[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Kristi
Date: 15 Jan 2004
Time: 02:25:48
Remote Name: 24.231.128.139
the flag did blow your a fag
From: Spongebob
Date: 21 Jan 2003
Time: 16:16:13
Remote Name: 131.151.184.6
"If they had the technology to get men on the moon, they had probes that could gather 850 some odd pounds of rocks and soil."
This is not true, the technologies required would be different in many ways. Futhermore the fundamental argument from hoax believers is that NASA *didn't* have the technology to get men to the moon. You're trying to have your cake and eat it to. Which is it?
If NASA had developed this remote capability, where did the money for its development come from? Who developed, built, and tested it and where did this happen? Simply put, there is no evidence that any such technology was developed, built, tested, or flown. Therefore it stands to reason that you are merely stating what needs to have occurred for your theory to hold water and then stating that it must have occurred, giving us no supporting evidence. Because of this fundamental flaw in your argument I have to conclude that it is without merit of any kind. The historical record as pertains to Apollo remains unchallenged.
Sibrel's film has no more evidence of a hoax than Aron's film. Both in fact present no compelling evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny. The video Sibrel suggests is of the astronauts falsifying the filming of the earth is actually the astronauts preparing for a live telecast while en route to the moon. But Sibrel does not give the raw footage; in his film it is edited and voiced-over so that the viewer cannot tell what is happening. This is deliberate falsification of evidence by Bart Sibrel, nothing more.
Your expertise in the field of lie-detecting is not really pertinent to a logical scientific discussion since it cannot be verified by an outside source. It also seems reasonable that people will be uncomfortable when confronted on camera by people who intend to disprove a major personal accomplishment like walking on the moon. In fact Bart Sibrel made Aldrin so uncomfortable recently that Aldrin actually punched Sibrel on camera, and if it hadn't been such a media sensation Bart surely would have edited the video until it seemed that Aldrin attacked him unprovoked because he's trying to hide something. Aldrin was not trying to hide something, he was trying to defend himself from a truly deranged man. Yes it's possible, even likely that the astronauts display their discomfort in these interview settings, but this is not surprising or evidence that they are lying.
Interestingly, this post contains no real evidence of a hoax, and yet when I read it at first it seemed that the author knew what he was talking about and was a trustworthy source. This is why Apollo hoax theories continue to thrive today: they can be packaged in such a way that they seem convincing, but still contain no real evidence. We must look deeper into what people say and try to verify their conclusions ourselves. This includes my conclusions, so feel free to do your own research and let me know what you find. I'm always glad to discuss Apollo at length (as evidenced by this perhaps too-wordy response). Good luck in your search.