rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:34 pm**

Actually, it might be a floor wax AND a desert topping (obscure SNL reference). One rumor I heard is that there was a backup plan to fake the landing in case the real one didn't work out. I actually knew Bart Sibrel long before he was chasing astronauts around. I would suggest that, well, that caution be used in validating his ability as a researcher. As for "Astronauts gone Wild", an alternate hypothesis about their reaction to him is that he's been harrassing them for some time and they are sick of him and his type impugning their reputations. I mean, if they really DID land on the moon, then this guy would be seen by them as nuts at best. If someone had airtight evidence it was a fake published tomorrow, it wouldn't shatter my worldview or anything, but it does seem unlikely.

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:11 pm**

Could I spend precious minutes of my existence debating someone who believes humans never landed on the Moon, supplying facts and resources to prove they did? Sure, and I could also debate flat-earth proponents while I was at it. Mea culpa for a non-creative response, but sarcasm isn't always inappropriate.

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:14 pm**

Like a lot of folks, when I first heard about the moon landing-hoax claim(s), I was intrigued to see what they were all about, and fairly-objectively, restraining my skepticism, I 'looked' at and considered the evidence, both pro- and con. Although at times baffled and challenged, I have eventually learned enough to be thoroughly convinced that the moon-hoax arguments just don't stand up. The so-called photographic 'anomalies', the 'fluttering flag', the absence of dust-clouds, the perilous Van Allen Radiation belt, the enormous problem of excess heat (250 F), the 'untested' LEM, the too-crude era-computers, the alleged 'moon-rock prop-markings' ("C"), the off-center photo grid markings, the incongruous photo shadow-length and angles, and 'other' issues that Hoax Believers promote as 'proof' -- they all can be readily explained as due to sloppy-thinking, flawed reasoning, errors in argument, imperfect understanding basic physics principles, and a lot of sensationalist smoke. Some of the arguments are downright contradictory and/or just plain silly, implying the alleged moon-hoaxers were SO inept and even stupid as to not realize that multiple light sources, a blowing fan, crude background murals, and other soundstage props would cause potential 'problems' in creating a plausable, convincing photo-video-audio 'record' of some 6 fake moon-landings. In many instances, the arguments put forth by the HB's show an abysmal grasp of their subject matter-- such as arguing that even in a vacuum the LEM's descent rockets should have caused an immense racket recorded by the Astronauts' microphones, or that extended video shots of zero-and moon-surface one-sixth -g phenomena could have been created on the infamous 'vomit-rocket' flying an upper-atmosphere parabolic-trajectory (although such flights can only simulate zero or low-g conditions for about 30 seconds). Below are some of the better debunking sites for anyone wanting to study some of these issues more, or to clear-up continuing doubts. Debunking the 'dust-clouds' argument re: Moon-landing hoax -- These points immediately below are among the most compelling of proof arguing that the 6 lunar landings occurred as reported and recorded, along with the substantial evidence by astronomers and ham radio operators (many, many non-professional amateurs, who in NO way could become co-opted or induced to go-along with an evident scam. The sheer scale of complicity and secrecy necessary for the lunar landings to be successfully faked would be near-impossible, esp. considering the many thousands of contractors and subcontractors and engineers and technicians involved in, and actual witnesses to, the moon shots. <a href="http://www.clavius.org/gravdust.html">www.clavius.org/gravdust.html</a> re: the video evidence of moon-dust during lunar-module descent acting as only possible in a true vacuum. <a href="http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/walking_on_the_moon.htm">www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Open...e_moon.htm</a> Moon Hoax Facts (courtesy of the National Space Centre, Leicester, UK) ------------------------------------------------------------ The Apollo mis-thinking is, I strongly suspect, a clear symptom of a society willing to accept proclamations on the basis of their ability to entertain and excite, as with religious fervour, rather than sustaining a healthy, and rational sceptical perspective, regardless the claim or source. - Claudio Veliz Apollo Hoax refutation sites by K. Michael Malolepszy (St. Louis Astronomical Society) : The best of all the Apollo Hoax refutation sites <a href="http://www.clavius.org/">www.clavius.org/</a> Yahoo group for discussion of this: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apollo-hoax/">groups.yahoo.com/group/apollo-hoax/</a> Other sites of interest: Apollo Anomalies Explained: <a href="http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/main.htm">www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/main.htm</a> DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory <a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm">www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm</a> (** A very good overview of the most popular arguments -- clear and concise critiques.) NON-FAKED MOON LANDINGS ! (general) <a href="http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/">pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~...NOT_faked/</a> Moon Hoax? (general) <a href="http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/">www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/</a> Bart Sibrel's, "The Top Ten Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon" debunked at <a href="http://24.73.239.154:8081/moonshot/debunkpg2.htm">24.73.239.154:8081/moonsh...unkpg2.htm</a> Apollo Moon Hoax Charges Falter Under Light of Critical Analysis <a href="http://24.73.239.154:8081/moonshot/debunking.htm">24.73.239.154:8081/moonsh...unking.htm</a> <a href="http://24.73.239.154:8081/moonshot/apollohoax_two.htm">24.73.239.154:8081/moonsh...ax_two.htm</a> Look at the evidence and come to you own conclusions. <a href="http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html">www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html</a> Apollo Moon Landings: A Source for Understanding the Hoax Claims: <a href="http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Eye%20Openers/Moon_Hoax_Facts.pdf">www.dimaggio.org/images/E..._Facts.pdf</a> The Apollo Hoax Conspiracy <a href="http://www.seawana.com/conspiracy_apollo_hoax.php">www.seawana.com/conspirac...o_hoax.php</a> Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon. <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm">science.nasa.gov/headline...3feb_2.htm</a> Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? <a href="http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/moon.htm">pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~...d/moon.htm</a> Discussion of Report by "Weekly World News" of Moon Landing Hoax by NASA <a href="http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/hoax.html">vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/hoax.html</a> The Straight Dope on the Moon Hoax <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html">www.straightdope.com/mail...nhoax.html</a> The Moon Landings Were (NOT) Faked - Frequently Asked Questions <a href="http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FAQ.html">pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~...d/FAQ.html</a> MoonHoax (debunked) ;" The Apollo Moon Landings - were they all a hoax? Much of this 'evidence' is so transparently moronic you'll wonder just how anyone believes it..." <a href="http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/main.html">www.redzero.demon.co.uk/m.../main.html</a> Russian Cosmonaut Alexi Leonov's comments on Apollo: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/moon/peopleevents/e_race.html">www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/moo..._race.html</a> *** A Cosmonaut's Defense Cosmonaut Leonov's historic spacewalk on March 18, 1965 Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov was the first man to walk in space. In 1967 he was recruited to train for his nation's lunar program. He recalled the Soviet reaction to the moon race: "Our people were convinced that we would be the first to land on the moon because they were used to the fact that we were always the first, the first, the first. Only we, the cosmonauts, and especially the moon crew, understood that this was not going to happen. It was not character; it was funding that played a role here. We knew that the U.S. had invested $25 billion. We had invested 2.5 billion rubles in the entire space program, for both manned and unmanned flights. This was ten times less. The moon crew understood that we had a capability to circumnavigate the moon six months earlier than Frank Borman, but we knew that we would not be able to land on the moon ahead of the astronauts." Strange Shadows? (photography) <a href="http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/imagebasics.html">www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/imagebasics.html</a> Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake? (very good demonstrations that anyone can reproduce) <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm">www.badastronomy.com/bad/...moon01.htm</a> Hasselblad's web site information about cameras used on Apollo <a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/company/HBSpaceFirst.asp?secId=584">www.hasselblad.com/compan...?secId=584</a> Re: Is it impossible to travel to the moon, because of the Van Allen Belt? <a href="http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html">www.madsci.org/posts/arch....As.r.html</a> The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon <a href="http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html">spider.ipac.caltech.edu/s...mad19.html</a> RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION <a href="http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm">lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm</a> Apollo Hoax and other cranks <a href="http://www.crank.net/apollo.html">www.crank.net/apollo.html</a> Five Reasons to Believe We've Been to the Moon <a href="http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/proofpositive.html">www.thursdaysclassroom.co...itive.html</a> Can we see Apollo hardware on the moon? <a href="http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html">www.tass-survey.org/richm...ander.html</a> Quick Analysis of Lunar Retroreflector Use <a href="http://home.austin.rr.com/broadb/chris/Using_Lunar_Retroreflectors.html">home.austin.rr.com/broadb...ctors.html</a> Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation <a href="http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/index.html">physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy...index.html</a> Lunar Laser Ranging at McDonald Observatory <a href="http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/">www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/</a> Millimetric Lunar Laser Ranging <a href="http://aanda.u-strasbg.fr:2002/articles/aas/full/1998/11/ds1427/ds1427.html">aanda.u-strasbg.fr:2002/a...s1427.html</a> Australian tracking and reception of signals from Apollo on the moon <a href="http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html">www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/..._moon.html</a> Ham Radio Space Tracking Notes <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...ackin1.htm</a> <a href="http://www.hobbyspace.com/Radio/radio2.html">www.hobbyspace.com/Radio/radio2.html</a> A Short History of the "Kettering Group" <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...ldcyts.htm</a> Reception of signals on 183.54 MHz from the Luna 20 return spacecraft in Stockholm <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/luna20/LUNA20.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...LUNA20.htm</a> Tracking Luna 24 from Florida and Stockholm <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Luna24/Luna24.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...Luna24.htm</a> Ham Radio Tracking of Apollo 17 <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...OLLO17.htm</a> Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions <a href="http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html">www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html</a> History of Apollo Spacecraft Tracking from Pine Mountain Observatory <a href="http://c2.com/optic/">c2.com/optic/</a> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A cool email exchange (23 Sept 2005) on Dome-L: Jim Beaber: "Aren't you guys getting all worked up over something that never happened in the first place? At least, that's the gist of a fairly thick book I just saw at Barnes and Nobles yesterday. And yes, it was in the science section. I didn't see it next to the book on Dinosaurs and people living together at the same time, but it was certainly a sign of the coming apocalypse for me. I think we should go back to the Moon just to make the doubters shut up. We just have to figure a way to prove beyond a shadow that we've done it" Bob Martino: Sorry, Jim, but I have to disagree with you here. Simply put, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that we've really gone to the Moon. At least, if un- deniable recent history isn't sufficient proof, then no proof will be sufficient. For example: I once read an Apollo History Revisionist criticize NASA because the astronauts didn't do anything to "prove" they'd really been there (Because, of course, thousands of photographs, hundreds of pounds of clearly non-terrestrial samples, thousands of hours of recorded telemetry, gigabytes of data from surface experiments, tens of thousands of NASA employees and subcontractors, and hundreds of millions of witnesses CLEARLY just wasn't enough.) This writer's critique was that it would have been "easy" for NASA to mark the surface of the Moon with "dark material" covering a large enough area to be seen from the Earth through a telescope. He suggested either a thin sheet of fabric or some sort of application of a dusty substance. All this writer did was display his own ignorance, of course. Even from the very start, a "dark material" wouldn't do the job, because the lunar surface is _already_ dark (albedo of only 7%)! You'd want to use a light, reflective material. If he didn't even know that one basic fact, then why was he even talking about the subject? But of course, there's many other reasons why this was a stupid idea. Enough material to cover a couple of square kilometers of surface would have weighed at least as much as the astronauts themselves, perhaps several times more. This added weight would have required more fuel to carry, and therefore a larger LEM and CM, and therefore a MUCH larger Launch rocket. Performing this silly task would have taken all the astronauts' time on the surface, leaving the science mission undone. It would have contaminated the surface with terrestrial material, etc, etc. And even if NASA somehow had figured out a way to do it, the nay-sayers would simply have dismissed that as well ("Oh, that dark patch was already there" or "That stuff was placed on the surface by robots" or "fill in your own ridiculous objection here"). These odd individuals inhabit a strange and paranoid world. One in which the simple evidence of their own senses and the rules of ordinary logic do not hold sway. Up is Down, Black is White, and the "Government" has such tight control of everything that anything can be faked, changed, concealed or manipulated. It's simply no use trying to reach most of these people. The best that can be done is to ignore them while the rest of humanity deals with life in the REAL world in the 21st century. NASA should not spend one red cent nor take even a single minute worrying about how they're going to "prove" anything to morons. "Do not try to teach a pig to sing hymns. It wastes your time and annoys the pig" -R. Heinlein Peace out" ----- Bob Martino, Tucson, AZ "You're not going crazy. You're going sane in a crazy world!" -The Tick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions to pose to Apollo hoax believers (HBs)... By K. Michael M Nov 2004 Do you know how many times we landed on the moon? Six. Why would we fake a moon landing SIX TIMES? (The more people who know about a secret, the harder it is to keep.) The whole point of Apollo was to prove that the USA has better technology, resources and managerial competence than the USSR. So why didn't the Russians blow the whistle if it was a hoax? The USSR was fully capable of tracking missions to and from the moon. Radio and television transmissions from the Apollo spacecraft was an international undertaking. In fact, amateurs were also tracking the flights using both optical and radio. Several amateur ham radio enthusiasts were capable of listening in on the Apollo mission in flight using highly directional antennas and did just that. (see the websites below). Both professional and amateur astronomers were optically tracking many objects in space, including the Apollo missions. The individuals (not government or military personnel) participating in the SAO Moonwatch program at the time were monitoring satellites, satellite reentries and the Apollo missions and their dump clouds. Predictions of look angles could be quickly generated for individual observers with the help of computers existing at the time and were supplied through a mail subscription service available to volunteer participants. Professional astronomers associated with the SAO, the US Naval Observatory, the Fernbank Science Center (Atlanta, GA) and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory (USSR) also had active programs of optical spacecraft tracking that included monitoring the Apollo missions.See the Sky & Telescope issues of March 1971 and October 1971 for more information. HBs would also have you believe that the technology existed in 1969 to fake the thousands of photos, hours of film and hundreds of hours of low and zero gravity video. What did they use to fake all this? In fact, given the computer technology of the 1960s, it would be harder to fake the Apollo missions in a convincing way than it would be to actually do them. HBs also have to believe that EVERY planetary scientist & geochemist is on this hoax or too stupid to tell that the samples examined so far of the more than 800 lbs. of moon material returned by Apollo are fake, even after 30 years of examine them with ever more sophisticated methods of analysis by scientists all over the world. Not only that - the USSR also returned much smaller amounts of lunar material during their Luna program of robotic sample return missions to the moon and could compare their samples with USA samples of lunar material. Again, the USSR, our competitor, had a first hand way to directly expose any such hoax. I know of no scientists engineers or other qualified academics (such as historians) in or outside of the USA that have *ever* voiced *any* doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo flights. So we are to believe the producers of this FOX-TV show over them? Since most people that currently believe Apollo was hoax got their information from that FOX-TV Moon Hoax television broadcast, here is a page that debunks many of the claims in that show: <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html">www.badastronomy.com/bad/...pollo.html</a> The best Apollo Hoax debunking website is this one: <a href="http://www.clavius.org/">www.clavius.org/</a> Five Reasons to Believe We've Been to the Moon: <a href="http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/proofpositive.html">www.thursdaysclassroom.co...itive.html</a> Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon: <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm">science.nasa.gov/headline...3feb_2.htm</a> NON-FAKED MOON LANDINGS ! (Apollo Hoax debunking web sites & pages) <a href="http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/">pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~...NOT_faked/</a> (general) <a href="http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/">www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/</a> <a href="http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/">www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/</a> <a href="http://www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/MonthlyMeetings/MeetingNov2002.asp">www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/...ov2002.asp</a> <a href="http://www.seawana.com/conspiracy_apollo_hoax.php">www.seawana.com/conspirac...o_hoax.php</a> <a href="http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/">www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/</a> <a href="http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/moon.htm">pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~...d/moon.htm</a> <a href="http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/hoax.html">vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/hoax.html</a> <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html">www.straightdope.com/mail...nhoax.html</a> Apollo Hoax and other cranks <a href="http://www.crank.net/apollo.html">www.crank.net/apollo.html</a> Photography & Apollo - Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake? <a href="http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm">www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm</a> <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm">www.badastronomy.com/bad/...moon01.htm</a> <a href="http://www.clavius.org/perspshdw.html">www.clavius.org/perspshdw.html</a> <a href="http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html">www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/str...adows.html</a> Hasselblad's web site information about cameras used on Apollo <a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/company/HBSpaceFirst.asp?secId=584">www.hasselblad.com/compan...?secId=584</a> Re: Is it impossible to travel to the moon, because of the Van Allen Belt? <a href="http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html">www.madsci.org/posts/arch....As.r.html</a> The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon <a href="http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html">spider.ipac.caltech.edu/s...mad19.html</a> RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION <a href="http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm">lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm</a> Can we see Apollo hardware on the moon? <a href="http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html">www.tass-survey.org/richm...ander.html</a> Quick Analysis of Lunar Retroreflector Use <a href="http://home.austin.rr.com/broadb/chris/Lunar_Retroreflector_Use.html">home.austin.rr.com/broadb...r_Use.html</a> Lunar Laser Ranging at McDonald Observatory <a href="http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/dda.html">www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/dda.html</a> Optical Tracking of Apollo Flights <a href="http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html">www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html</a> <a href="http://c2.com/optic/">c2.com/optic/</a> <a href="http://c2.com/optic/singer-link.jpg">c2.com/optic/singer-link.jpg</a> <a href="http://www346.pair.com/mackella/hsk/other_stations/ARIA.html">www346.pair.com/mackella/.../ARIA.html</a> Australian tracking and reception of signals from Apollo on the moon <a href="http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html">www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/..._moon.html</a> Ham Radio Space Tracking Notes <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...ackin1.htm</a> Ham Radio Tracking of Apollo 17 <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...OLLO17.htm</a> A Short History of the "Kettering Group" (amateur radio tracking of spacecraft) <a href="http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm">www.svengrahn.pp.se/track...ldcyts.htm</a> Satellite watching as a hobby: <a href="http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/index.html">www.hobbyspace.com/SatWat...index.html</a> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this another hoax? - Oh look, a photo taken from the International Space Station (ISS), with no stars visible in the black sky! Crikey, surely this must mean the ISS is also a HOAX...!!! *** Believing the moon landings actually happened has NOTHING to do with whether the Bush regime re: 911 either MIHOP or LIHOP. And as far as that goes -- I KNOW the Cold War was an opportunistic scam. Starman

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:29 am**

Starman, that post is possibly the single most valuable post I've ever seen on RI. Totally exhaustive, persuasive, factual ... and certainly answers all the questions I ever had on the subject. I, for one, tip my hat to you, and hope Jeff archives this. It also validates my original questioning: If faked: why? and why so many times? There has been nothing, however, from the "faked" camp, other than knowing assertions that, yes, Virginia, it was faked. Case closed, I hope. Thanks again.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:00 am**

I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe the moon landings were fake... there's so much evidence that they did happen, and not one single argument that they didn't makes a jot of sense! Most of the 'analysis' of the photographs for example; all the stuff about 'multiple shadows' etc seems to have been written by people who have never picked up a camera in their lives... total lack of any kind of understanding of images. I am willing to believe however that the moon is hollow and an ancient alien spaceship, as I read in a very badly written, not very convincing, but entertaining 70's book called 'Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:21 am**

It's worth people reminding themselves when they read the debunkers sites of this fact "I am not qualified to make intelligent assessments of any complex scientific material I read and neither are most of the unpleasant and offensive people who created these websites" My argument is simply that I don't believe even the American military would be able to find people brave (dumb) enough to go all that way and take off on a vehicle that hadn't been tested in zero atmosphere, one sixth gravity. I also don't believe any of the cover up lies about the lack of stars. There is no atmospheric light scattering in space. To get an idea how it would look, sit in a dark room with a strong lamp. Is the whole room bright ? Are there parts of the ceiling that are dark ? It may be that normal photographs may not have shown stars but the astronauts would certainly have seen them and commented at one of the most glorious sights ever seen. Yes, shuttle crews doing repair work have reported seeing stars in daylight and yes a photograph could haved been taken of them if the camera was pointed away from the lunar surface. Finally, a couple of years ago NASA commissioned a distinguished science writer to produce a book debunking all the hoaxers once and for all (ie bringing together all their own material in cyberspace) . It was never finished and no explanations was offered as to why.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:28 am**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"I am not qualified to make intelligent assessments of any complex scientific material I read and neither are most of the unpleasant and offensive people who created these websites"<hr></blockquote> I am qualified to have common sense, and be visually literate enough to see that all the supposed anomalies about the moon photos are either based on total misconceptions about photography, or reasonably explained by the fact that photos are often/usually touched up in some way for publication. Also; "neither are most of" kind of implies that some ARE!? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> SO why shouldn't we listen to them? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I also don't believe any of the cover up lies about the lack of stars. <hr></blockquote> Well, as I'm sure you know, the whole idea that there should be stars visible in the sky of the moon photos is totally wrong. Yes, they could have taken some long exposures of the sky from the moon, but seems they didn't. So? If it is all fake, what would stop them faking a photo of a bunch of short curved white lines on black!?! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Basically there are a million pieces of evidence that it did happen, and people who claim it is all fake seem to be either totally ignoring the answers to their questions about various things that seem odd to the layperson, or resort to really clutching at straws as more and more of their arguements are disproved. Here for example, you obviously now know that the idea that there should be visible stars in the photos is just incorrect, yet rather than admitting it and abandoning a wrong idea, you've shifted to asking 'why didn't they mention the stars' etcc... that's just tenuous! If it was all shot on a soundstage why didn't the scriptwriters put a 'wow look at all the beautiful stars' line in there somewhere!? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> I don't much care for 'debunking' sites either, but the more I read about moon hoax stuff the more I can see why they get so irate and rude in their debunking sometimes! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was never finished and no explanations was offered as to why.<hr></blockquote>So? Why would they START such a project if they knew they couldn't prove they went to the moon, and that not finishing it would provide fuel for the hoaxers? Why should they even have to provide an explanation for not finishing it? I'm sure there are all sorts of unfinished projects at NASA that noone asks about! Would you admit you're wrong if they HAD finished it? Why should they go on the defensive and write this book to 'prove' they went to the moon, when there's decades of documentation of how and why they did already? As for brave/stupid, it's pretty brave/stupid and often deadly to be a test pilot of a new aeroplane too, yet clearly many people do actually take that risk, and I don't suppose you claim that all air travel is fake!? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Tho I totally don't for a moment believe the landings were fake, I could just about entertain the notion that NASA found and covered up cool 2001-esque artifacts on the moon, but only because i like the idea in a sci-fi way. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> I'm sure if i looked at all the data tho, there wouldn't feasibly be that much scope for such a coverup to have happened, and certainly most such theories i've read are unconvincing to say the least!!!

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:39 am**

"I am qualified to have common sense" The arguments aren't about common sense, they are about science. Do you think you could pass even a 1st year university optics exam ? "Here for example, you obviously now know that the idea that there should be visible stars in the photos is just incorrect, yet rather than admitting it and abandoning a wrong idea, you've shifted to asking 'why didn't they mention the stars' etcc... that's just tenuous!" Which is different from your reasoning which is twisted and disfunctional. "So? Why would they START such a project if they knew they couldn't prove they went to the moon, and that not finishing it would provide fuel for the hoaxers? Why should they even have to provide an explanation for not finishing it? I'm sure there are all sorts of unfinished projects at NASA that noone asks about! Would you admit you're wrong if they HAD finished it? Why should they go on the defensive and write this book to 'prove' they went to the moon, when there's decades of documentation of how and why they did already" Well yes, no idea of the point you were making but certainly a lot of words and one of them had four syllables, well done !! "As for brave/stupid, it's pretty brave/stupid and often deadly to be a test pilot of a new aeroplane too, yet clearly many people do actually take that risk, and I don't suppose you claim that all air travel is fake!? There's dumb, dumber and USAF pilot I know but there are limits even to the literal brainwashing carried out by the American military.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:05 pm**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The arguments aren't about common sense, they are about science.<hr></blockquote> So why do moon hoax enthusiasts fail so spectactularly to provide arguements including either? (sorry <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> ) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Which is different from your reasoning which is twisted and disfunctional.<hr></blockquote> In what way? I claim, having used a camera before, that there's no reason that stars should appear in photos taken on the moon, and thus the arguement that the moon photos are fake because there are no stars in them makes no sense. What's twisted about that? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well yes, no idea of the point you were making but certainly a lot of words and one of them had four syllables, well done !!<hr></blockquote> I'm sorry. Not sure what was so hard to understand, but I'll clarify my response: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was never finished and no explanations was offered as to why.<hr></blockquote>So? Is that better? I can't believe I'm argueing about moon hoax on the internet! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":(">

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm**

"I can't believe I'm argueing about moon hoax on the internet!" And I'm not going to argue with someone who cant spell arguing. have a great evening.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:15 pm**

Oops! Just a typo, I can spell it usually. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Stangely enough, this seems to be pretty much how every moon hoax debate ends: moon hoax fan gets upset/personal and ends the conversation without addressing any of the questions about apparent holes in their theories. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|">

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:15 pm**

starman skye, that was the most thorough demolition of a concept as I've ever seen. Exemplary. While supporting reasoning with evidence is not always appreciated on this site (unless you count "it's so obvious, anyone who doesn't see it is either an idiot or an agent"), I thought it was well done. I should add that, while one's religion does not necessarily play into one's research, Sibrel (of "Astronauts Gone Wild") began his quest as some part of a conversion experience. Indeed, it is a religious mission with him, though I'm not sure why. Sorry I can't find a cached copy of the story on Sibrel from our local paper. He grew up here in Nashville.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:21 pm**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>starman skye, that was the most thorough demolition of a concept as I've ever seen. <hr></blockquote> I second that, good work! How anyone could read thru all those links and still seriously think the landing was faked is beyond me. THo i guess you can take a horse to water... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:27 pm**

"I can spell it usually" "So why do moon hoax enthusiasts fail so spectactularly to provide arguements including either?" No you can't. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/4/06 9:28 am

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:28 pm**

Do you think you could pass even a 1st year university optics exam ? The reason I ask this agaon is that smart asses who hide behind scientific arguments they can't understand aren't smart. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/4/06 9:33 am

rigorousintuition.ca

The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

Re: Sarcasm is for idiots.

Re: Sarcasm is for idiots.

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!