[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…that’s all I can think of off the top of my head, but certainly there is more than one data point here…
[/QUOTE]
You forgot the space suits puffing up like the Pillsbury Dough Boy. And the engine of the LM not making a huge roaring sound. And the on-board computer would have to have been the size of a barn in order to run even the most pared-down version of Windows.
*I close my eyes
Only for a moment and the moment’s gone
All my dreams
Pass before my eyes though I refuse to see
Ahh Dust on the pads
Why is there no dust on the pads?*
[QUOTE=tagos]
We all know how light refracts in water, leading me to the inevitable conclusion that the Moon is in fact covered with the stuff. They did land, supposedly, in the SEA of Tranquility after all. Refute that you Nasabots.
I just can’t believe they’ve hidden that fact from us for so long. Has anyone got an address for Fox’s Head of Factual Programming? (I know, I know - I slay myself, I really do.)
[/QUOTE]
Hey, you forgot to mention the cheese.
I saw Apollo XVII take off. (And felt it, very impressive.) I’ve never seen a CTer explain why NASA felt the need to stage not one but 7 launches. I know Hollywood likes sequels, but really.
[QUOTE=tdn]
You forgot the space suits puffing up like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s related to the Great Glove Mystery in a way. According to the really old CTer on the NG show you can’t move in your space suit in a vacuum. He ‘proved’ this by putting a rubber glove in a vacuum chamber he’d built, sticking his hand in the glove, and then evacuating the chamber. Then said something to the effect of 'See?? I can’t move my hand! So the astronauts (he called them ‘clowns’) wouldn’t have been able to move on the moon! Q.E.D…the moon landings had to be a hoax!
[QUOTE=tdn]
And the engine of the LM not making a huge roaring sound.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’ve never heard this one to be honest. I didn’t know even CTers would be that stupid. I have heard that not enough debris was ejected from the area the lander came down in. According to some CTers there should have been a massive crater created by the massive rocket engine coming down for a landing (this of course leaves aside the fact that the lander didn’t come straight down nor was the rocket firing at full thrust when it landed).
[QUOTE=tdn]
And the on-board computer would have to have been the size of a barn in order to run even the most pared-down version of Windows.
[/QUOTE]
And here I thought it was running MacOS…
-XT
[QUOTE=where’s the subscription info?]
But not ALL of it. There’s no way that that mini-hurricane of dust under that lander would not have left even a teeny-weeny touch of dust on a pad. I’ll grant you the rocket would have blown a good 90-95% of it away as you say… but what about the edges of the rocket where the thrust isn’t as strong.
Do you not think there would have been ‘clouds of billowing dust’ around it? Don’t forget, it’s ‘talc-like’ dust, not sand, grit or the like.
[/QUOTE]
‘Talc-like dust’ behaves exactly like sand, grit, and the like, when there is no atmosphere. The only difference between the behavior of talc and gravel on the earth is that the particles of talc are light enough compared to air resistance that they can stay suspended in air or seriously moved by air currents. If you land by rocket on the earth, you’ll blow up lots of dust, which whirls around in air currents and eventually drifts back down to the ground - some of it drifting back down on top of the rocket that landed.
On the moon, that doesn’t happen. Withoout air, these particles are only acted upon by the force of gravity. They all fall at the same rate (See: Galileo). A spec of talc thrown at the same speed as a boulder will go just as far and follow the same path. There is no ‘wafting’. There are no currents of air to blow them around. There’s nothing to ‘billow’.
In fact, one of the more stark examples of why the video from the moon has to be taken on the moon is the video of the lunar rover motoring around kicking up dust behind its rear wheels. If you watch that video, you see the dust fly off in a perfect parabolic arc - something that would not happen if there was an atmosphere. And since it’s impossible to build a vacuum chamber big enough to drive a lunar rover around in, and the technology to digitally manipulate film to simulate those dust arcs didn’t exist in the 70’s, you have a very hard to refute proof that the lunar rovers were in fact driving around on the moon.
Have a look at this Rover footage. You can see the parabolic arcs of dust appear and settle. It’s very fine material, but it doesn’t stay suspended in air. It doesn’t blow all over. It sinks to the ground like it was heavy gravel or something, but it’s clearly a fine material.
Now look at a Dune Buggy on earth. Notice that the heavy stuff that gets kicked up doesn’t go nearly as high - it is much more constrained by gravity (and this dune buggy is far more powerful then the lunar rover.) The light stuff that gets kicked up as high as the stuff on the moon is a fine powder, and it basically forms a cloud and slowly dissipates. The behavior is just totally different.
[QUOTE=Half Man Half Wit]
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!
[/QUOTE]
True, true. Alas, the problem with that is that true CTers will invariably mutter: “Well, yeah. . . . But what about the dust?” They are people who would, if an elephant sat on them, immediatly start looking for fleas.
Permit me an example from another conspiracy genre: the JFK assassination. The (very) brief discussion of the Tippitt shooting in Groden’s and Livingstone’s Fatal Treason is built mainly on this: since Oswald’s gun was fully loaded when he was arrested, he couldn’t have killed Tippitt - he didn’t have time to reload. Now, something like thirty-five minutes elapsed between the shooting and Oswald’s arrest. If these guys really think a handgun cannot be reloaded in that amount of time, I wouldn’t want them as my wing men. (And, of course, they flat ignore the fact that at least four eyewitnesses [that I can think of offhand] swore that they saw Oswald reload his gun as he fled the shooting scene.)
People like this simply cannot be reasoned with.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Hey, you forgot to mention the cheese.
I saw Apollo XVII take off. (And felt it, very impressive.) I’ve never seen a CTer explain why NASA felt the need to stage not one but 7 launches. I know Hollywood likes sequels, but really.
[/QUOTE]
In order to launch all seven orbiting mind control microwave projectors, and obtain full coverage of the Earth of course ! You know full well that if you don’t keep your tinfoil skullcap on ( more effective than a hat; it hugs the skull ) at all times, the rays will leak in and you’ll start forgetting crucial facts like that.
Remember; tinfoil on at ALL times, including in the shower. Especially the shower - it’s kind of suspicious we are expected every day to get in a box with a nozzle pointed at our heads . . .
As a follow up to Der Trihs post, just wanted to link to this fine site which shows the official and correct method of making an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.
As they say…what are you waiting for? Make one today!
-XT
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
I’ve already admitted my argument is unfeasible, but I still believe the finding of such a craft would inspire extraordinary levels of deception from the authorities, had it happened.
[/QUOTE]
And this is what I can’t understand. The notion that if “The Government” had proof of aliens, The Powers That Be would do everything they could to keep it secret. But WHY? What’s in it for them?
Let’s look at it this way. When the Soviet Union got the bomb, what happened? Did the Government try to keep it secret? No, they screamed and cried and pissed and moaned. And why was that? Because a nuclear-armed Soviet Union means sky-high budgets for the Air Force.
If crashed UFOs existed, and the government had proof, what do you think would happen to the military budget once they revealed the truth? Mysterious UFOs are ten times the propaganda threat of Red China, the Soviet Union, and Osama bin Ladin combined. And the great thing about the Xenomorph threat is that it doesn’t require any of that anti-Xenomorph gear to actually work!
Aliens are the perfect threat. If a UFO crashed in Roswell, the first thing the government would do would be to exploit anti-alien hysteria. Watch the skies! Trust no one! Report any suspicious activity to the proper authorities!
The only problem with this theory is that the Government HASN’T kicked off a massive anti-alien propaganda campaign. There are four logical possibilities. Either the government has proof of aliens or it doesn’t, and either the government would keep aliens secret or it wouldn’t. Since the government hasn’t released information about aliens, the case where the government has proof of aliens but wouldn’t keep it secret is falsified. So that leaves only three possibilities. Either they have proof of aliens but would (and are) keep it secret, or they don’t have proof but would keep it secret if they did, or they don’t have proof but wouldn’t keep it secret.
If you take as given that they actually do have such proof, that leads you to believe that they must want to keep it secret. But absent any reason to believe they have such proof, what is the source of the belief that if they had the proof they would keep it secret?
It just doesn’t make sense. How does it benefit the powers that be to keep aliens secret? What do they gain? And why couldn’t they gain tremendously from revealing the secret?
[QUOTE=tdn]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’d seen the trailer before. I just wasn’t going to follow a obfuscated youtube link to something that came up in a discussion about Space Nazis, you never know where it might go…
…next thing you know, “Jews in Space”
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’d seen the trailer before. I just wasn’t going to follow a obfuscated youtube link to something that came up in a discussion about Space Nazis, you never know where it might go…
…next thing you know, “Jews in Space”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=xtisme]
As a follow up to Der Trihs post, just wanted to link to this fine site which shows the official and correct method of making an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.
As they say…what are you waiting for? Make one today!
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I have no room on my head for it, since I always wear my anti-rapture helmet . As a bonus, the page also has a picture of the EAC irony meter. I hope the newer versions don’t overload as often as the old ones.
That seems like it would be helpful as well. Wonder if they have a combination device to prevent the rapture AND block harmful government electromagnetic mind control ray thingies?
As for the Irony-O-Meter, I have a more general purpose one myself…industrial strength of course. And I’ve gone through several this year alone, so it’s still not quite calibrated for internet message board usage…
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
As a follow up to Der Trihs post, just wanted to link to this fine site which shows the official and correct method of making an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.
As they say…what are you waiting for? Make one today!
-XT
[/QUOTE]
My god, how wrong you are. “Aluminum foil?” You expect people to believe that aluminum foil will protect them? Why? Why do you do that? How many times do I have to say it?
ALUMINUM FOIL WILL NOT SAVE YOU FROM THE MIND CONTROL. YOU MUST USE TIN FOIL! IT’S ALWAYS BEEN TIN FOIL. IT ONLY WORKS WITH TIN FOIL.
But they don’t sell tin foil anymore, do they? No! They don’t! For some reason they just stopped making it! And now you can only buy ALUMINUM FOIL. Why do you think they stopped selling the tin foil, xtisme? Can you tell me that? Why did they do that, xtisme? Why is that?
WHY
It’s a point. I never…well, really thought of it. Damn. Makes perfect sense though…the government mind control department WOULD want to get tin foil off the market to prevent the stalwart few from availing themselves to potential technologies that would block the pernicious mind control beams!
I remember a really good design years ago on how to make an aluminum foil hat but I don’t have the link any more. Perhaps you could thread copper wire all through the aluminum foil? Didn’t Cecil have an article on this a few years ago???
-XT
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
And this is what I can’t understand. The notion that if “The Government” had proof of aliens, The Powers That Be would do everything they could to keep it secret. But WHY? What’s in it for them?
It just doesn’t make sense. How does it benefit the powers that be to keep aliens secret? What do they gain? And why couldn’t they gain tremendously from revealing the secret?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a case of what do they have to gain; it’s what would they have to lose if they admitted an alien presence here on Earth. Immediately they would be confessing that they have no real control of our airspaces, and that we were being faced by a hitherto unknown intelligence, far superior to our own. ( Albeit one with a tendency for crashing in remote places, far from the nearest galactic service stations!)
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
It’s not a case of what do they have to gain; it’s what would they have to lose if they admitted an alien presence here on Earth. Immediately they would be confessing that they have no real control of our airspaces, and that we were being faced by a hitherto unknown intelligence, far superior to our own. ( Albeit one with a tendency for crashing in remote places, far from the nearest galactic service stations!)
[/QUOTE]
Sounds rather like what they are already eager to “admit”. Terrorists everywhere !* AHHHH !*
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Sounds rather like what they are already eager to “admit”. Terrorists everywhere !* AHHHH !*
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Far be it from politicians to play on our fears.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Sounds rather like what they are already eager to “admit”. Terrorists everywhere !* AHHHH !*
[/QUOTE]
Eek! Don’t say such things! How am I supposed to sleep at night now? :eek:
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
It’s not a case of what do they have to gain; it’s what would they have to lose if they admitted an alien presence here on Earth. Immediately they would be confessing that they have no real control of our airspaces, and that we were being faced by a hitherto unknown intelligence, far superior to our own. ( Albeit one with a tendency for crashing in remote places, far from the nearest galactic service stations!)
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: And you think they would go to such lengths to cover this up? The Soviets (Russians now) and several other nations could launch ICBMs at the US for any time in the last few decades…yet, the government didn’t go to such (ridiculous and impossible) lengths to cover that up, despite the fact that this pretty much says that we have no practical control of our air space.
Even if one thinks the government would really want to cover such a thing up there is the practical side of things…simply put the government has no ability for such a massive cover up. Even when it’s obviously in the governments best (selfish) interests to covers something up (think Watergate), and even when it’s only a relatively small number of people involved (which wouldn’t be the case with some kind of hokey crashed alien space ship), they can’t do it!
The whole Roswell thing is, to put it mildly, a joke. Even a cursory glance at the facts of the case leaves anyone with half a brain scratching their heads and thinking ‘how the fuck did THIS lame ass story ever get into our collective consciousness???’
-XT
