LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-18-2019, 08:49 PM   #31
colorpurple21859
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: florida panhandle
Distribution: slackware64-current, arch, ubuntu, others
Posts: 3,266

Rep: Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532

Quote:
Similarly I would never try to "prove" bigfoot doesn't exist though I "believe" he doeesn't.
Big Foot does exist, there is evidence all over the internet
 
Old 07-18-2019, 11:49 PM   #32
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,315

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Devils advocate time: Given that the USA made it to the moon in 1969 with technology from 1969 and over the past 50 years NASA et al. have promoted all of the benefits of space travel/moon landings etc...
In my experience, and due to my obsession with astronomy, astrophysics, and space travel that experience is rather extensive, landing on the moon has largely, until very recently been shelved rather than touted. Your devil begins with a faulty premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Why haven't the USA or any other country gone back to the moon since (other than rovers) and why are we reverting back to 1969 space pod technology with newer electronics to make this return voyage?
It isn't as if we have resurrected the Saturn 5 and simply outfitted the Apollo modules with just new electronics. There are substantial hardware improvements but granted that some items are still firmly based in Apollo design I'd say that is so because it worked... repeatedly. If it ain't broke... Perhaps most importantly both the most vulnerable working parts of Apollo as well as the greatest improvements since 1969 are in electronics, that just makes good sense. Even subsequent hardware failures such as the shuttle boosters foam or much earlier in the capsule fire that killed three astronauts, it can be seen that more and better sensors and controls could have prevented such disasters by catching them before they became catastrophic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Surely, if we were there in 1969 we would have returned numerous times, set up bases, research labs etc...
These catastrophes were extremely expensive in many ways, not the least of which was the loss of skilled, bright, driven people but the fallout can easily be tracked in NASA's budget. NMASA's budget was never more than 4.4% (i966) of the federal budget but it has fallen steadily since 1966 and in 2017 was 0.47%. Sending men to the moon is both dangerous and expensive and there is little return on investment once the initial feat is accomplished. Things might have been different if some extremely valuable resource had been detected but version 2.0 of The Gold Rush didn't occur.

The International Space Station is far less expensive, massively less dangerous and hugely more immediately valuable to gathering data that affects us here on Earth, yet it struggles for funding. How does it not (regrettably) make sense we haven't gone back? It is also why so much of science is funded for Defense rather than pure Science. Consider that the Super Collider was scrapped before it started and the US accepted the reversed "brain drain" to France and Switzerland (CERN) in Europe. Pure science has few supportive fans, despite it's track record of improving human existence over time. Crisis Management, only worrying about the fires tall enough to scorch your ass, are still utterly commonplace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Why were samples shelved/stored away for 50 years without thorough research?
I think that was actually good science and rather wise. Much of research analysis is destructive. Considering that research technology advances rather steadily it should be obvious that what we can glean tomorrow will be greater than what we can glean today. Since the amount of moon samples totals only 382 kilograms (842 pounds) and the variety is naturally not particularly wide with only a handful of landing sites, there is little loss to stashing some away and considerable wise hope that pristine samples will be far more useful at some point in the future.

I'm far more concerned why Saturn 5 was allowed to rust away and the plans "lost" or destroyed, but that's a whole other can of worms and likely has to do with military concern and deep abiding affection for the term "Top Secret".

OT - As for your aside on Ted Kennedy I doubt "murder" is an appropriate term. After both his famous brothers were publicly murdered he became a useless, broken, drunken playboy for many years. It was "match and gasoline". Sooner or later disaster was bound to occur. This isn't to say high ranking officials don't routinely get away with murder, just that it is doubtful Ted Kennedy could have orchestrated anything at all risky and complicated in his condition. He apparently fared badly in the DNA lottery, never more than a pale shadow of his two brothers.
 
Old 07-19-2019, 07:13 AM   #33
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,284
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
That is simply erroneous. During the height of The Cold War Russia tracked all US launches it could and would've given anything to be able to prove such a massive US lie.
Well no, there is nothing erroneous about it. The - what some would undoubtedly term "convenient" - destruction of the original footage (erasing tapes to save money!) of one of the most momentous events in the history of mankind... and the 50 year wait to open the samples makes absolutely no sense at all. The excuses not to open any of the collected samples may partially make sense now, in a retrospective sense, but would have made absolutely no sense back in 1969, when just like now, they would have considered themselves advanced for the same and capable of analysing the samples.

If anything it's the original tapes which should have been vacuum sealed and stored in a vault...

Considering there was more than one mission and hence more than one opportunity to harvest more samples, it's even stranger. There may be an explanation for this other than fakery, but the official explanation just seems implausible.

I've always found the "what about Russia?" arguments to be flawed. While Russia would gain by exposing any fakery, it could also use its silence on the matter as a useful bargaining chip. Russia and the US now cooperate with regards to their space programmes, but are at each others throats when it comes to more worldly affairs...

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Since so much of the "I call foul!" guy's "evidence" rests on photographic and video fakery, the point of the video is that the technology did not exist yet to fake it. It would still be difficult but possible in 2019... just not a half century ago. So if the landing was fake, how would or even could that be done if all of the photographic and video evidence checks out, as it does?
Well one could argue that it was viewed on black and white TVs and the original footage has been "conveniently" lost. Therefore, they have had years to reconstruct it as they see fit from newsreel and amateur recordings of the TV screen...

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Are you unaware of laser reflectors publicly available or all of the Third Party evidence?

Here ya go ====>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-..._Moon_landings
Of course but there is always doubt (from your link):
Quote:
Strictly speaking, although retroreflectors left by Apollo astronauts are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon and that human visitors left them there, they are not, on their own, conclusive evidence. Uncrewed missions are known to have placed such objects on the Moon as early as 1970. Smaller retroreflectors were carried by the uncrewed landers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 in 1970 and 1973, respectively.
What I'm saying is that the conspiracy theories won't ever be silenced. If the US returns to the moon, or as some may say really goes to the moon, the conspiracies about the Apollo missions will continue - in that the evidence of those earlier missions will probably be presumed to have been planted at that point.

Last edited by cynwulf; 07-19-2019 at 07:17 AM.
 
Old 07-19-2019, 09:13 AM   #34
ugjka
Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Latvia
Distribution: Arch, Centos
Posts: 357
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
Today's featured picture on Wikipedia: https://i.imgur.com/h37glTJ.png

All that for nothing? Come on...
 
Old 07-19-2019, 09:46 AM   #35
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,284
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507
But equally if you develop all of that and more, spending tens of billions and then can't get there...

My point: that the development and existence of AGC does not prove anything, other than it was developed and that it existed.

When all said and done, people will still believe in UFO's or ghosts, etc and always have, there's no harm in it. But unlike the moon landings there is no one spending lots of time and money on "debunking" those.

I used to know someone who managed to simultaneously believe both that the Apollo missions were faked and that the Apollo astronauts had encountered aliens when they got there and that's why no one has returned since... not entirely sure how that works.

Last edited by cynwulf; 07-19-2019 at 10:02 AM.
 
Old 07-19-2019, 11:20 AM   #36
michaelk
Moderator
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 18,782

Rep: Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803Reputation: 2803
enorbet is correct with respect to the moon samples. NPR just recently interviewed a scientist that studies moon rocks.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/73621...pe-to-get-more

I actually met Gene Cernan who was the last man to walk on the moon for the Apollo program a few years ago. I know many people that worked on the Apollo program. I do not believe the moon landings were faked.
 
Old 07-19-2019, 12:01 PM   #37
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,305

Rep: Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217
I like this take on things: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
 
Old 07-19-2019, 02:59 PM   #38
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,315

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332
Cynwulf I don't understand where you got the idea that no moon soil/rock samples have been studied. It's simply mistaken.

I was however mistaken about the reflectors. Although no robots placed reflectors before 1970 when apparently the Russians did, they kept it secret for 40 years. Apparently their design accepts wider angles of incidence allowing less precision in placement since they are now in 2019 in use.

Nevertheless, Russia using fakery as some sort of "bargaining chip" with the US seems to me like stepping on a dollar to pick up a dime. At the time Russia was trying to prove to the world the superiority of the Communist system over US Capitalism. Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me "We will bury you" - Nikita Kruschev" displays clearly that they weren't trying to convince the US but the rest of the world. Also decades after the Cold War Georgi Arbatov saying "We are going to do something terrible to you. We are going to deprive you of your enemy" seems to me to derail any notion of a bargaining chip. In addition there were so many other countries monitoring radar tracking of Apollo, the odds of fakery fade to oblivion. Again, if the photos and especially the videos were not, could not have been, faked, what other explanation do you suppose fits than reality?

That may soon all be moot, since apparently The Artemis Project is officially launched and plans to not only return to the Moon but to return to stay by 2024.

BTW Cynwulf I agree with you that conspiracy theorists will likely always exist even after absolutely definitive proof (witness Flat Earthers) but what disturbs me is the rather large numbers of moon landing deniers, especially since it is mostly based on far less than expert opinion or research into third party verification.

Last edited by enorbet; 07-19-2019 at 03:10 PM.
 
Old 07-19-2019, 04:45 PM   #39
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,382

Rep: Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294Reputation: 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
In my experience, and due to my obsession with astronomy, astrophysics, and space travel that experience is rather extensive, landing on the moon has largely, until very recently been shelved rather than touted. Your devil begins with a faulty premise.



It isn't as if we have resurrected the Saturn 5 and simply outfitted the Apollo modules with just new electronics. There are substantial hardware improvements but granted that some items are still firmly based in Apollo design I'd say that is so because it worked... repeatedly. If it ain't broke... Perhaps most importantly both the most vulnerable working parts of Apollo as well as the greatest improvements since 1969 are in electronics, that just makes good sense. Even subsequent hardware failures such as the shuttle boosters foam or much earlier in the capsule fire that killed three astronauts, it can be seen that more and better sensors and controls could have prevented such disasters by catching them before they became catastrophic.



These catastrophes were extremely expensive in many ways, not the least of which was the loss of skilled, bright, driven people but the fallout can easily be tracked in NASA's budget. NMASA's budget was never more than 4.4% (i966) of the federal budget but it has fallen steadily since 1966 and in 2017 was 0.47%. Sending men to the moon is both dangerous and expensive and there is little return on investment once the initial feat is accomplished. Things might have been different if some extremely valuable resource had been detected but version 2.0 of The Gold Rush didn't occur.

The International Space Station is far less expensive, massively less dangerous and hugely more immediately valuable to gathering data that affects us here on Earth, yet it struggles for funding. How does it not (regrettably) make sense we haven't gone back? It is also why so much of science is funded for Defense rather than pure Science. Consider that the Super Collider was scrapped before it started and the US accepted the reversed "brain drain" to France and Switzerland (CERN) in Europe. Pure science has few supportive fans, despite it's track record of improving human existence over time. Crisis Management, only worrying about the fires tall enough to scorch your ass, are still utterly commonplace.



I think that was actually good science and rather wise. Much of research analysis is destructive. Considering that research technology advances rather steadily it should be obvious that what we can glean tomorrow will be greater than what we can glean today. Since the amount of moon samples totals only 382 kilograms (842 pounds) and the variety is naturally not particularly wide with only a handful of landing sites, there is little loss to stashing some away and considerable wise hope that pristine samples will be far more useful at some point in the future.

I'm far more concerned why Saturn 5 was allowed to rust away and the plans "lost" or destroyed, but that's a whole other can of worms and likely has to do with military concern and deep abiding affection for the term "Top Secret".
Enorbet, good points. I think having constructive thoughtful answers/explanations is a far more successful approach to seeking/sharing the "truth/facts" then just labeling the counter argument/opinion "fakery" etc...
 
Old 07-20-2019, 11:46 AM   #40
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,305

Rep: Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217Reputation: 2217
Sorry, I thought this was a joke title. Considering there have been multiple moon landings and many countries have confirmed that things like, for exampke, the mirror array exists this >s, surely, just kidding around? The USSR/VcCCP would have unraveled any moon landing hoax.
 
Old 07-22-2019, 06:09 AM   #41
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,284
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Cynwulf I don't understand where you got the idea that no moon soil/rock samples have been studied. It's simply mistaken.
A lot of Lunar material enters Earth's atmosphere after being ejected from the moon naturally. It has of course been studied. The Soviet unmanned Luna probes also apparently harvested samples during missions in the early 70s.

So again this does not debunk the conspiracy theories, as the rocks could have other sources and it's feasible that any theoretical samples were simply locked away, because there wasn't enough of them, at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I was however mistaken about the reflectors. Although no robots placed reflectors before 1970 when apparently the Russians did, they kept it secret for 40 years. Apparently their design accepts wider angles of incidence allowing less precision in placement since they are now in 2019 in use.
The retroreflectors are commonly cited as absolute proof of the landings, just as e.g. fluttering flags, misplaced crosshairs, etc are often cited as absolute proof of fakery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Nevertheless, Russia using fakery as some sort of "bargaining chip" with the US seems to me like stepping on a dollar to pick up a dime. At the time Russia was trying to prove to the world the superiority of the Communist system over US Capitalism. Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me "We will bury you" - Nikita Kruschev" displays clearly that they weren't trying to convince the US but the rest of the world. Also decades after the Cold War Georgi Arbatov saying "We are going to do something terrible to you. We are going to deprive you of your enemy" seems to me to derail any notion of a bargaining chip. In addition there were so many other countries monitoring radar tracking of Apollo, the odds of fakery fade to oblivion. Again, if the photos and especially the videos were not, could not have been, faked, what other explanation do you suppose fits than reality?
My point here is that if the entire moon landing hoax thing rests on "if it were fake, our enemies would have exposed us", that's not a great argument. I personally think it's plausible that Russia used it as leverage, but joining 99.9999999% of the rest of the world in not knowing the inner machinations of the Soviet era Kremlin, I don't think we can possibly be certain of anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
BTW Cynwulf I agree with you that conspiracy theorists will likely always exist even after absolutely definitive proof (witness Flat Earthers) but what disturbs me is the rather large numbers of moon landing deniers, especially since it is mostly based on far less than expert opinion or research into third party verification.
It's as likely that Russia faked all of it's unmanned missions and that a "war of fakery" was going on during the space race - hence why neither side has called out the other. I don't think we're in the position to know for sure - and while doubt remains so the conspiracy theories continue (and no doubt write books etc and make some money).
 
Old 07-22-2019, 02:43 PM   #42
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,315

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
A lot of Lunar material enters Earth's atmosphere after being ejected from the moon naturally. It has of course been studied. The Soviet unmanned Luna probes also apparently harvested samples during missions in the early 70s.

So again this does not debunk the conspiracy theories, as the rocks could have other sources and it's feasible that any theoretical samples were simply locked away, because there wasn't enough of them, at the time.
Isn't this sidestepping your assertion that locking down some lunar rock/soil samples (you incorrectly said "all") is possibly evidence of fakery. Regardless of one's position the existence of samples is not evidence either way...., well, unless there was some way to track an exact sample, but that is doubtful afaik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
The retroreflectors are commonly cited as absolute proof of the landings, just as e.g. fluttering flags, misplaced crosshairs, etc are often cited as absolute proof of fakery.
As you previously pointed out in the wikipedia article, it is not touted as absolute, conclusive proof in serious publications. It is merely strong evidence of incremental import. "Fluttering flag" has been easy to debunk since there is a measurable difference between inertia driven motion and that from a breeze, not to mention the likelihood that even if we assume a hoax from a Film or TV set, they surely had the technology to either prevent breezes or re-shoot when there was no breeze. That such a thing would be assumed to be overlooked speaks to the ignorance of the hoaxers and their simplistic estimation of the skills of science and engineering, as well as pompous imagination of their own abilities.

Shadows, multiple light sources, misplaced crosshairs have all be easily disproved as assumptions from people not at all expert in those fields, let alone having any framne of reference whatsoever of what it is actually like on the Moon's surface. An excellent example of this is the claims that "stars aren't visible, so it was blacked out in the faked videos and photos so we couldn't check on the starfield that would reveal actual location". Today we have the graphic and computing power to exactly recreate the lighting conditions of the videos and photos and adjust contrast and brightness at will. When these are adjusted the point at which stars can be seen exists but it is so bright nothing on the surface is visible through all the glare. The lenses had sunlight reducing filters just as cameramen on Earth use to minimize glare which is exactly in line with why on Earth we rarely see stars during daylight. On the Moon it was so (expectedly) bright that reflections off of crater walls and even asttronaut's highly reflective suits constituted additional light sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
My point here is that if the entire moon landing hoax thing rests on "if it were fake, our enemies would have exposed us", that's not a great argument. I personally think it's plausible that Russia used it as leverage, but joining 99.9999999% of the rest of the world in not knowing the inner machinations of the Soviet era Kremlin, I don't think we can possibly be certain of anything.
This, too, sidesteps the evidence that destroys all of the hoaxers photo/video based claims. If the photos and video were in fact faked, it was a stunningly perfect job with zero flaws. The "entire moon landing hoax thing" does not depend on only that "our enemies would have exposed us". It is just more incremental weight of evidence which added all together makes a powerful argument. Few scientists wish to have their legacy defined by buffoonery like Percival Lowell and those few who followed in his delusional projection. Lowell was responsible for major advances in Astronomy but his entire professional life has been eclipsed and he is remembered as something of a moron or hallucinating fool because of "just going along with the crowd". It wasn't only our enemies who verified radar tracking and who communicated with Apollo at those exact coordinates. Do you suppose scientists for example in Canberra, Australia saw an advantage to lying and backing up an American Hoax that outweighed their entire legacy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
It's as likely that Russia faked all of it's unmanned missions and that a "war of fakery" was going on during the space race - hence why neither side has called out the other. I don't think we're in the position to know for sure - and while doubt remains so the conspiracy theories continue (and no doubt write books etc and make some money).
While I don't see that as likely at all for many reasons, I am quite certain many will discover this in just a few years when we go back, but I also imagine some will find some imagined flaw so they can doubt even those missions. They are just too personally invested in "proving" they know more about "rocket science" than rocket scientists.
 
Old 07-22-2019, 03:57 PM   #43
m.a.l.'s pa
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Location: albuquerque
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 295

Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysander666 View Post
Yes, this is an example of confirmation bias, belief perseverance and the backfire effect. The more that other people attempt to win an argument, especially online and in the face of contradictory evidence, the more they are pushed further into supporting their own beliefs. This is because, theoretically, people tend to become emotional and more interested in winning an argument rather than looking at themselves objectively, critically and examining both sides of the argument assertively and with neutrality. There are particular arguments [the moon landings among them] which are essentially 'unwinnable' because of this.
Exactly. Thank you.
 
Old 07-23-2019, 03:49 AM   #44
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,284
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Isn't this sidestepping your assertion that locking down some lunar rock/soil samples (you incorrectly said "all") is possibly evidence of fakery. Regardless of one's position the existence of samples is not evidence either way...., well, unless there was some way to track an exact sample, but that is doubtful afaik.
I perhaps incorrectly lumped the sealed samples and the unsealed samples under lock and key as one and the same - I wasn't aware that some of the samples which had been opened had been verified internationally? Even so any samples NASA presents as being from the Apollo missions could have come from other sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
"Fluttering flag"[etc]
My only point in referring to the "fluttering flag" and camera crosshairs, is that they were the "absolute proof" from some conspiracy theorists of fakery, which turned out not to be so. Similarly I've seen the reflectors references often as evidence, but it's clear that they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
If the photos and video were in fact faked, it was a stunningly perfect job with zero flaws.
You've "side stepped" the missing original tapes which were overwritten to save money. While these facts remain, so too will the conspiracy theories...

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
While I don't see that as likely at all for many reasons, I am quite certain many will discover this in just a few years when we go back, but I also imagine some will find some imagined flaw so they can doubt even those missions. They are just too personally invested in "proving" they know more about "rocket science" than rocket scientists.
Most likely. The US is awash with this kind of thing - much of it is fueled by the media and people's insatiable appetite for watching "documentaries" - throwaway daytime TV - about fantastical nonsense.

Even if you examine the moon landing conspiracy crap and discard 99% of it, a few points remain which breed doubt and that's precisely what fuels the rest of it.
 
Old 07-23-2019, 06:54 AM   #45
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: Currently OpenMandriva. Previously openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 2,879

Rep: Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480Reputation: 1480
It works both ways. For example, there are certain subjects that very likely do have at least some truth to them, but yet if you ask the so-called "skeptics", you're a "conspiracy theorist" or similar for believing it. Even where there are living witnesses that have nothing to gain from lying about what they saw, but of course our "human race" does not yet (at least publicly if nothing else) have the knowledge to explain it. So a "skeptic" and a "conspiracy theorist" can be, but aren't always on the same page. There's an old saying: "the truth is usually somewhere in-between". So I wouldn't trust either of those two camps - particularly in today's world.

In the end, in boils down to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbell View Post
In my experience, conspiracy theories are never "crushed." They instead become more twisted as their true believers attempt to pretzel their way around the reality that they have chosen to deny.

If persons want to believe a lie, facts won't deter them.
Well said Frank.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Android Candy: Landing on the Moon, with your Thumbs LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-11-2017 03:10 AM
[SOLVED] USB device crushed on RHEL 4 zanget Linux - Hardware 12 11-04-2009 07:32 AM
P,V make kernel crushed!!! zanget Linux - Software 1 10-30-2009 01:32 PM
LXer: Crushed by the Wheels of Industry LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-15-2007 04:31 AM
Harddisk crushed dirstyGuy Slackware 9 01-26-2004 10:55 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration