That’s what THEY want you to think.
Agreed…but probably too deep an argument to make much of a dent in most CTers skulls.
The best argument I’ve heard as evidence for the moon landings (that actually WILL impact a CTers thick skull) is the Soviet argument. It was definitely not in the Soviet’s best interest that the US get to the moon first. The Soviets closely monitored the entire event…and they didn’t say boo about the moon landings. Had they been a hoax you can bet your bottom dollar that the Soviets would have been screaming bloody murder and doing it in a very public way. Hell, had there been even an inkling of doubt they would have been shouting fraud. And yet, not a peep.
Of course, some of the more out there CTers think that it’s all a hoax…even launching satellites into space! So, I suppose their come back would be that the Soviets were in on it to…
At some point, just like with the 9/11 CTers, Roswell space alien nuts and the Kennedy assassination crowd you just need to concede that these people are unreachable nutballs. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary they will stubbornly cling to these ridiculous theories no matter what you say or do. C’est la vie…
-XT
But why would they feel so compelled??
This is what separates me from the innate CT types. They start from the presumption that the government will lie to them about something big. Maybe, maybe not. But before one presumes the government has reason to lie about something, shouldn’t he first find some hard evidence that that is indeed the case? Speculation just doesn’t cut it.
Anyway. Side note to subscription: unless you have actually gone up there and examined the lander pads yourself with a good magnifying glass, you are in no position to state categorically, as you have, that there is no dust on the pads. The existing pictures simply haven’t sufficient resolution to show scattered dust particles.
So what do all you guys think of this “Loose Change” video that’s been going around?
Flees
On purpose, man! On purpose!
</tinfoil>
It’s a little after noon here making it a little after 5 across the pond. Shouldn’t you guys be drinking tea or bitter brown beer or something?
Loose Change indeed.
I much prefer Jared M. Gordon’s Moose Change, alleging that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by alien moose.
I like the “Strange Loop” idea put forth by the late Robert Anton Wilson.
You’ve got evidence of a conspiracy. That conspiracy has manufactured a tremendous hoax on the world.
That conspiracy has manufactured a tremendously huge amount of evidence in order to support the hoax.
You’ve got a little bit of evidence to support your conspiracy theory.
If you believe that the conspiracy can manufacture mountains of evidence, who’s to say they didn’t manufacture the very evidence convincing you that the conspiracy exists? Couldn’t they actually be a completely unrelated conspiracy who manufactured a little bit of evidence to convince you that something real is a hoax?
You end up in a strange loop whenever you believe in a conspiracy that can manufacture more evidence than the evidence that convinced you the conspiracy existed in the first place. You’re left unable to believe in any evidence whatsoever.
Daniel
Them’s fightin’ words!
Besides, we moose don’t know enough about music to orchestrate anything.
and most models have the Anal Probe 3000® attachment.
where’s the subscription info?, I have a question for you that should be answered before anyone else tries to respond to your queries:
What the fuck would you accept as evidence that the moon landing wasn’t a hoax?
You haven’t done so yet.
Even for horns?
Would you settle for this one, in production?
I even linked to the trailer…
I don’t click on links that don’t tell me what the heck is on the other side (see my previous Pit thread on IMDB links)
I don’t describe links that contain references to things I just cited.
So nyah! 
Although your position is fair enough, I just forgot to label it.
It’s just a trailor for the movie.
One shot is of a guy riding a motercycle (with a sidecar, naturally) over the surface of the Moon. His bike is kicking up a billowing cloud of dust.
So there you go.
I don’t. “Clouds” are what you get when the particles are zooming around randomly, being blown in various directions, but not able to completely scatter. A cloud in Earth’s atmosphere is constantly rolling and changing (though it may not appear so from a distance) but it doesn’t simple dissipate because atmospheric friction resists. A single moon-dust particle gets moved when the lander thrust hits it, but without atmospheric friction, it doesn’t get slowed or deflected - it just keeps going until lunar gravity pulls it back to the surface.
The next time you make a billowing dust cloud, as in beating a carpet or shaking out a dust-filled blanket, try to follow individual particles. You’ll see them zipping away rapidly at first, then slowing because the air is resisting their movement, then gradually falling to the ground. Because of this deceleration, a “cloud” forms around you. Now imagine doing this in a vacuum. The dust particles would fly away from you - and keep going, and eventually crash to Earth like tiny anvils, rather than settling gently like tiny feathers.
Anyway, even if you were right and there some something vaguely suspicious or inexplicable about dust on (or not on) the lander pads, how do you reconcile hundreds of thousands of other data points that are consistent with a lunar landing?
Well…there is the flags. And The Glove (probably the most hilarious part of the NG moon hoax show…was like watching the OJ trial all over again). Then there is the stars thingy. Oh yeah, and the 50 foot dust bowls the lander should have fallen into. And what about the radiation (one of the CT guys in the show claimed the radiation would kill anyone leaving Earths atmosphere)? Then there were the cameras (how did the ‘astronauts’ see what they were taking pictures of, ehe??). Oh yeah, and the shadow angles! Forgot about those. Um…that’s all I can think of off the top of my head, but certainly there is more than one data point here…
-XT
So far, that’s definitely the best thing that’s come from this thread. I want to see that movie!
But, more on topic, shouldn’t we simply compile a list of arguments that support the ‘yes, we went to the moon, so shut the f*ck up already’ side of the argument? That way, whenever a new conspiracy nut comes in, we could just provide them with the list, accompanied by the stipulation that they must refute each and every point on it before a debate is going to happen… And I don’t mean refutations of the common conspiracy theory arguments, because that’s a Sisyphus labour – if you are truly so inclined, you can always find something that doesn’t ‘fit’, or convince yourself to have found something to that effect; no, simply list the data points supporting the argument that the moon landing happened, like the Russians tracking the radio transmissions, the existence of chunks of moon rock on earth (that in itself proves that return trips to the moon are possible), the laser reflector (that, as far as I know, couldn’t have been installed there by robots, because they’d lacked the precision back then), and stuff like that.
Have them put their back into it, since they are attacking what ought to be the default position; why should we do the debunking? Let them wear their teeth on a hard shell of facts before allowing them to sink them into the delicious, juicy flesh of our reason and sanity!