LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
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 07-23-2019, 10:32 AM   #46
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

It seems the 500 kilo gorilla in the room is the underlying thread which comes to the surface with any number of subjects, not just the Apollo Moon Landings, and I suppose we ultimately have to address that issue, namely "by what standards do people decide what is real and true or not?". It is apparent to me that many people really don't care much what is real and true but care more about their personal investment in what they have confidence in or the opposite, extreme skepticism of. With these folks, what they believe in is highly personal and actually is tightly bound to self-image. It defines them. In such a condition any argument against a concept in which they are so personally invested becomes an argument against not only the concept but against them personally. It is only natural that people like this see winning an argument as more important than the nature of what is being argued, because who is not going to defend essentially "to the death", what you stand for"?

Almost everyone agrees that honesty is the best policy, yet we all lie to some degree in some situations, sometimes even unknowingly to ourselves. In the "good kind of lying" we lie to ourselves about how bad a situation might be or turn out to be in order to sustain Hope. In a bad kind of the same sort we choose to fool ourselves into not seeing a doctor or at least talking to someone about a possible problem we perceive may exist despite knowing that in most cases early detection is a huge benefit. Sometimes this takes an odd form of not actually lying to ourselves but simply pretending as if it didn't exist, which has exactly the same result - clinging to an incorrect, impractical or imprudent view.

Certainly I am subject to the same kinds of pressures that make people essentially choose to believe an untruth , but degree does matter. A person who lies to themselves about the odds of their happy survival in the face of a devastating diagnosis is not the same as those "fancy dancers" who can't seem to tell the truth about almost anything perhaps believing that being a "moving or barely visible target" serves some sort of inherent self-preservation goal.

Something like this seems to me at the heart of why people would react with disbelief about such things as the JFK assassination, 911, Human Caused Climate Change and the Apollo Moon Landings. It seems to me that it starts with doubt of anything beyond our understanding and/or control. It creates what I'm quite sure such people see as a "healthy general skepticism" as a definition of who they are, which is decidedly different than just wanting clear answers. However from my POV being skeptical first to the degree of doubting a thing before it is even investigated out of some sense of self is just as silly as naively believing in everything without requiring any evidence. They seem two sides of the same coin.

For my part, and it should be obvious that I have admitted that I am human and not perfect at it, just hopefully I apply a decent degree of critical inspection substantially aided by being relatively unconcerned with which turns out to be true knowing no single thing, event or stance, can define me and having the willingness, even the desire, to accept being proven wrong. I think there is no shame in being wrong but there should be shame in choosing to stay wrong out of some sense of ego, of merely "saving face", after verifiable evidence comes in. That, my friends is an illusion, a lie to oneself in itself.

Case in point in reply to the latest from cynwulf -

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf most recent post
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.
and after that

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf most recent post
You've "side stepped" the missing original tapes which were overwritten to save money. While these facts remain, so too will the conspiracy theories..
While the "fluttering flag" should rightly have caused inquiry, to assume the only logical conclusion is the entire mission was faked is a huge leap ignoring a vast array of other possible explanations and exhibits a distinct bias that that was what that person was hoping for going in!... that "See! I just KNEW it was fake all along!" mindset. The same is true of "missing tapes". There is a very good cliche old saying "Don't assume malice where incompetence is more likely" since "malice" smacks of irrational paranoia that "I am so important, many, if not most, people (and especially organizations like the Gubmint) are out to get, deceive or stop me". zThe simple fact is that most people see others through their own eyes, so to speak, which translates to trustworthy people are generally trusting while untrustworthy people see foes everywhere.

It is far and away more likely that NASA, knowing intimately what they know, assume than nobody would doubt the moon landings and therefor "saving money" or whatever justification for losing or destroying some documents (and importantly an extremely small percentage of non-critical ones)is not cvonclusive evidence of any kind that can only conclude there was fakery underneath the action. Again, a vast array of possible answer exist only one of which is fakery, and many of which make a great deal more sense UNLESS one is looking for the flaws with a mindset that it is faked before it even begins.

I frankly cannot comprehend such a personal investment in a speculation, especially a paranoid, negative one, with little or no objective basis. Facts matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Petty "Refugee"
Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some
Tell me why you want to lay there, revel in your abandon
Honey, it don't make no difference to me, baby
Everybody's had to fight to be free, you see

You don't have to live like a refugee
(Don't have to live like a refugee)
No baby you don't have to live like a refugee
(Don't have to live like a refugee)
 
Old 07-23-2019, 11:15 AM   #47
ugjka
Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Latvia
Distribution: Arch, Centos
Posts: 357
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7uGvsT_nnM
 
Old 07-23-2019, 12:48 PM   #48
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 ugjka View Post
Wow! Thank you, ugjka. That was informative, new to me, and thoroughly enjoyable. Excellent video!
 
Old 07-23-2019, 12:52 PM   #49
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,795
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645
It is ironic in a thread where many of us have essentially indicated you can never convince everyone because of stubbornness that people keep trying to convince the OP long after it has become obvious he won't let it rest. I'd resisted responding after his last to me because I'd recognized the pointlessness of making additional points.

This post is not aimed at him but rather the rest of you who need to just let it go.

Of course he'll respond to this because he has decided to be the last word on last words.
 
Old 07-24-2019, 03:08 AM   #50
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
It is far and away more likely that NASA, knowing intimately what they know, assume than nobody would doubt the moon landings and therefor "saving money" or whatever justification for losing or destroying some documents (and importantly an extremely small percentage of non-critical ones)is not cvonclusive evidence of any kind that can only conclude there was fakery underneath the action. Again, a vast array of possible answer exist only one of which is fakery, and many of which make a great deal more sense UNLESS one is looking for the flaws with a mindset that it is faked before it even begins.
But again sounds like a poor excuse for overwriting those tapes.

There is the mindset of looking for flaws and there is the mindset of actively trying to debunk conspiracy theories and explain away inconsistencies and come up with excuses for missing data.

 
Old 07-24-2019, 05:18 AM   #51
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 MensaWater View Post
It is ironic in a thread where many of us have essentially indicated you can never convince everyone because of stubbornness that people keep trying to convince the OP long after it has become obvious he won't let it rest.
It is not my (unrealistic) goal to convince everyone. It is my goal to present a case that will cause some to consider evidence they may never have before and to demonstrate a steady-state skeptical policy is not enough. It still requires valid, objective evidence to gain any respect and possibility of being valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MensaWater View Post
I'd resisted responding after his last to me because I'd recognized the pointlessness of making additional points.
IMHO you made few if any points. As I pointed out, my original post "logged in" the expert opinion of a filmmaker who was alive in 1969 and aware of what technology was actually required to fake the moon landing video evidence AND that it didn't exist at all in 1969. You never addressed that, choosing instead to change the argument to something you were perhaps more comfortable with. We can go there, if you like, but only after you, or anyone, first deals with the subject at hand. So far, no one has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MensaWater View Post
Of course he'll respond to this because he has decided to be the last word on last words.
Well here above is at least, one valid point ... well... at least until someone falsifies the claims made in the original linked video. If that is accomplished, I will concede, end my responses and mark this thread "Solved". So even this point you made is less than completely accurate, but likely just an excuse for you to bow out, saving face, and in the process get others to join you in intellectual cowardice.
 
Old 07-24-2019, 11:38 AM   #52
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
Just so you know enorbet; I wasn't saying in my post before that the moon landings were untrue. AFAICS, nobody else in this thread appears to be contradicting what I think we can call fact that the moon landings were indeed a very real event.

My point before was twofold, and for one, and as stated by others responding to this thread; it's pointless to debate a video if you already believe that it's real. Don't get me wrong, and please yourself, but it appears as if you're waiting for someone to put up an argument that the moon landings/video of it are false to debate them on it. Two, just because something doesn't satisfy your "burden of proof", that doesn't mean that it's false and/or untrue. Witness and video evidence is still evidence that can be used in court, particularly and as I was saying before, creditable witnesses that have nothing to gain from lying about it.

I personally don't need to "satisfy" a "burden of proof" to believe that the moon landings among other things are indeed very real events/things, or for that matter, something that you may not believe yourself are likely very real events/things - even if others don't believe those things are true/real.

Like I said, please yourself...
 
Old 07-24-2019, 11:58 AM   #53
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
Thank you for the clarification on your position, jsbjsb001. My concern is that apparently one in twenty people globally think the moon landings were faked. I'd like to see that number substantially reduced and provide those "on the fence" as well as advocates, with powerful arguments to debunk this conspiracy theory on such an important event.

Just FTR you may recall Sundialsvcs a member who posted here in General quite a lot posted numerous times stating that he believed it a hoax. One of his main arguments in addition to photo/video issues was his belief humans cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belts surrounding our planet in a vehicle as lightly shielded as Apollo was and survive. In fact, and I didn't know this exact testing existed back then, 99% of the worst radiation of the worst of the two belts, the second, further out belt, can be blocked with just a thin sheet of plexiglass and less that 1/4 inch of aluminum, substantially less shielding than what Apollo had. The first belt was simply avoided since it is a narrow belt, which I did know at the time. I had previously thought that exposure time, exact location and timing were the major factors for the 2nd belt and while it did matter, that was a sort of "frosting on the cake". The shielding was more than sufficient. I think such information is important for people to know.
 
Old 07-24-2019, 12:09 PM   #54
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,795
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645Reputation: 1645
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
humans cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belts
Everyone knows the belts caught fire and were extinguished by a nuclear missile from the Seaview. No doubt that lessened their impact.
 
Old 07-24-2019, 12:32 PM   #55
ugjka
Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Latvia
Distribution: Arch, Centos
Posts: 357
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
"How did Apollo deal with the Van Allen radiation belts?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc
 
Old 07-24-2019, 12:56 PM   #56
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
...
Just FTR you may recall Sundialsvcs a member who posted here in General quite a lot posted numerous times stating that he believed it a hoax. One of his main arguments in addition to photo/video issues was his belief humans cannot pass through the Van Allen radiation belts surrounding our planet in a vehicle as lightly shielded as Apollo was and survive. In fact, and I didn't know this exact testing existed back then, 99% of the worst radiation of the worst of the two belts, the second, further out belt, can be blocked with just a thin sheet of plexiglass and less that 1/4 inch of aluminum, substantially less shielding than what Apollo had. The first belt was simply avoided since it is a narrow belt, which I did know at the time. I had previously thought that exposure time, exact location and timing were the major factors for the 2nd belt and while it did matter, that was a sort of "frosting on the cake". The shielding was more than sufficient. I think such information is important for people to know.
You're welcome enorbet.

Good old sundial hey? Yeah, I remember them, it doesn't look like they'll be back any time soon - General does seem somewhat quieter without them, that's for sure.

Nevertheless, I remember knowing a guy that believed September 11 just had to have been an "inside job", but as for UFO's and aliens; yes he believed ET likely does exist elsewhere in the Universe, but couldn't possibly get to this planet. So it goes back to the point I was making before, in that, for one (and as already said before); if someone wants to believe a lie, it's pretty unlikely throwing "facts" at them is going to change their mind. Two, while a "skeptic" and a "conspiracy theorist" can be the same, they are not always believers of the same - they could be very opposite coins, and not even just two different sides of the same coin.

I doubt one would agree to travel to space if they weren't sure that they would have any chance of making back to Earth - at least not in that era anyway. As it wouldn't be logical to send people to space on a "one-way ticket" as it were. But I'm not physicist either, so don't ask me about how such rockets are built.

Like I said before; I decide what I believe, and nobody is going to make that decision for me, but me. I try and make such decisions on the basis of what's most logical, and what's most likely to be true or untrue - despite what either the "skeptics" or "conspiracy theorists" say. Both camps usually have their own agendas anyway - so I don't trust either camp to give an unbiased account.
 
Old 07-24-2019, 03:13 PM   #57
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
Good points, jsbjsb001. It's just that I don't understand why anyone would wish to believe a lie in the first place and be resistant to facts, at the very least about issues, concepts and events so important they are deemed a defining part of one's identity. As it pertains to this thread, despite my hard work for much of my life and my endeavors to get into college and come away with a degree in Engineering with an eye to a life in the Space Program, if one day NASA were to come out and say "It was all a hoax", even if they added "but one which was deemed by our government to be an important component of preventing nuclear war" I would still be hugely disappointed and quite shaken, but I would after examining how that was accomplished and some verification, have no problem accepting that as true and freely admitting I had been deceived. It's just better to "roll with the punches" and go with the odds. What else can a reasonable man do?
 
Old 07-24-2019, 03:41 PM   #58
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
But again sounds like a poor excuse for overwriting those tapes.

There is the mindset of looking for flaws and there is the mindset of actively trying to debunk conspiracy theories and explain away inconsistencies and come up with excuses for missing data.

There is no need for excuses and it turns out the malice vs/ incompetence adage applies here as well. There was no decision to erase the originals of the Apollo tapes. It went down like this:

All of the originals comprised of a composite from sites all around the world since only some parts of the world were on the sis=de facing the moon at any point in time. I watched an interview with an Australian scientist who was manning their station at the time and who watched the originals as they came down to them. BTW he noted that because of limited bandwidth they were taken at less than 1/2 the resolution of NTSC - at 320 lines and 10 FPS, but looked quite clear if a bit choppy on the special 10 inch screens that NASA provided the specs for. Those originals were transmitted to NASA who converted them to NTSC for television broadcast to regular home sets. Later the tapes were physically sent off to NASA who ultimately labelled the many thousands of magnetic tapes with identifying codes.

Decades later, as NASAs budget continued to plummet and they found themselves having to cut any corners they possibly could, they retrieved some of the tapes and overwrote them for then current missions. The problem was, few people still knew what the ID codes stood for and since they didn't say anything like "Apollo 11, July 20, Noon to 17:00" it was not discovered till later which tapes had been lost.

This does not change the fact that some originals still exist nor that people are still alive that witnessed the originals NOR that in a very short time after receiving the originals they were transmitted back, converted to NTSC, and appeared on home sets. Furthermore those who saw the originals, while noting the converted copies were of less quality, also verified the copies had zero changes in content.

While it is certainly regrettable some of the originals were lost, there is no solid reason to suspect any manner of cover-up. Shoot! They didn't cover up disasters and incompetence!... Why the landing itself? Unfortunately many "Moon Hoaxers" are so invested in finding what they set out looking for they conflate NASA not only with the military (with whom they were actually in a resentment filled competition with) but go to extreme lengths to attribute the same sort of ruthless evil they see and imagine they see in covert military operations with NASA. I have seen Hoaxers blame NASA for hiring "Nazi war criminals" assuming they had a hand in Operation Paperclip which took place more than a decade before NASA was even formed and even for the hired hit murder of a North American employee seen as a whistleblower who died in a car accident with a train, as if the train was lying in wait as an ambush. <facepalm>
 
Old 07-24-2019, 03:45 PM   #59
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 ugjka View Post
"How did Apollo deal with the Van Allen radiation belts?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc
Well done, ugjka. Thanks for saving me the trouble of expanding on how the Van Allen belts were not much of a threat at all. I should add that most Hoaxers contend that a foot of lead would be required which is actually hilarious since lead upon being hit by high energy particles would produce secondary emissions of X-Rays!.. far more a deadly concern than charged particles.
 
Old 07-27-2019, 01:44 AM   #60
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Good points, jsbjsb001. It's just that I don't understand why anyone would wish to believe a lie in the first place and be resistant to facts, at the very least about issues, concepts and events so important they are deemed a defining part of one's identity.
...
Neither do I enorbet, donno either. I think for one, sundail is exactly one of those people that has already made up their mind, right, wrong or indifferent, and it goes back to the point made earlier on in this thread; you can throw as many "facts", or indeed logical arguments at someone like that all you want, there's still a slim chance of them changing their mind - when it's already made up despite whatever logical/valid argument you want to make. But of course, and that said; what's "logical" and/or "valid" to one person, may not be to another.

On that point; I think it's simply much easier for some people to believe lies, than to believe the truth - because in that case, the lie is easier to accept and/or understand. To some extent, I can understand that concept depending on exactly what you're talking about. Personally, and as hard as it can be sometimes; I'd prefer to try and understand the truth. Like the old saying goes; "it maybe an uncomfortable truth, but it's still truth". At least then, you know where you stand - I'd prefer to know where I stand, rather than not.

Quote:
What else can a reasonable man do?
To my way of thinking; there's not much else a reasonable person can do...
 
  


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 12:25 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