him out" on his lack of formal training, and that we accept only such a credential as a demonstration of competence. It can play right into the inferiority complex and engender unintended hostility and defensiveness.

Of course the patent unwillingness to demonstrate in any way one's competence to discuss a subject cannot be excused. One simply may not rationally declare arbitrarily that no special knowledge is necessary.

[Peter Wilson]

Open-minded means you accept what I say without thinking.

Closed-minded means you accept what authority figures say without thinking.

[Laguna]

Now as, by accepting what I say, you (the open-minded) accept me as an authority figure, wouldn't this imply, that closed-minded people accept anything from anybody?

[Stuart van Onselen]

I think this is most obvious in those HBs that use the argument, "I may not have the technical qualifications but you don't need the technical qualifications to see that (insert evidence here) is fake".

They often then "back it up" by saying that "simple logic will show you that..."

...thereby forgetting that logic is how you move from premises to conclusions. Incorrect premises will lead to incorrect conclusions, even with impeccable logic.

And ignorance / lack of formal training / lack of real-world experience will give you incorrect premises and unjustifiable assumptions. "Simple logic" is useless in this case.

[sts60]

They'll also say "Simple physics will show you that..." using a rocket engine will melt a spacecraft or whatever other point they wish to make.

In contrast to the many who assume the mock-humble pose, though, some of them will tell you about their physics degree from Unamed U. to back up such claims.

[NEOWatcher]

In contrast to the many who assume the mock-humble pose, though, some of them will tell you about their physics degree from Unamed U. to back up such claims.

Hey; don't knock it, it's a great university. I have a few dozen degrees from there myself.

[torque of the town]

They'll also say "Simple physics will show you that...





A ship made of iron could not possibly float!

[Fazor]

Of course the patent unwillingness to demonstrate in any way one's competence to discuss a subject cannot be excused. One simply may not rationally declare arbitrarily that no special knowledge is necessary.
Well the real kicker is that to these people, special knowledge IS necessary, but they are the only ones that possess this knowledge. Usually they attempt to disqualify those with formal training by associating them as part of the 'system'. If you don't have formal training, they will be quick to point that out as well, even though they do not have said training themselves. If I ever go back into psychology, they would make an interesting case study. Of course, so would you wa'skaly engineers.

[JayUtah]

Appeals to "simple physics" are functionally equivalent to saying "it doesn't take an expert." Either way the argument boils down to claiming that the knowledge required to answer some point lies within the common experience. Either way it's handwaving or begging the question. Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel take this approach.

A few conspiracists acknowledge that expertise is required and allege to have it. That's where we get incomplete, marginal, and inflated credentials. Jack White, David Percy, and Ralph Rene take this approach.

But more common is the confusion of expertise with trustworthiness. Especially in cases where the mainstream is defined as a hegemony, the conspiracist deems himself and others qualified to discuss something simply because they allege themselves to be free of a certain bias. This aspect of conspiracist psychology most fascinates me. The truths of the universe somehow distill upon one's soul as the dews from heaven simply by the virtue of having avoided the confining, ideologically-minded indoctrination from the mainstream. Formal qualifications are then a liability because they have only blinded you to the truth.

This sets up a clever tautology where a critic either can't claim knowledge to refute the conspiracy theory, or else is disqualified according to a presumed bias deriving from that knowledge.

[gwiz]

Something implied by this attitude is that if you study a relevant subject like geology or aerospace engineering, you must at some point be initiated into the hoax and sworn to secrecy, and that this must happen not only in the US but in every country that provides education in these subjects. All the HB needs to learn the truth is therefore to enrol in a relevant course and wait for that moment to arrive.

[CJSF]

This is actually true. I naively e-mailed Hoagland (or likely on of his "image processing" colleagues) when I was a graduate student, shortly after MGS took it's first images of the "face" on Mars. We had an e-mail exchange that ended with him sarcastically wishing me good luck with my pagan indoctrination to the NASA religion.

CJSF

[JayUtah]

Right. File that under "How Much Known Reality Must Be Rewritten In Order To Validate Your Belief." It's a matter of parsimony. It's simply more likely that Bill Kaysing is wrong about the geology of moon rocks than that every geologist in the world has been sworn to secrecy.