Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Consequence
In much of the imagery analysis, there isn’t really an opportunity to “lie” as you claim.
Of course there is. They are either not knowing what they are talking about, or intentionally lying. Why is there not such an opportunity, do you
They simply show official images and discuss how or why the images are flawed. At that point it would be up to the audience to agree or disagree with
the premise being advanced based on the logic being presented…
Of course it is up to the audience to agree or disagree, but since they are spreading untrue information, people with lesser or equal knowledge to
them will agree, as they think it makes sense. That doesn't make the conclusion true.
A lot of what Ive seen was not very “scientific” or “sciencey”. Obviously some of it was. Say for example when they used the convex angle of
the astronaut’s visor to determine the size and position of the light source/s being reflected. Those types of calculations got a little involved
in my opinion.
Fair enough. In any case they seem to be convincing as people buy what they say. And I think they buy what they say because of the psychological fact
the tellers are the 'experts' and the listener is not.
But much of the footage being reviewed seemed relatively straight forward.
Then obviously what they say seem even more convincing.
Actually, let me elaborate on that.
Atleast on university-level, during an oral exam, sometimes the teacher tries to mislead you by, after you have answered a question, making a
statement in greater depth as to further clear your point, to which you tend to answer "exactly" as the teacher knows what he's talking about (more
than yourself). This is a trick, of course.
This is a way to see whether or not you really understand the content, or if you've tried to learn the answers.
I remember that I have a few times went "yes, exact....nononononono! Wait!". In other words, it's easy to accept an explanation if you are in the
"wrong" mindset and forget to think for yourself. Things can sound very convincing.
I would disagree that a child in elementary school would know the physics behind rockets in “mid flight” (not sure which schools or children these
I think I said, or at least what I wanted to say, was that you are taught in elementary school that objects in space that are not hindered by gravity
will go on forever (i.e. why planets orbit the sun, why satellites orbit planets and what happens when the planet or sun isn't there), that it should
be common knowledge for adults who are discussing space-travel what it means to have rockets in space. It could be deduced from the simple facts
learnt at early age, or it could be learnt merely through the small interest in space and the knowledge you inevitably gain by becoming older.
But I would argue that even a child knows that considerably more energy/fuel is required to travel 500,000 miles versus 250 (the orbiting distance for
the space shuttle).
Of course it does, you will need more velocity when launching. And a child might even think that you will need a thousand times more, like you
I don’t believe that the US space program made incredible technological gains within two years from utter failure to extraordinary success. The
astronauts themselves (the ones who perished) had grave (literally) reservations.
Yes, clearly you do not. Even though it is evident that they did. I am not going to argue this bizarre fact.
However, I want to point out to you that in space flight, there isn't really anything between utter failure and success. If you fail, you crash and
burn. If you make it, you...make it. I hope you will think about that.
I agree, it looks like a giant leap, but it's the smallest details that make or break (literally) everything.
And what does any of this have to do with “conspiracy theories”? There are some people who have made the case as to why the official story cannot
be true based on their expertise…
The whole world (the general view anyway, apart from a handful) looks at the landing as a fact.
Now people are claiming that this is a lie, a conspiracy (conspiracy - "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by
two or more persons; plot).
And, since claim has not been proven, it is a theory. Thus, a conspiracy theory.
I’m really intrigued by this idea that there can be no other plausible, logical or reasonable explanation other than the official story. That
everything else is a “lie” or a “conspiracy theory” or [enter some other dismissive language here].
Hypothetically, there can, of course. We could all live in the matrix. Or I personally am in a coma and I'm currently dreaming an alternate world
history. Unfortunately, the actual landing cannot be dismissed in itself, because there is no evidence that say otherwise.
There are suggestions, but they fall under scrutiny. Not to mention that thinking of all the people who work at NASA, it'd be impossible to keep a
secret. People seem even unable to hide things they want to hide nowadays.
So yes, I think the whole idea is ridiculous, but I still do not mind discussing any "evidence" you have, and try explaining why it's not true.
edit on 29-8-2012 by Consequence because: (no reason given)