View previous topic | View next topic

Moon Landings a hoax?

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Neotenic
748974.  Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:18 pm Reply with quote

I think you may be mistaking quantum theory with Peek-A-Boo.

 
Posital
748977.  Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:23 pm Reply with quote

What happens if it's a bit cloudy?

 
AlmondFacialBar
748979.  Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:29 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
I think you may be mistaking quantum theory with Peek-A-Boo.


Thanks, you just made my day...

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
busk31
748981.  Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:32 pm Reply with quote

I think that the Copenhagen interpretation was: Dont play God, He always wins.. Turns out that He does play some mean dice.

 
dr.bob
749062.  Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:59 am Reply with quote

Obviously not proof as everyone knows that all NASA employees are In On It, but check out these photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission.

My favourite is this one of the Apollo 14 site which even shows the astronauts' footprints!

 
Just Say No To Vorderman
749112.  Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:27 am Reply with quote

I can't believe that one in four here in the UK don't believe it happened? Where did they get that figure from?

 
ali
749235.  Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:33 pm Reply with quote

busk31 wrote:
I think that the Copenhagen interpretation was: Dont play God, He always wins.. Turns out that He does play some mean dice.


From the essay 'In the Beginning...' by Jerry Pournelle (discussing a lecture by Stephen Hawking that he attended).

Quote:
Hawking concluded by reminding us that Albert Einstein once said 'God does not play dice with the universe.'
'On the contrary,' Hawking said, 'it appears that not only does God play dice, but also that he sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen!'


Last edited by ali on Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
brunel
749236.  Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:34 pm Reply with quote

Just Say No To Vorderman wrote:
I can't believe that one in four here in the UK don't believe it happened? Where did they get that figure from?

According to Neotenic's post in the "Green Room" discussion thread, post 749115 it was based on a survey by E&T magazine of just over 1,000 people.
I agree that the figure does sound a little on the high side, which makes me wonder how truly representative of the population that sample group was.

 
Sadurian Mike
749336.  Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:04 am Reply with quote

It might also depend on who exactly was sampled. I bet I could get an even higher percentage of doubters by hanging around conspiracy theory and New Ager groups.

 
brunel
749367.  Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:11 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
It might also depend on who exactly was sampled. I bet I could get an even higher percentage of doubters by hanging around conspiracy theory and New Ager groups.

You have hit the nail on the head - we do not know how the sample group for this survey was chosen, so it could well be that there were an abnormally high number of conspiracy theorists as a consequence of the selection process.
Equally, what is unclear is whether those involved believe that the entire landings were a hoax, or, as Alan Davies alluded to, they believed that the landings were genuine but the footage was faked.

 
suze
749451.  Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:58 am Reply with quote

Mind you, E&T magazine stands for Engineering and Technology, and it is the organ of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, a merger of the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the Institution of Incorporated Engineers. Most of the board are Doctors of Professors.

On the face of it, a survey on this kind of subject in this journal wouldn't be expected to produce the same results as a comparable survey in David Icke Monthly.

 
Sadurian Mike
749493.  Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:57 am Reply with quote

Whilst I would that the publications of professional bodies shouldn't published findings based on flawed data, I am reminded of the Lancet's paper by one (Dr) Andrew Wakefield.

Sometimes even professionals misapply data to reinforce their pet theory.

 
gruff5
749748.  Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:11 am Reply with quote

brunel wrote:
Equally, what is unclear is whether those involved believe that the entire landings were a hoax, or, as Alan Davies alluded to, they believed that the landings were genuine but the footage was faked.

That some footage was faked (though i personally don't suspect any) doesn't seem an unreasonable belief. It's been done for other events (eg the BBC recording "the noddies" after interviews finished).

 
tetsabb
749774.  Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:17 am Reply with quote

Noddy and Big Ears were faked?
<weeps

 
Sadurian Mike
749866.  Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:36 pm Reply with quote

How else do explain the sudden disappearance of the naughty golliwogs and the appearance of naughty goblins instead.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group