We Never Went to the Moon

[Smoogis]

I see that you pro-Apollo people are just going to tap dance around the evidence instead of addressing it so I might as well just ignore you and talk to the thinking people who are viewing this.


I prefer the term "Apollolite."

[Nick Soapdish]

but maybe the energy put into this nonsense might be redirected and some energy used in becoming a good sex partner.



I think that masturbation would be safer. (No chance of procreation.) And actually possible.


The only way you guys are going to sway thinking people is by showing the argument to be wrong. That means you have to address the actual evidence. Rhetoric, invective, and name-calling won't sway thinking people. If you don't address the actual evidence, you know what people are going to think.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#invincible%20ignorance%20--%20the%20fallacy%20of%20insisting%20on%20the%20leg itimacy%20of%20one%27s%20position%20in%20the%20fac e%20of%20contradictory%20facts.%20Statements%20lik e%20%22I%20really%20don%27t%20care%20what%20the%20 experts%20say;%20no%20one%20is%20going%20to%20conv ince%20me%20that%20I%27m%20wrong%22;%20%22nothing% 20you%20say%20is%20going%20to%20change%20my%20mind %22;%20%22yeah,%20okay,%20whatever!%22%20are%20exa mples%20of%20this%20fallacy.

It's been addressed several times on this thread by posters with links to reputable scientists, but you keep on ignoring them and bringing up links on YouTube of crackpots that couldn't pass a middle school science class.

We don't care that much about convincing you and are happy to let you hold onto your delusions.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I see that you pro-Apollo people are just going to tap dance around the evidence instead of addressing it so I might as well just ignore you and talk to the thinking people who are viewing this.

What you cite as evidence, most people recognize as nonsense. That being the case, there's no point in debating the "evidence" with you. You are incapable of understanding the difference between sound evidence and pure horseshit.

[Dreadstar]

...a delusional inability to question the correctness of their own belief systems, even when presented with clear evidence they are wrong...

If I'm being honest, I have a problem sometimes questioning something that I've firmly believed to be true, but then given evidence to the contrary. It's not easy. it's the whole "delusional inability" that I hope sets me apart from the ones that are nuttier than squirrel shit. I don't have any "inability" to do so, I just resist it because of the difficulty. That whole "inability" thing is really kind of scary when you think about it. Would someone snap if confronted with complete and inescapable evidence that they were wrong, or would they fashion an even more elaborate fantasy to escape the truth?

[Iangould]

I see that you pro-Apollo people are just going to tap dance around the evidence instead of addressing it so I might as well just ignore you and talk to the thinking people who are viewing this.

What makes you think there are any "thinking people" reading this?

[Donald M.]

I see that you pro-Apollo people are just going to tap dance around the evidence instead of addressing it so I might as well just ignore you and talk to the thinking people who are viewing this.


You're posting about moon landing conspiracies on a comic book message board. I can't imagine who you think is viewing this that might possibly care, but don't let us stop you, keep preachin' it brother!

[Dreadstar]

What makes you think there are any "thinking people" reading this?

...or posting, for that matter...

[Nick Soapdish]

I prefer the term "Apollolite."

'm using Apollonian. I'm trying to take it back from Nietzsche.

[Cosmored]

Here's some more stuff for the thinking people who are reading this thread.
----------------------------------------------

There is no blast crater under the lander.
http://thoughtworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/picture1.jpg

That is discussed in this five part video series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Now look at the reflection of the sun in the visor in the picture at the top of this page.
http://www.sciencephotogallery.com/low.php?xp=media&xm=1694861

It's pretty clear that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor is that of a big light. Here's an article about that.
http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At bottom of this page there's a picture of the astronaut's visor that has in it the reflection of what looks like some kind of studio light.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_9.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The moon rocks are often presented as proof the missions were real. There are plausible explanations that would explain them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Moon+Rocks+Revis ited&aq=f
-----------------------------------------------------------

Was it Only a Paper Moon? (documentary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2rfsy3Sd0c
(8 parts)

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Moon_Hoax
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Apollo_NASA.html
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html
(Wagging the Moondoggie)

[JeffreyWKramer]

If I'm being honest, I have a problem sometimes questioning something that I've firmly believed to be true, but then given evidence to the contrary. It's not easy. it's the whole "delusional inability" that I hope sets me apart from the ones that are nuttier than squirrel shit. I don't have any "inability" to do so, I just resist it because of the difficulty.

That's a fair point, and an important distinction. It is difficult to change one's deeply-held beliefs, and often one's thought patterns are so autopilot-like that we aren't able to even be aware of them without significant effort. That makes therapy work based on recognizing, challenging and altering distorted thinking (a cornerstone of cognitive-behavioral therapy) difficult and time-consuming, both for the therapist and even moreso for the client.

For truly delusional people, though, it is not just difficult, but an actual inability, due to the degree to which the person's capacity for critical thinking is impaired.


That whole "inability thing is really kind of scary when you think about it. Would someone snap if confronted with complete and inescapable evidence that they were wrong, or would they fashion an even more elaborate fantasy to escape the truth?

Usually the latter. Or they simply ignore/deny the evidence, refusing to process it.

Which is, again, why trying to talk logic or dispute "evidence" to this fellow is destined to get one exactly nowhere.

[Jorriss]

If you look at the support rod, its swinging shows what the astronaut is doing with his hands to the pole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)

The support rod is not moving in a way that's consistent with its making the tip of the flag stop moving. The upper part if the flag is just hanging; it's not transmitting the kind of movement that would be necessary to make the tip of the flag stop waving back and forth.


He's grabbing the rod below the base of the flag, intuitively, I would think that would help the bottom of the flag stop moving particularly when the top already has less movement.

That being said, who says it's not consistent? I assume the people you are getting this information from have not done any computer modeling on a waving flag to show it's inconsistent. And it can't be done analytically. So why do you feel it's inconsistent? It 'seems' ok to myself.

[Dreadstar]

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.

Now look at the reflection of the sun in the visor in the picture at the top of this page.

It's pretty clear that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor is that of a big light. Here's an article about that.

Someone doesn't know the science behind telephoto vs. wide angle lens. Why am I not surprised?

[Cosmored]

He's grabbing the rod below the base of the flag, intuitively, I would think that would help the bottom of the flag stop moving particularly when the top already has less movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

Any movement of the pole would make the rod visibly move. There's no movement of the rod that shows the pole moved that way.


Someone doesn't know the science behind telephoto vs. wide angle lens. Why am I not surprised?
Go ahead and explain it to us then; there are probably a few people with science backgrounds watching.

[Dreadstar]

Go ahead and explain it to us then; there are probably a few people with science backgrounds watching.

It won't do any good, you're not actually listening.

But on the outside chance that someone else doesn't know what I'm talking about:

The faceplates are basically mirrors. Imagine 2 mirrors, each the size of a dinner plate. Now imagine one mirror at arm's length. That mirror reflects an image of the sun. It's, oh say, the size of a 50-cent piece. Now imagine that second mirror is 50 yards away. The sun's reflected size doesn't change, it's still the size of a 50-cent piece. But now the area of that second mirror looks a LOT smaller than the one that's at arm length, and suddenly that 50-cent piece reflection takes up a LOT more of the observed area of the second mirror.

Now, everyone knows how a telephoto lens works, right? It makes the object that you see appear closer, but doesn't change the perspective that's inherent within the picture itself. So when you magnify that second mirror to become the size of the first mirror, what happens to the 50-cent size reflection?

Yep, it gets bigger, too.

Et voila'!

[Dreadstar]

And dear god, I hope that after that I don't have to explain that a wide-angle lens does pretty much the opposite (with some fun perspective changes thrown in to boot).

[Nick Soapdish]

It won't do any good, you're not actually listening.

But on the outside chance that someone else doesn't know what I'm talking about:

The faceplates are basically mirrors. Imagine 2 mirrors, each the size of a dinner plate. Now imagine one mirror at arm's length. That mirror reflects an image of the sun. It's, oh say, the size of a 50-cent piece. Now imagine that second mirror is 50 yards away. The sun's reflected size doesn't change, it's still the size of a 50-cent piece. But now the area of that second mirror looks a LOT smaller than the one that's arm length, and suddenly that 50-cent piece reflection takes up a LOT more of the observed area of the second mirror.

Now, everyone knows how a telephoto lens works, right? It makes the object that you see appear closer, but doesn't change the perspective that's inherent within the picture itself. So when you magnify that second mirror to become the size of the first mirror, what happens to the 50-cent size reflection?

Yep, it gets bigger, too.

Et voila'!

I was half-hoping that you'd recommending Googling it. I think it'd be exciting to see the sort of explanations about how cameras work that he'd come up with.

[Dreadstar]

I was half-hoping that you'd recommending Googling it. I think it'd be exciting to see the sort of explanations about how cameras work that he'd come up with.

Heh! It was just that the explanation was so simple, in fact, basically junior high school physics with primary school understanding and observation, that I decided to just go for it. Just in case someone else reading this might be wondering what I was talking about.

[Dreadstar]

I also get the weird feeling that our boy here has taken my post back to his fellow conspiracists so they can cobble together a SMACK-DOWN refutation.


EDIT: And now I'm imagining he and his fellow conspiracists as a nest and . . . and . . .


...omigawd, make the pictures in my head go away!

[Jorriss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

Any movement of the pole would make the rod visibly move. There's no movement of the rod that shows the pole moved that way.

No, it wouldn't be necessary to fully move the rod, just a firm grip on the rod to stabilize it could be enough to stop the movement of the flag. All you need is some way for the flag to dissipate it's energy, firmly grabbing the rod gives a pathway.

Most of this really can be explained. Some of it does look weird on the surface, I agree but it's entirely within the realm of possibility. For example, what the person explained above about lenses, I did not know either (I know very little optics), but the explanation was out there and it made physical sense.

[Gary_B]

I see that you pro-Apollo people are just going to tap dance around the evidence instead of addressing it...

I prefer Apollo-gist.

[Dreadstar]

No, it wouldn't be necessary to fully move the rod, just a firm grip on the rod to stabilize it could be enough to stop the movement of the flag. All you need is some way for the flag to dissipate it's energy, firmly grabbing the rod gives a pathway.


Or, you know, the rod doesn't have to move in a noticeable fashion. It could be rotated on its long axis, for example. Something that might happen if someone has a hold of a flag pole and inadvertently twists their wrist, say.

[Mac Danny]

I prefer Apollo-gist.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif

[Nick Soapdish]

I prefer Apollo-gist.

http://images3.cliqueclack.com/tv/files/2011/04/brilliant.jpg

Brilliant!

[Mike Pothier]

mmmyeah. Keep talking about those rods, people.

[Dreadstar]

I prefer Apollo-gist.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Gary B. here is a very accomplished photographer, though I assume an amateur.

Mr B., does my above assertion hold water?

[Gary_B]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Gary B. here is a very accomplished photographer, though I assume an amateur.

Mr B., does my above assertion hold water?

It works for me, Dread. But I'm not a nut-job conspiracist so we'll just have to see how it plays out.

[Cosmored]

But on the outside chance that someone else doesn't know what I'm talking about:

The faceplates are basically mirrors. Imagine 2 mirrors, each the size of a dinner plate. Now imagine one mirror at arm's length. That mirror reflects an image of the sun. It's, oh say, the size of a 50-cent piece. Now imagine that second mirror is 50 yards away. The sun's reflected size doesn't change, it's still the size of a 50-cent piece. But now the area of that second mirror looks a LOT smaller than the one that's at arm length, and suddenly that 50-cent piece reflection takes up a LOT more of the observed area of the second mirror.

Now, everyone knows how a telephoto lens works, right? It makes the object that you see appear closer, but doesn't change the perspective that's inherent within the picture itself. So when you magnify that second mirror to become the size of the first mirror, what happens to the 50-cent size reflection?

Yep, it gets bigger, too.
We'd have to get an objective third party to give an opinion on that too. Also, if what you say turns out to be true, they may have used a normal lens so this isn't a debunking. It's just an alternative explanation.

Why doesn't somebody analyze the anomaly in post #470?
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580297&postcount=470


Or, you know, the rod doesn't have to move in a noticeable fashion. It could be rotated on its long axis, for example. Something that might happen if someone has a hold of a flag pole and inadvertently twists their wrist, say.
The astronaut wasn't moving the support rod. He was moving the pole. There's no way it would have rotated without his twisting it with his fingers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 time mark)


No, it wouldn't be necessary to fully move the rod, just a firm grip on the rod to stabilize it could be enough to stop the movement of the flag. All you need is some way for the flag to dissipate it's energy, firmly grabbing the rod gives a pathway.
When the tip of the flag stops waving, there's no visible movement from the upper part of the flag that's attached to the support rod, nor is there any visible movement from the back of the flag that's attached to the pole that makes the tip of the flag stop moving. It would take actual movement of the pole and/or the support rod to transfer movement to the upper and rear parts of the flag to the tip to make it stop moving. The way it stops is also perfectly consistent with the atmosphere explanation. This is one of those anomalies that's simply too clear to obfuscate. I doubt you're convincing any of the viewers that the flag was moving in a vacuum.

Now let's hear some analyses of the anomaly in post #470.

[worstblogever]

Any Pope that thought so would be even stupider than most consipiracy theorists, since condoms verifiably existed as far back as ancient Egypt. Similarly, while modern birth control medications are a 20th-century invention, concoctions intended to inhibit procreation go back to ancient Greece at the latest. The same can be said about concoctions intended to cause abortion.

So, those would be really freaking long-term conspiracies, beating out even the Masons!

WHAT? But I was told the Pope was infallible? :redface:

[Smoogis]

We'd have to get an objective third party to give an opinion on that too.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4545519/2/istockphoto_4545519-laughing-turtle.jpg

[worstblogever]

For Christ's sake, even Wikipedia has a page for all of the evidence collected by 3rd parties that we got to the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

And that's a lot of evidence planted to support it, if it is still a conspiracy.

[Michael P]

someone really needs to get laid.
Yes, but what do my problems have to do with this trhead.

Oh, absolutely. Also, people with Aspergers and other autism-spectrum disorders have high tendencies toward O-C traits and, in some cases, a delusional inability to question the correctness of their own belief systems, even when presented with clear evidence they are wrong.
This is getting kinda far afield, but on another forum, I'm following a rubbernecking thread about a guy who's founded a group with the stated goal of developing cyborg furry bodies you can transplant human brains into, buying an island off the coast of Africa, and founding an anarcho-communist cyborg hermaphroditic dragon utopia. His responses whenever anyone brings up the various logical, logistical, and reality-based obstacles to this goal are, I suspect, a textbook case of what you're talking about.

you pro-Apollo people
I'm an agnostic, actually.

[Cosmored]

For Christ's sake, even Wikipedia has a page for all of the evidence collected by 3rd parties that we got to the moon.
Post something from there that you think is real proof that they got there and we can discuss whether it's really proof. Also, go back and read the info in post #468.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580229&postcount=468

It's about all the disinfo that's on the internet.

[Jeff Brady]

Also, go back and read the info in post #468.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580229&postcount=468

It's about all the disinfo that's on the internet.

No one here cares about your stupid bullshit.

[Puma]

Post something from there that you think is real proof that they got there and we can discuss whether it's really proof. Also, go back and read the info in post #468.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580229&postcount=468

It's about all the disinfo that's on the internet.
Like the bulk of the links you use for evidence?

[Dreadstar]

We'd have to get an objective third party to give an opinion on that too.
Nah. All you need to do is get a camera and prove it to yourself. I bet that thought makes you squirm, doesn't it?


Also, if what you say turns out to be true, . . .

No "if" about it. I'm citing phenomena that's easily verifiable by your average 10-year-old.


. . . they may have used a normal lens so this isn't a debunking. It's just an alternative explanation.

See, here's the thing. I *admit* that I'm making an assumption that the two different shots were taken with lenses of different focal length. But that doesn't matter. What you're failing to see is that the original assertion ("It's not the sun, it's a light! Different size!") implies the ASSUMPTION that THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

In other words, the original assertion can dismissed simply by providing a logical and viable alternative explanation.

I would have thought that that was self-evident as well. So we have 3 possible scenarios for the lack of acceptance. The already bandied about "delusional inability", the much earlier suggested just trolling to get a rise out of the community, or the more feasible lack of intelligence.

[Jorriss]

Nah. All you need to do is get a camera and prove it to yourself. I bet that thought makes you squirm, doesn't it?

I don't know what he means by objective third party. As far as I understood, you're just some guy on a forum. Are you part of NASA (I really hope you say no! This would be embarrassing otherwise)?

[Dreadstar]

I don't know what he means by objective third party.

It's just a dodge.


As far as I understood, you're just some guy on a forum. Are you part of NASA (I raelly hope you say no! This would be embarrassing otherwise)?

Yes, I really *am* a rocket scientist.






Not really. I can just see the obvious stuff that anyone can see, if they try.

[Cthulhudrew]

I was half-hoping that you'd recommending Googling it. I think it'd be exciting to see the sort of explanations about how cameras work that he'd come up with.

Come on, now. Everyone knows Google is just a hoax.

[Jared H.]

Cosmored, because you might be a fellow aspie, and I've got kinda a soft spot for my peoplez, I'mma do you a favor:

No matter how irrefutable you think your logic is in your head, you will absolutely fail to convince anyone here of your viewpoints. They are many, you are one. What's going on right now is what I like to call "Dance, monkey, dance."

This focus/conviction/obsession of yours has become a source of amusement for everyone, which means that it is completely impossible for anyone to take it seriously in this thread ever ever ever.

You have 2 choices, then:

1) stop right now and save yourself, time, energy, and derision.
2) keep amusing everyone with your antics.

And I must admit, I'm only human myself. I've already joined in the collective mocking. You keep going, and I'm going to do it again. If you are a fellow aspie, my mind has rationalized me giving you this warning as me discharging my duty, freeing me up to joke around as much as I wish within the confines of the rules of the forum. If you're not an aspie, then I owe you even less.

Pack up your toys and go play elsewhere.

[worstblogever]

Post something from there that you think is real proof that they got there and we can discuss whether it's really proof. Also, go back and read the info in post #468.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580229&postcount=468

It's about all the disinfo that's on the internet.

I'm sorry all I heard is, "NO, I'M NOT SPREADING DISINFORMATION, THEY ARE!"

I'll just say, rather than go item by item, EVERYTHING in that article is true, and you sir, are completely full of s***, and save myself a lot of headache. You're mostly talking to yourself, anyway.

[Jared H.]

Yes, I really *am* a rocket scientist.






Not really. I can just see the obvious stuff that anyone can see, if they try.

You shoulda said "no, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

[Dreadstar]

I . . . you . . .


Goddamn it!

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm sorry all I heard is, "NO, I'M NOT SPREADING DISINFORMATION, THEY ARE!"

I'll just say, rather than go item by item, EVERYTHING in that article is true, and you sir, are completely full of s***, and save myself a lot of headache. You're mostly talking to yourself, anyway.

He's 100% talking to himself. It's a case of keeping the monkey dancing on his string for the bemusement of the audience.

[ChadH]

I am also a theorist. It is my theory that Cosmored is a sockpuppet for one of the higher-ups in the CBR organization and this is why neither of these ridiculous conspiracy threads have been locked yet.

[Dreadstar]

It's a case of keeping the monkey dancing on his string for the bemusement of the audience.

Don't judge me!

It's been a boring day at work.

[worstblogever]

He's 100% talking to himself. It's a case of keeping the monkey dancing on his string for the bemusement of the audience.

Yeah, I just don't have the time at the moment for monkeys. It's a new comic book day, after all.

[Smoogis]

Don't judge me!

It's been a boring day at work.

For you and me both, Dread.

Dance monkey dance!

[Slam_Bradley]

Yeah, I just don't have the time at the moment for monkeys. It's a new comic book day, after all.

That means nothing to those of us as don't buy new funny books.

[Jared H.]

You remind me of the guy.
What guy?
The guy with the crazy.
What crazy?
Crazy moon voodoo.
Who do?
You do?
Do what?
Remind me of the guyyyyyy.

I saw this poster, tryin as hard as he could try
What could I do?
This guy's logic had gone
And left him weird, it's true
Everyone knew.

What kind of crazy "proof" to use?
He's on the rails
His logic is fail
Aspie or right-wing?
Then the comm posters said

"Dance, monkey, dance."(Dance monkey dance)
"Dance, monkey dance."(Dance monkey dance)
Slap that bulls!t logic on me.
"Dumb logic is dumb"(dumb logic is dumb)
"Dumb logic is dumb"(dumb logic is dumb)
Make fun of this guy for me
Slap him with reality!



edit: apologies to David Bowie and good taste. Improv'd on the fly.

[Smoogis]

You remind me of the guy.
What guy?
The guy with the crazy.
What crazy?
Crazy moon voodoo.
Who do?
You do?
Do what?
Remind me of the guyyyyyy.

I saw this poster, tryin as hard as he could try
What could I do?
This guy's logic had gone
And left him weird, it's true
Everyone knew.

What kind of crazy "proof" to use?
He's on the rails
His logic is fail
Aspie or right-wing?
Then the comm posters said

"Dance, monkey, dance."(Dance monkey dance)
"Dance, monkey dance."(Dance monkey dance)
Slap that bulls!t logic on me.
"Dumb logic is dumb"(dumb logic is dumb)
"Dumb logic is dumb"(dumb logic is dumb)
Make fun of this guy for me
Slap him with reality!

You are awesome. Marry me.

[jessecuster3]

Post something from there that you think is real proof that they got there and we can discuss whether it's really proof. Also, go back and read the info in post #468.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580229&postcount=468

It's about all the disinfo that's on the internet.



http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/touchstone_pictures/signs/_group_photos/abigail_breslin10.jpg

[Vaiyt]

Considering the sheer amount of people who participated in or witnessed the job, and the ridiculous amount of things that could go wrong, I agree with the guys who say that making such a hoax would be less expensive and less risky than actually putting people on the moon.

Just for the people who had to be silenced, we have: thousands of engineers, of several different companies, in several different countries, that worked on the rocket parts. The operators of instruments around the world that were pointed to the Apollo's path. The Soviet government. The NASA staff. The astronauts. The American government people who knew stuff about the project. All those scientists (how many?) that have followed the project, or worked with its data, or seen the photos. The people who have seen the launches. The people who did the laser test with the reflectors they placed on the moon.

And the list goes on.

...

[Spike-X]

The only way you guys are going to sway thinking people is by showing the argument to be wrong. That means you have to address the actual evidence. Rhetoric, invective, and name-calling won't sway thinking people. If you don't address the actual evidence, you know what people are going to think.

We're not here to sway you. We're here to mock you.

And we will. We will mock you.

*clap clap stomp*

*clap clap stomp*

[Spike-X]

Two guys walk into a bar.

But a third guy sees it in time and ducks.

A priest, a nun and a rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, a joke?"

[Captain Clarkie]

You are awesome.

That was awesome indeed, most amusing.

[Charles RB]

And we will. We will mock you.

*clap clap stomp*

*clap clap stomp*

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldp0ivdYU61qzsln6.gif

[Jeff Brady]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldp0ivdYU61qzsln6.gif

I can't think of a better response to Spike's quip. That was brilliant.

[BlairH]

The thing that really bugs me about the moon-landing conspiracy theorists isn't so much that they're buying in to an almost Tolkienesque level of fantasy. It's that this particular conspiracy theory is one of the most dull and boring conspiracy theories out there!

I want to be dazzled by tales of mind-controlling chemtrails, (OMG! Mozilla picked that word up as a spelling error, they must be "in" on it) grassy knoll gunmen, and reptilian monarchs, not some story about some dudes with cameras faffing about on a film set.

[thehod]

You know I was just thinking, I wonder what crazy shit is going down on CBR.

Travelling two years into the past seems to be the answer.

EDIT: fucking hell. Blair is back, Smoogis is back. I'm stuck in the middle of a frigging time warp.

Best off jumping to the left, I suppose.

[inferno]

It's virtually impossible to talk people out of delusions through appeals to logic, science or anything else, because the disordered thinking underlying delusions renders one incapable of appropriately weighing and comparing arguments and evidence of varying qualities.


Your responses in the thread demonstrate this principle quite well.

[GozertheGozarian]

Your responses in the thread demonstrate this principle quite well.
As are your posts in any thread.

[Tages]

Your responses in the thread demonstrate this principle quite well.

Oh, the irony...she kills me.

[Charles RB]

I want to be dazzled by tales of mind-controlling chemtrails, (OMG! Mozilla picked that word up as a spelling error, they must be "in" on it) grassy knoll gunmen, and reptilian monarchs, not some story about some dudes with cameras faffing about on a film set.

The reptiloids were the cameramen and the filmset was on a grassy knoll!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Your responses in the thread demonstrate this principle quite well.

Wow, I'm guessing it took all the hours between when I posted the bit you quoted and now for you to come up with that brilliant response.

Perhaps you and cosmored should team up. The two of you seem to have much in common.

[Tages]

Wow, I'm guessing it took all the hours between when I posted the bit you quoted and now for you to come up with that brilliant response.

Perhaps you and cosmored should team up. The two of you seem to have much in common.

It helps if you replace everything Inferno says with (deep breath) JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEEEEEEWWWWWSSSSS!!!!!!!!

[Charles RB]

It helps if you replace everything Inferno says with (deep breath) JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEWS JEEEEEEWWWWWSSSSS!!!!!!!!

Or as Adam once translated it for us:


WWWAAAUUUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!!! BLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH!!! AOOOOOOHHHHHHGAAAAHHHH!!!!

[Jared H.]

Your responses in the thread demonstrate this principle quite well.

Mr Gibson sir! Care to comment on the rumors that you're directing a remake of "Fiddler on the Roof"? Have you in fact discovered tits made of sucrose? Do scenes of Jesus being whipped in fact make you feel all tingly inside?

[Iangould]

I know a number of conspiracy theorists and most of them are quite nice people.

I find it useful when trying to get someone who subscribes to, say, the Roswell crash theory, to apply the same "logic" to other conspiracies.

See they'll make arguments like "it might have happened" or "I think we should look at the evidence on both sides" or "if there's no truth to my theory why are people getting so upset."

So I'll ask them if they think it's true that the Holocaust was faked or that blood transfusions are a plot to contaminate the pure blood of white people with the inferior blood of nonwhites or that George Washington was actually a dwarf standing on another dwarf's shoulders or suggest that Tibet doesn't actual exist. (Have you been there? Do you know anyone who's been there?)

Then I use the same arguments they use for the conspiracies they do believe in to argue for the conspiracies they reject.

Sometimes it actually gets them thinking.

[kane]

Why is no one talking about the secret trips to the SMoon for the SNASA? This guy was there:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=354127&page=214

[Cthulhudrew]

So, I'm curious. Do Moon Landing Hoax theorists believe that it is just the manned Moon landings that are a hoax? Or all lunar landings? Do they also believe unmanned landings (such as the Mars Rover) are hoaxes?

I'm genuinely curious about this. While I am aware of, and have even met lunar conspiracy theorists before, I've never actually asked them about it, or taken much of an interest in their beliefs beyond my own disbelief at their unbelief, but now that this thread has gained new life, I thought I'd ask.

[Guapo Méndez]

For years the clues have been here:

When the moon hits the sky
like a big pizza pie, that's amore.

It means that the Moon landing was faked by the italians and it's being kept under wraps by them using chemicals placed in doughy, tomato covered, cheese-filled foodstuffs and feromones released into the air.

[Paradox]

Figures that CosmoRed would escape the asylum on my days off when I'm away from the computer.

I miss all the fun. :frown:

[Charles RB]

My god. We're through the looking glass.

[Smoogis]

For years the clues have been here:

When the moon hits the sky
like a big pizza pie, that's amore.

It means that the Moon landing was faked by the italians and it's being kept under wraps by them using chemicals placed in doughy, tomato covered, cheese-filled foodstuffs and feromones released into the air.

that....that....

Thats delicious!

[Guapo Méndez]

that....that....

Thats delicious!

It all started earlier with the introduction of the Moon Pie, by the quakers, 'cause they tried to fake a moon landing much, much earlier with the whole cannon and gun club moon shot.

[Pól Rua]

I know a number of conspiracy theorists and most of them are quite nice people.

Hello.
As a semiprofessional nutbag, I'd like to politely ask Cosmored to stop making me look lame. I can deal with looking mental, but I don't like to look quite so lame.

I'd also like to ask all the religious nutbags who keep insisting that governments legislate to match the psychotic whims of their deranged imaginary friends to stop too.

Honestly, you people are turning me into an Empiricist.
And nobody wants that... because if it DOES happen... I'll Have My Revenge, Oh Yeah! And it'll be all sneaky like. I'll sneak up behind people and paint tiger patterns on everybody's spines!

Nobody wants some of this righteous reason pastry when....

"The Empiricist Stripes Backs!"

So quit it.

Thenk yew.

[Spike-X]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/jokerclapae.gif

[coveredinbees]

Thenk yew.
The Closer?

[Pól Rua]

The Closer?

Fone Bone.

[Light Yagami]

this is a good read,
but i thourght it was officall anyway that we never wennt in the first place

[GozertheGozarian]

They're breeding. Only time will tell if that's good or bad.

[Gary_B]

this is a good read,
but i thourght it was officall anyway that we never wennt in the first place

Well, you thourght wrong.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, you thourght wrong.

Or maybe the voices in his head did.

[Cei-U!]

Fone Bone.

... quoting Walt Kelly.

Cei-U!
Ah summins the lightnin'!

[Cosmored]

No matter how irrefutable you think your logic is in your head, you will absolutely fail to convince anyone here of your viewpoints. They are many, you are one. What's going on right now is what I like to call "Dance, monkey, dance."
I think this scenario is more likely what's going on here.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)
--------------------------------------------------------


Considering the sheer amount of people who participated in or witnessed the job, and the ridiculous amount of things that could go wrong, I agree with the guys who say that making such a hoax would be less expensive and less risky than actually putting people on the moon.

Just for the people who had to be silenced, we have: thousands of engineers, of several different companies, in several different countries, that worked on the rocket parts. The operators of instruments around the world that were pointed to the Apollo's path. The Soviet government. The NASA staff. The astronauts. The American government people who knew stuff about the project. All those scientists (how many?) that have followed the project, or worked with its data, or seen the photos. The people who have seen the launches. The people who did the laser test with the reflectors they placed on the moon.
I addressed this point in post #468.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580229&postcount=468


So, I'm curious. Do Moon Landing Hoax theorists believe that it is just the manned Moon landings that are a hoax? Or all lunar landings? Do they also believe unmanned landings (such as the Mars Rover) are hoaxes?
Look in post #499.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580564&postcount=499

Please give your analyses of the anomaly in post #470.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=13580297&postcount=470

I've already asked you all to do this several times.

[Puma]

Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)

Says the man who has 45 posts, all but around a dozen existing only on this thread, against people who are on CBR, and interacting, on a daily basis.

[Tages]

All right, you got me.

I am an agent of the government. I signed up back in August 2003 on the off chance that, one day, someone would reveal the truth about the moon hoax. My entire persona is a lie.

Now that I have been exposed, I will be taking my cyanide capsule. I wish my fellow agents luck in their ever vigilant quest to silence the truth. Goodbye, CBR!

[Dreadstar]

I think this scenario is more likely what's going on here.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)

Get help.

Seriously.

[Dreadstar]

Our government is apparently very cagey to have foreseen this eventuality and planted me here 15 years ago.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Our government is apparently very cagey to have foreseen this eventuality and planted me here 15 years ago.

Well, they are being directed by the psychic task force of the Illuminati.

[Nick Soapdish]

Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)

Says the man who has 45 posts, all but around a dozen existing only on this thread, against people who are on CBR, and interacting, on a daily basis.


It's time to fess up. We're really all the same person. We've just been posted from different names and IPs all around the world for nearly a decade (the server reboot was a hoax to give the illusion of it being longer) so that we'd have some credibility in case somebody showed up and tried to reveal the truth.

*Cokes to Tages and Dreadstar.

[Iangould]

I think this scenario is more likely what's going on here.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)

You might want to look at the registration date and post count for the people who are responding to you.

You know, in the spirit of open-minded empirical research as opposed to a blind subservience to authority.

[Iangould]

It's time to fess up. We're really all the same person. We've just been posted from different names and IPs all around the world for nearly a decade (the server reboot was a hoax to give the illusion of it being longer) so that we'd have some credibility in case somebody showed up and tried to reveal the truth.

Yeah, because if I was a ruthless vicious government thug devoted to the complete extirpation of all questioning the elaborate spiderweb of leis my masters had created I'd totally go with that as opposed to just putting a couple of bullets through the head of the troublemaker.

[Adam C]

All right, you got me.

I am an agent of the government. I signed up back in August 2003 on the off chance that, one day, someone would reveal the truth about the moon hoax. My entire persona is a lie.

Now that I have been exposed, I will be taking my cyanide capsule. I wish my fellow agents luck in their ever vigilant quest to silence the truth. Goodbye, CBR!

Oh great! What am I supposed to tell our controller now that you won't be showing up for Friday night poker in Area 51?

[Jeff Brady]

You might want to look at the registration date and post count for the people who are responding to you.

You know, in the spirit of open-minded empirical research as opposed to a blind subservience to authority.

Poor, naive Ian. All that stuff can be faked.

[Dreadstar]

Poor, naive Ian. All that stuff can be faked.

Dude, you're not thinking "sneaky truth-suppressing disinformation" enough.

CBR was actually created in February 2009, with faked archives and manned by a team of 3 government spooks posting under hundreds of pseudonyms for the expressed purpose of attracting and defusing Cosmored.

logs out as "Dreadstar"


logs in as "Jeff Brady"

[Iangould]

Oh great! What am I supposed to tell our controller now that you won't be showing up for Friday night poker in Area 51?

Oh please, everyone really in the know is aware that "Area 51" is just a distraction to take public tatention away from the stuff we're doing in Areas 52-59 like the rat-human hybrids and aerosolized AIDS.

[Brian Cronin]

Yikes.

-Brian