It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by exponent
Oh wow seriously? This is the last thing I respond to you, I feel like I am explaining to a third grader what makes the Sun set.
I AM SHOWING THAT NASA USES A SIMILAR KNEE STRAP IN THEIR HARNESSES AND THAT SUCH STRAPS CAN BE UTILIZED IN ANY ORIENTATION.
If you curbed your arrogance somewhat you'd learn why you are wrong. I guess you can't see over your own ego.
Originally posted by JayDub113
DENY IGNORANCE
The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.
If one looks at the hoax "theory" in total, it becomes apparent it is little more than a fairy tale based on a handful of mistaken observations and assumptions. You may see a hundred examples of so-called hoax evidence, but it is mostly just repeated samples of the same misinterpreted phenomena. For those who have convinced themselves Apollo was nothing more than a hoax, it becomes necessary to create a story that fits the remaining evidence and is consistent with the hoax plot.
...
The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.
www.braeunig.us...
WHY A CONSPIRACY?
...
To account for variations in observation.
Anyone who studies history seriously knows that there is rarely a completely reliable, authoritative version of the facts surrounding any notable occurrence. The tidbits of inconsistency upon which most conspiracy theories rely occur constantly in connection with any activity we undertake. It's only when important activities are closely scrutinized that these details receive close attention. In other words, it's natural for people to believe that there should be no inconsistency in legitimate activities. So if we observe an inconsistency, we take that alone as evidence that the intuitive explanation must be flawed and we should search for a more complicated answer.
As entertainment.
Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It's more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner's landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it's even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.
To seem intelligent.
Conspiracy theories are often much more elaborate than what's commonly believed about something. And they usually require the listener to expand his understanding to accept the possibility of a conspiracy. Those who casually examine photographs of the lunar landings are impressed when they are led to discover discrepancies. This inflates the ego and gives one the impression that he is smarter than the dozens who look at the same photographs and see nothing special.
To be "on the inside."
The conspiracist fancies himself to be elite, to be privy to secret information that few others have.
www.clavius.org...
Originally posted by JayDub113
reply to post by exponent
Umm... I presented evidence supporting my assertions. i asked you to provide some to the contrary, you did not, you argued weak illogical arguments that didn't pertain to the original assertion.
All you have done is say I am wrong "just because you say". That sir is the height of arrogance.
DENY IGNORANCEedit on 2-12-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by byrontheman
I think the strongest evidence against Apollo is NASA's always posturing as though it were above it all. I understand their disinclination to get involved in the debate themselves. But its still the thing that got me considering hoax as a legitimate possibility.
Originally posted by kozmo
How did they suit up when the LEM barely had enough room for the 3 astronauts without the equipment?
make the inside of the LEM large enough to suit up,
how did they pass through the hatch to Moon's surface when the equipment exceeded the diameter of the LEM hatch???
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the problem with american astronauts sueing idiots for slander / libel - is the assanine US libel / slander laws that force the plaintiff to demonstrate that the alledged libel / slander is untrue
....
Originally posted by DelMarvel
reply to post by delusion
Here's an article on the subject by the author:
www.jamesoberg.com...
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
do you actually fail to comprehend the concept of " changing jobs " ?
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Are you really so naive to believe that a CIA photographic expert was just " changing jobs " ?
And why did Richard Nixon's bother, Ed Nixon working for Bellcomm, hire Farouk El-Baz?
You have to admit that Farouk El-Baz chose each and every Apollo landing site. Isn't that true?
Are you really so naive to believe that a CIA photographic expert was just " changing jobs " ?
And why did Richard Nixon's bother, Ed Nixon working for Bellcomm, hire Farouk El-Baz?
You have to admit that Farouk El-Baz chose each and every Apollo landing site. Isn't that true?