Dedicated "Moon Hoax" Forum?

Moon Hoax threads tend to be long on name calling and short on debate. They probably require the same level of moderation as the 911 Forum, which also has the same "evidence " and "arguments" presented over and over again as though they were never presented before. This is also the case with Moon Hoax threads. With a dedicated forum, new arguments could be allowed a new thread, whereas old arguments could be channeled into existing threads. This would also allow closer moderation. Any thoughts?

a reply to: DJW001

Good idea, but I think everyone's already on board with this being a proven hoax that we went to the moon, so it'll be like preaching to the choir.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: DJW001

Good idea, but I think everyone's already on board with this being a proven hoax that we went to the moon, so it'll be like preaching to the choir.

Afraid that isn't the case here at ATS. DJW has had his fair share of debates with the moon landing hoax crowd. And it still pops up frequently enough.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: DJW001

Good idea, but I think everyone's already on board with this being a proven hoax that we went to the moon, so it'll be like preaching to the choir.

And that's exactly the sort of evidence free unilateral pronouncements of victory that make the extant threads so boring. A post like that would be declared "off topic" if the forum had constructive rules.

a reply to: Gemwolf
I'm confused ! Did you mean the 'moon hoax' threads are LOL or moon landing threads are LOL?

a reply to: eriktheawful

My own personal opinion and any new Moon Landing Hoax threads should be closed with a redirect link to one of the many, many existing threads.

That works for me. There have been some threads that were enjoyable because the issues raised served as an excellent excuse to do some research: How much radiation were the astronauts really exposed to? What sort of cameras did they use? What was the communications network like? Were there independent visual and radio observations? Those threads can be interesting and educational. I'm sure you can guess which thread, and which participant on that thread, has inspired me to make this proposal.

What is ATS' obsession with this 'Hoax' and 'LOL' label lately? This forum has become over-moderated to the point of dysfunction as it is. While obviously I can't speak for the rest of the conspiracy theorists that this site used to rely on, but being told what information is valid and what isn't, deciding which sources are acceptable for us and which aren't, telling us which topics aren't allowed to be discussed (i.e. Sandy Hook, No Planes etc.), and automatically closing and redirecting threads is a DISTRUBING trend here. "Deny Censorship" would be a great return to ATS' original function.


Edit:

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism...

..."the 'ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism", perhaps that should be moved to the LOL forum.

a reply to: twitchy

What is ATS' obsession with this 'Hoax' and 'LOL' label lately? This forum has become over-moderated to the point of dysfunction as it is. While obviously I can't speak for the rest of the conspiracy theorists that this site used to rely on, but being told what information is valid and what isn't, deciding which sources are acceptable for us and which aren't, telling us which topics aren't allowed to be discussed (i.e. Sandy Hook, No Planes etc.), and automatically closing and redirecting threads is a DISTRUBING trend here. "Deny Censorship" would be a great return to ATS' original function.

Who is advocating censorship? I am trying to find away to promote thought provoking threads instead of pointless slanging fests. There are reasons why some subjects are considered unsuitable. Conspiracy theorists seem to think they have the right to invade people's privacy in ways they would never tolerate if they were on the receiving end. There are also reasons why some sources are considered to be inappropriate. It is one thing to provide opinions, another to present facts that have been "spun," and yet another to publish outright lies. ATS is very tolerant of the first two, and painfully cautious about banning the last category.

a reply to: twitchy

I'm not sure if that is because of my post - if it was, my post was supposed to be a joke - I was sure I added enough emoticons - and I even added the member tags to make sure it wasn't taken seriously.

Oh well. Hopefully I get an A for effort?

If you take a careful look at the LoL forum, you'll notice that it's actually one of the quietest forums on ATS. And since day one had a zero tolerance towards hoaxes. A thread doesn't end up in Hoax until it has been proven a hoax.

So in my personal opinion your suggestion that ATS or staff or members are "obsessed with this 'Hoax' and 'LOL' label lately" is not accurate. I may be giving away an inside secret here, but the staff members hate the LoL forum. But not more than anyone here hates lies.

a reply to: DJW001

It looks like not much appreciation for your idea DJW001.

I think it is not a good idea. We can´t speak enough about the apollo fakery.

originally posted by: Gemwolf
a reply to: twitchy

Oh well. Hopefully I get an A for effort?

Absolutely

I've been on ATS a long time, I was a 'lurker' even during the ezboard days. 10-15 years ago, this was an amazing forum where anything (almost) could be brought to the forum for discussion. If it was a 'ludicrous online lie', it was the membership that decided that for themselves. If it was a hoax, it was invariably outed by the membership. If the source of that information was a biased source, it was called out as being such, by the membership. People were capable of making their own minds up without being intellectually babysat, and honestly we did a damned fine job of it I think, in fact we were well known, if not famous, for our ability to do so.
I've had my account here threatened for speaking out against this 'hoax forum' debacle, I've even been accused of 'stalking this site'... but even if it costs me my membership here, I will stick to my guns in saying it's not right... whatever the justification or reasoning for it, it amounts to censorship. I love ATS, I always have, but lately it's like watching a good friend with a bad addiction or a terminal illness. It's tough to watch, and every time I see a member saying 'this thread belongs in the hoax forum', I just shake my head.
'Editorial agnosticism' would be an awesome thing to re-embrace.

a reply to: twitchy

If it was a hoax, it was invariably outed by the membership. If the source of that information was a biased source, it was called out as being such, by the membership.

It remains the same. It is only after members make a watertight case that the Mods will move a thread to [HOAX!] Believe me, there are a lot of tricksters out there who continue to have their snake oil touted on various forums here, despite the self evident fakery. (I still can't believe that the "dispatches" from a captain in the "Secret Space Navy" describing his adventures on Comet ELEnin never got tossed into the bin!)

I've had my account here threatened for speaking out against this 'hoax forum' debacle, I've even been accused of 'stalking this site'... but even if it costs me my membership here, I will stick to my guns in saying it's not right... whatever the justification or reasoning for it, it amounts to censorship.

No, it is not censorship. You can continue to read and post once something has been binned. Reclassifying something is an editorial action. It is precisely this ability to respect freedom of expression while maintaining a certain amount of integrity that makes ATS so superior to fantasylands like GLP.

originally posted by: webstra
a reply to: DJW001

It looks like not much appreciation for your idea DJW001.

I think it is not a good idea. We can´t speak enough about the apollo fakery.

On the contrary; the lack of support for a dedicated forum shows a lack of interest in the subject. Chemtrails has an active forum now. I guess there's just not much interest in the Moon Hoax.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
a reply to: DJW001

It looks like not much appreciation for your idea DJW001.

I think it is not a good idea. We can´t speak enough about the apollo fakery.

On the contrary; the lack of support for a dedicated forum shows a lack of interest in the subject. Chemtrails has an active forum now. I guess there's just not much interest in the Moon Hoax.

I don't understand, are you asking for a forum specifically so you can publicly beat a dead horse?

a reply to: Jonjonj

I don't understand, are you asking for a forum specifically so you can publicly beat a dead horse?

No; I want to create a corral for all the dead horse beaters.

I like the LOL forum for them. Moon hoax threads have the same legitimacy as the "Flat Earth".

2

a reply to: DJW001

I wonder exactly what you call a hoax, fake evidence yes that is hoax but interpretation is another matter.

Take this shot from NASA

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Now it is all down to what you see and how you interpret, for example not every driver see's that pedestrian crossing the road?, so we can all asume the majority of those running someone over who never noticed the pedestrian or refused to believe he/she/it was there are actually skeptics by nature, that is until realized they had dent in there fender or were stopped by the police (the less skeptical stopped at the scene of course).

Notice the boulder's behind the astronaut in the background, interesting, some of us think so and we are not making a hoax.

Here for example is what I see,

files.abovetopsecret.com...

From my perspective I interpret it as not a boulder at all but a device in an advanced state of molecular disintegration caused by prolonged exposure to temperature variance and particle radiation bombardment causing the molecular structure break apart presumable first along the weaker electron bond area's and powder down into smaller crystaline structures over time.

Now what do I see, from left to right (I should have labelled them rather than adding false colour to them), a large part of the larger boulder at the extreme right - I have drawn a broken line showing it's possible original location on this right most boulder, fit the pieces together.

Next again right a wheel still partially wrapped in the remains of a caterpliller track, right again a second caterpiller track and then right again part of a overturned vehicle hull blown off it's tracks and rolled over onto it's roof right to left with the wheel base still visible now on what is now the top.

Right again the spilled cargo of some kind (in green) then further right the other section of the vehicle hull which fit's nicely back forming a more recognizable hull shape (this second part in Blue) and is also overturned to almost the same angle, right again back to the main boulder from which the first piece most left seem's to fit which I interpret as being nose down it's tail pointing up to the right, its nose fuselage down to the left.

So they spent hundred's of millions of dollers on each shot photographing holiday snaps of jeff on his lunar beach vacation or did they spend that money more wisely and try to get a jump on the soviet's in retrieving possible ancient artifacts or at least information.


Hoax well that is down to interpretation but I am not making this up.

And what about these, please no it is not making sheep out of the cloud's if it was then all the spy satellites of the cold war would have been a waste of time would'nt they.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...



There are hoax's though, German aircraft found on the moon was a sunday sport (english adult news paper) which was a totally made up story as is anything linking the nazi's to the moon (oh hang on a second that's right Werner Von Braun was a Nazi was'nt he despite his whitewash).

There are those whom think or make up stuff which harm's the whole subject but even then not all conspiracys about the moon are totally loony.

originally posted by: DJW001
Reclassifying something is an editorial action.

Labeling something, under some esoteric and apparent whim of a staff member is not an editorial action, and it is a complete antithesis to ''Editorial agnosticism'.

I want to create a corral...

Which is exactly my point.
Your signature says you will 'defend to the death your right to say it', is that as long as you get to label it first? You're one of the few 'skeptics' on this site I have a lot of respect for DJ, but this hoax labeling is wrong.