To the moon, Alice! - Page 2

Alex · 08-28-2008, 12:34 PM

Well, it's not like that $40 million is just going to disappear from the face of the earth never to be seen again. And the same argument could be made against having $40 million in the first place. Or for spending $10,000 on a week long vacation. Or for paying $120/month for cable.

Moonliner · 08-28-2008, 12:43 PM

I watched the first half last night, a much better show than the season premier.

My experience with conspiracy theorists is that they are not on a quest for scientific truth. Whatever their motivation they will cling to their beliefs long past the point of reason. The best you can hope for is to prevent them from pulling in people who are uninformed on the topic. Shows like the Mythbusters moon-myths help tremendously with that.

innerSpaceman · 08-28-2008, 12:47 PM

Thanks for the link, Alex. But, sorry, I found the assertions about the tower collapse essentially flimsy and unconvincing. I would have expected some discussion of the physics involved, not merely "Expert A says it would happen like this."

In fact, and though not conclusive to me either, slow-motion video of the collapse makes it appear as though it is decidedly NOT happening the way the article states it does.

Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Alex · 08-28-2008, 12:55 PM

I don't see how you could fail to lose sleep over it if you are giving serious contemplation to the idea that our government blew up the World Trade Center. I know if I thought that, I'd feel pretty compelled to move to a safer country pretty much immediately.

Would you have understood the physics involved if instead of "Expert A says.." they essentially provided "Expert A says and here's the math"? Regardless, that is just the starting point, if you want the physics of it all, follow up on the experts and reports the PM article references.

Though I'm not sure what is unconvincing about "steel gets hot, hot steel loses integrity long before it is actually melting, so building falls down." And even if that is hard to believe what is the alternative explanation that is easier to believe?

lashbear · 08-28-2008, 01:08 PM

Nope, still say they never got to the moon the first time. Did MB debunk the powdery dust remaining underneath the capsule on takeoff / landing ?

BarTopDancer · 08-28-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lashbear

Nope, still say they never got to the moon the first time. Did MB debunk the powdery dust remaining underneath the capsule on takeoff / landing ?

Do they cover the moon landing in schools there? I met some people from Australia a few months ago and they also believed the moon landing was staged/hoax. These guys were in their mid 20s.

Their main points were the flag waving (which MB just took care of), shadows where there shouldn't have been and that they could see "strings" as if there were puppeteers controlling the moves.

lashbear · 08-28-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Do they cover the moon landing in schools there? I met some people from Australia a few months ago and they also believed the moon landing was staged/hoax. These guys were in their mid 20s.

Their main points were the flag waving (which MB just took care of), shadows where there shouldn't have been and that they could see "strings" as if there were puppeteers controlling the moves.

Not in schools (far as I can tell) but I've always wondered why none of that fine dust at the base of the lunar lander blew around on landing or takeoff ?

BarTopDancer · 08-28-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lashbear

Not in schools (far as I can tell) but I've always wondered why none of that fine dust at the base of the lunar lander blew around on landing or takeoff ?

I find it so interesting to get other perspectives on it. I never really heard of people who thought the moon landing was a hoax until I was an adult. I never met anyone who thought that until I met those guys from Oz.

Stan4dSteph · 08-28-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lashbear

Not in schools (far as I can tell) but I've always wondered why none of that fine dust at the base of the lunar lander blew around on landing or takeoff ?

It's because there's no air on the moon, so things don't move like we expect them to on Earth. Here's a link for you to the website Alex referenced.

Moonliner · 08-28-2008, 08:47 PM

It sure seems to me that the number of individuals who see a conspiracy about the moon landings is directly proportional to the popularity of the United States worldwide.

Needless to say there is currently a definite uptick in conspiracy theorists worldwide.

08-28-2008, 12:34 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, it's not like that $40 million is just going to disappear from the face of the earth never to be seen again. And the same argument could be made against having $40 million in the first place. Or for spending $10,000 on a week long vacation. Or for paying $120/month for cable.
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 12:43 PM	#2
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	I watched the first half last night, a much better show than the season premier. My experience with conspiracy theorists is that they are not on a quest for scientific truth. Whatever their motivation they will cling to their beliefs long past the point of reason. The best you can hope for is to prevent them from pulling in people who are uninformed on the topic. Shows like the Mythbusters moon-myths help tremendously with that. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time. Last edited by Moonliner : 08-28-2008 at 01:25 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 12:47 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Thanks for the link, Alex. But, sorry, I found the assertions about the tower collapse essentially flimsy and unconvincing. I would have expected some discussion of the physics involved, not merely "Expert A says it would happen like this." In fact, and though not conclusive to me either, slow-motion video of the collapse makes it appear as though it is decidedly NOT happening the way the article states it does. Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 12:55 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I don't see how you could fail to lose sleep over it if you are giving serious contemplation to the idea that our government blew up the World Trade Center. I know if I thought that, I'd feel pretty compelled to move to a safer country pretty much immediately. Would you have understood the physics involved if instead of "Expert A says.." they essentially provided "Expert A says and here's the math"? Regardless, that is just the starting point, if you want the physics of it all, follow up on the experts and reports the PM article references. Though I'm not sure what is unconvincing about "steel gets hot, hot steel loses integrity long before it is actually melting, so building falls down." And even if that is hard to believe what is the alternative explanation that is easier to believe?
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 01:08 PM	#5
lashbear SwishBuckling Bear Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In Isolation :) Posts: 6,597	Nope, still say they never got to the moon the first time. Did MB debunk the powdery dust remaining underneath the capsule on takeoff / landing ? __________________ *I Heart* my Husband - I can't think of anyone I'd rather be in isolation with.**
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 08:47 PM	#10
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	It sure seems to me that the number of individuals who see a conspiracy about the moon landings is directly proportional to the popularity of the United States worldwide. Needless to say there is currently a definite uptick in conspiracy theorists worldwide. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes