Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[clv101]

The 2009 Indian probe mapped the Apollo sites, including the Lunar Rover's tracks. Just as impressive is that we now have a high resolution elevation model of the lunar surface. Using this model and the right coordinates, you can recreate the hills in the background of photos taken in the 70s.

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun20 ... -j06.shtml

Scientists investigating the growing number of extra-solar planets, or exoplanets, have concluded that the planet Gliese 581 d is the first to be confirmed to have a possibility of sustaining Earth-like life. A recent study by a team of researchers led by Robin Wordsworth shows that Gliese 581 d is the first rocky planet discovered that potentially has atmospheric conditions allowing for liquid water on its surface.[1]

If Gliese 581 d is indeed capable of sustaining human life, the discovery would be all the more spectacular. The relative proximity of the system means that it is only a short hop—at least on the scale of the galaxy—to future colonists looking to lead humanity to the stars.

[biffvernon]

China never had an empire.

If there was no Chinese Empire what did this lot do?

http://www.chinapage.com/emperor.html

[RenewableCandy]

Ruled China . But they didn't really go in for foreign adventures (except Genghis, for whom China itself was a foreign adventure). I suppose you could say China counted as an "empire" because it did (and does to this day) have quite a few minority countries/people within its borders.

Interestingly, its borders have moved around a lot over the centuries: the Tang empire included quite a lot of what is now the Silk Road. The Ming lot were relatively outward-looking and into trade overseas, so their "empire" stretched along the coast with relatively little "interior". The Qing lot (afterwards) were "invaders" from the north of today's China (Manchuria) and gave it its present borders.

[UndercoverElephant]

China never had an empire.

If there was no Chinese Empire what did this lot do?

http://www.chinapage.com/emperor.html

China is unique in world history with respect to its linguistic history and "imperial" behaviour. If you want to know the details of this, I suggest you read chapter 16 of Guns, germs and steel by Jared Diamond, entitled "How China Became Chinese".

[Ludwig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-part ... n_landings

Seriously...doubting the moon landings is right up there with the lunacy of David Icke. There's plenty of third party evidence.

I don't accept anything on the basis that not to do so would render me a lunatic in the eyes of people who think they "know" the truth, when they know no more than I do, and very often less because they never actually look into things themselves.

As I said, my first response on it being suggested that they were faked was utter contempt for the person who said it. But unlike you, and virtually everyone else, I then stood back and examined my reasoning.
And my reasoning amounted to, "Everyone knows they weren't faked." And this is the basis of your arrogant "certainty" as well.

Oddly, I cannot find any Web site regarding this subject which isn't a debunking site. Two years ago there were dozens. So unfortunately I am unable to remind myself of the evidence and back up my arguments.

Some of the evidence was tenuous or ambiguous. Some of it was too technical to be able to assess for someone who wasn't an expert in optics. But one or two things defied obvious explanation. The main one was the photos with identical mountains, which from what I read weren't supposed to be taken from a few miles apart, but from completely different regions of the moon. Now if this was an error on the Web sites, I will once again err to believing that the landings were real. But as I say, none of those Web sites any longer seem to exist - except one such site that my virus software advised me not to visit :\

The astronauts all keep an incredibly low profile, given their achievement. If I remember rightly, their TV interviews immediately after the landings were very, very brief, and there were few, if any, subsequent interviews. This all proves nothing, but it is not what one would expect.

So the truth fascists can piss off. I don't know the truth and neither do they, they just think they do. If the voices of rationality can come up with no rebuttal other than, "You're a David Icke freak for even questioning us", well so much much for rationality

[Ludwig]

You can see equipment left behind on the moon during the Apollo missions with a high-powered telescope.

Dont suppose you have a link for that, I found lots of sites saying it was about to be proven, but none that said the VLT had actualy seen anything.

I'm with Ludwig here, I've seen several "conspiracy busting" shows, and not one answered any of my doubts, they simply built up strawmen and knocked them down.

Ships certainly went there and came back, I remain to be convinced they were manned when they did so.

Yep, me too.

It's amusing that one gets ridiculed not for saying, "I know the moon landings were faked", but merely for saying, "There are some inconsistencies in the official account which I feel have not, as yet, been convincingly explained."

There is a certain type of mind that cannot handle doubt. This type of mind typically makes for a good scientific technician, because its need for certainty makes it very good at collecting data. To this type of mind, there is no truth other than data. The idea that some of the data may never be available, and therefore that hypothesis must substitute for certainty indefinitely, disturbs it greatly.

As I mentioned in my other post, there are no longer any easy-to-find sites on this subject that aren't debunking sites - which by their nature can present the arguments in as ridiculous and selective a way as they like. I've seen several supposed "demolitions" of conspiracy theories that are literally lists of unqualified statements that "There is absolutely no evidence for this." It's particularly self-styled rationalists that are fall for these "arguments" every time.

If somebody "knows" they're free of confirmation bias, they can be made to believe anything. "I'm a rationalist, therefore all my beliefs are rational."

I don't believe the landings were faked, I merely have my doubts, and I am quite happy in the assumption that I will never know for sure.

[kenneal - lagger]

The astronauts all keep an incredibly low profile, given their achievement. If I remember rightly, their TV interviews immediately after the landings were very, very brief, and there were few, if any, subsequent interviews. This all proves nothing, but it is not what one would expect.

My wife has met one of the moon landing astronauts. He did a lecture at her work a few years back and does quite a few each year.

If it had been a hoax, don't you think the communist Russian government of the time would have broadcast this "Imperialist American Criminal Conspiracy" across the whole globe? They would have loved that; rubbing the imperialist nose in the dirt.

[Pepperman]

Yep, me too.

It's amusing that one gets ridiculed not for saying, "I know the moon landings were faked", but merely for saying, "There are some inconsistencies in the official account which I feel have not, as yet, been convincingly explained."

There is a certain type of mind that cannot handle doubt. This type of mind typically makes for a good scientific technician, because its need for certainty makes it very good at collecting data. To this type of mind, there is no truth other than data. The idea that some of the data may never be available, and therefore that hypothesis must substitute for certainty indefinitely, disturbs it greatly.

There's also a certain kind of mind that's attracted to conspiracy theories. You can poke holes in just about anything and make the story have apparent inconsistencies if you try hard enough.

[UndercoverElephant]

So the truth fascists can piss off. I don't know the truth and neither do they, they just think they do.

OK, Ludwig. Whatever you say....

[2 As and a B]

You can poke holes in just about anything and make the story have apparent inconsistencies if you try hard enough.

Yeah, I for instance believe that Beethoven never died but is alive and well and posting on the internet where lack of hearing is a positive bonus.

[Pepperman]

Except he'd probably just be wasting his life making youtube videos of cats playing pianos nowadays

[Lord Beria3]

Ludwig - on the subject of Moon landings, I heard the same theories that they were fake. Common sense - that if they were fake, the Russians would have told the world(!) - and a very quick look at the huge conspiracy it would have involved, including EVERY radio station in the world(!) confirmed to me that the moon landings were real.

You have every right to doubt things, but at what point do you stop?

Elvis death? I remember reading a very interesting account of how he may have faked his own death - but frankly I assume he died of a overdose because if you go around hunting for small insconsistencies in official accounts, than you will go slowly mad.

[caspian]

There's also a certain kind of mind that's attracted to conspiracy theories. You can poke holes in just about anything and make the story have apparent inconsistencies if you try hard enough.

It's known as "anomaly hunting" and is rampant among conspiracy loons. There was a chap on R4's Today programme this morning who spent a couple of years with the 9/11 "Truthers" and he was explaining that conspiracy theories seem to appeal primarily to men with a certain outlook on life. They tend to be technically minded, often with a survivalist/doomer outlook on life, and the "Truthers" tend to have a hard left political outlook. I also notice a tendency for them to overanalyse things and to aggrandise their own (or others') importance in the world.

[Ludwig]

There's also a certain kind of mind that's attracted to conspiracy theories.

Yes, the curious mind.

I've looked into numerous conspiracy theories. Some of them sounded dubious, some of them convincing, and some as though their adherents were on to something, but making hasty inferences.

You can poke holes in just about anything and make the story have apparent inconsistencies if you try hard enough.

If you're reasonably intelligent you can spot the difference between an apparent inconsistency and a real one. For example, re. the moon landings: the observations that the shadows go in different directions is perhaps a merely apparent inconsistency. There is no way that that alone would have made me doubt the official story. However, the photographs of the same mountains from completely different parts of the moon (not just a few miles apart as has been claimed in recent "debunkings") are a very real inconsistency. I am prepared to accept that I may be misremembering, but I am fairly sure I'm not. As I say, I cannot find any of the original sites I looked at. The supposed conspiracy theory sites that Google throws up all turn out to be satirical. For whatever reason, a lot of effort seems to have gone into relegating the original sites - if they still exist - to the Google graveyard. I can't believe that the only sites people are wanting to look at are the debunking ones :\