Prevalence of moon landing conspiracy theories

[KingsGambit]

While I fear my thread derailed itself pages ago, I do have a question for those who may be more familiar with the subject, really out of curiosity if nothing else.

Two of my co-workers consider the "silver bullet" for the conspiracy to be the fact that NASA admitted to having lost the tapes of the first moon landing, and that these would have certainly be preserved had it actually happened. Are there any aspects of NASA culture that would have minimized the need to keep these tapes or deemed them unimportant?

[JonathanL]

I agree with most of that. I will ad that my perspective is perhaps a bit different. Even if it is a truly inspired book I am still not that much closer to the truth since it is a book that has not got an obvious interpretation in many areas but rather a book that is interpreted in different ways throughout history. Those who took it by the word often got it wrong. Those who go for non-literal interpretations provide thoughts and ideas that I often find inspiring and interesting. However I also often find that their ideas about "what it is all about" is determined by history and does not give an insight to etarnal truths. I find neither of those satisfying, but you may have another perspective on it which I would take interest in.

I think the way the Bible actually allows for multiple interpretations when it comes to non-essentials and statements about the physical world (such as geocentrism vs heliocentrism) is actually something that should be viewed as a positive, not as a negative. If the bible unequivocally stated, for example, that the earth orbited the sun, then a large part of it's ancient audience would probably have rejected it's spiritual message, because if the Scriptures got it so obviously wrong in earthly matters (That is, obviously wrong according to ancient knowledge) then why should they trust it when it talks about spiritual things? On the other hand, if the Bible stated that the sun orbits the earth, in order to avoid "offending" ancient people before the heliocentric model became popular, it would probably be rejected by a far larger portion of the modern audience than it is today, because obviously it cannot be divinely inspired if it gets something as basic as geocentrism vs heliocentrism wrong.

It basically sidesteps all these minor side-issues by allowing you to fit almost whatever view the spirit of the age is currently favouring into the text, in order to not make the reader hung up on these trivialities, and instead focus on the more important message of sin and salvation, from which it is MUCH harder to force multiple interpretations.

[Cow Poke]

You forgot this part:

I forgot nothing. I focused on the fact that you were making fun of the "sun stand still" instead of the "earth stand still", and pointed out the fallacy -- that even modern scientists refer to the sun moving across the sky, and rising and setting.

"Today they do so knowing what science has taught us and thus would not hold it as an absolute. Luther held it as an absolute because he trusted scripture over science. Wouldn't it have been great if scripture had been more clear on this issue?"

That has nothing to do with your glaring error.

Btw I am having an interesting discussion with Rogue and Ox on it, feel free to join in.

Carry on, and feel free to ignore me. (But you can't )

[Roy]

Are there any aspects of NASA culture that would have minimized the need to keep these tapes or deemed them unimportant?

Value for money.

"The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money. "

[Mountain Man]

Value for money.

"The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money. "

BBC did the same thing when they reused their tape stock and wiped out a bunch of classic television episodes from the 60s and 70s. People forget there was a time not so long ago when archived video had little if any commercial value.

[oxmixmudd]

While I fear my thread derailed itself pages ago, I do have a question for those who may be more familiar with the subject, really out of curiosity if nothing else.

Two of my co-workers consider the "silver bullet" for the conspiracy to be the fact that NASA admitted to having lost the tapes of the first moon landing, and that these would have certainly be preserved had it actually happened. Are there any aspects of NASA culture that would have minimized the need to keep these tapes or deemed them unimportant?

My guess is if there was a real conspiracy theory, they'd have the tapes being paranoid about the conspiracy being discovered and all. Losing the tapes is more the kind of bumbling mistake that happens to real things in real life. Since I worked there in the Early '80s, I find the nutcases that think it's all fake to be quite amusing. I remember one time talking in great detail with a conspiracy theory aficionado relative about watching the shuttle return, watching the air force jets intercept, being shocked by the double sonic boom from it traveling at 4000+ miles per hour, and watching it swoop in to the runway from across the Indian River. How exciting and cool it was. He looked a little dumbfounded and then asked - you mean ... you saw it! In his little world, that was all 'fake' too.





Jim

[Sparko]

1) My reply was ONLY to the first topic mentioned in your post:



2) Your sentence is an inaccurate rendition of the actual claims made by the Pro-Abortion side as to what the fetus is:

Source: wikipedia

Although the two main sides of the abortion debate tend to agree that a human fetus is biologically and genetically human (that is, of the human species), they often differ in their view on whether or not a human fetus is, in any of various ways, a person.

© Copyright Original Source

And 3) an inaccurate rendition of why the pro-abortion side believes the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy:

Source: wikipedia

An argument first presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson states that even if the fetus is a person and has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body and its life-support functions.

© Copyright Original Source

So you aren't even building a claim on the actual difference(s) between the pro and anti abortion argument. Rather you are presenting a cynical version of it.

Finally, (on the point of abortion) the whole of the argument does not relate to science, it is the moral issue of when human person hood begins and what the rights of the mother are vs the developing baby. As I said in my original reply, once one makes the moral judgements of what constitutes human person hood and when the developing baby has rights that are equal to or supersede those of the mother, one can then perhaps use science to help how to determine when the criteria of those definitions are met.

So I stand by the content of all my replies on the relationship between abortion and pseudo-science/anti-science: that the abortion issue is not an arena where pseudo-science/anti-science is involved to any significant degree. It is an issue of morality and law.


Now, to the rest of your post. My original reply to this post of yours was in the context of the claim abortion is somehow a venue where the liberal/Democratic side engages in anti-science/pseudo-science rhetoric.

But I had also stated in another post that I didn't know of any venues that had the scope of anti-AGW/YEC creationism and I did not address the elements in your post that apparently are also attempts to address that post as well (You do note that you did not provide a reference to any post in your response to me (was it intended to be me?)). So here is a response to the rest of your post:



Each of these can potentially be basing their position on anti-science/pseudo science arguments - through I'm not really sure what they are. I don't think they hold a candle to the scope of the anti-AGW campaigns or the YEC books and organizations - which was my point was it not? Did I not say:



So feel free to make your case that these somehow are both truly anti-science and of similar scope to anti-AGW, YEC(anti-evolution). But I'm not really aware of any of these you mention trying to change how science is taught in the public schools, nor do I know of the sort of nationwide public disinformation campaigns like we see with anti-AGW. Nor do I see any of these garnering almost universally an opinion one way or the other from the common man on the street. Maybe anti-GMO might be a very distant contender for them?

Jim

You have never heard the argument that the baby is just a clump of cells? That a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her own body? Heck, Tassman has been making that argument for years right here on Tweb.

Here is just one example of that argument from a pro-abortionist:

Source: https://www.cwluherstory.org/health/free-abortion-is-every-womans-right

But before 24 weeks the fetus is part of the mother and should not be considered as a separate human being with rights that contradict the desires of the mother.

© Copyright Original Source

as for your original claim that conservatives are more anti-science than liberals:

===========

Science Denial Across the Political Divide: Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science
Anthony N. Washburn, Linda J. Skitka
First Published September 14, 2017 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
Article information
Article has an altmetric score of 1191 No Access
Abstract

We tested whether conservatives and liberals are similarly or differentially likely to deny scientific claims that conflict with their preferred conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a study with correct results that were either consistent or inconsistent with their attitude about one of several issues (e.g., carbon emissions). Participants were asked to interpret numerical results and decide what the study concluded. After being informed of the correct interpretation, participants rated how much they agreed with, found knowledgeable, and trusted the researchers’ correct interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives engaged in motivated interpretation of study results and denied the correct interpretation of those results when that interpretation conflicted with their attitudes. Our study suggests that the same motivational processes underlie differences in the political priorities of those on the left and the right.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...urnalCode=sppa

[lilpixieofterror]

sorry pix - you are way off in another direction from the issues I'm trying to discuss. If you can find a way to connect your post here to some post I've made and show how it derives from it, I'll revisit your comment.

Jim

You’re trying to split hairs in trying to argue that pro abortion advocates are driven by ideology vs believing bad science when there actually is little difference between the two. People are more than willing to throw aside science and accept things that agree with what they want to believe, no matter their political or religious views.

[Charles]

People are more than willing to throw aside science and accept things that agree with what they want to believe, no matter their political or religious views.

This goes for you as well?

[lilpixieofterror]

This goes for you as well?

Anyone is capable of accepting questionable stuff they prefer to believe. Even when they should know better.

[Charles]

Anyone is capable of accepting questionable stuff they prefer to believe. Even when they should know better.

So this means that what you present to us could be questionable stuff you prefer to believe. Even though you should know better?

[Mountain Man]

So this means that what you present to us could be questionable stuff you prefer to believe. Even though you should know better?

It would of course be your burden to prove it if you wished to put this forward as a counter argument to whatever position of lilpixie's you wish to contest.

[Charles]

It would of course be your burden to prove it if you wished to put this forward as a counter argument to whatever position of lilpixie's you wish to contest.

If you haven't noticed, I am asking her a very simple question not making a statement. She says a lot about the credibility of "people". All I am asking is whether this also goes for her or not. You see the difference?

[Mountain Man]

If you haven't noticed, I am asking her a very simple question not making a statement. She says a lot about the credibility of "people". All I am asking is whether this also goes for her or not. You see the difference?

And we're all dupes who can't see where you're obviously planning on going with this, is that it?

Yeah, OK.

[lilpixieofterror]

So this means that what you present to us could be questionable stuff you prefer to believe. Even though you should know better?

Your job to do that, not mine.