Some moon landing hoax questions

[UKBoy1977]

I've been debating with someone who has swallowed the moon landing hoax theories. I have barraged him with rebukes to all his technical points but he is still clinging on to the following 3 points. Could anyone provide some good answers to them?

1)Why did NASA prevent the book?

2)Why pictures from very high strength telescopes / satalites do NOT show the remains left on the moon?

3)Why is Buzz so against swearing on the bible that he landed on the moon?

[Ed]

Originally posted by UKBoy1977
I've been debating with someone who has swallowed the moon landing hoax theories. I have barraged him with rebukes to all his technical points but he is still clinging on to the following 3 points. Could anyone provide some good answers to them?

1)Why did NASA prevent the book?

2)Why pictures from very high strength telescopes / satalites do NOT show the remains left on the moon?

3)Why is Buzz so against swearing on the bible that he landed on the moon?

I don't recall the precise reason for NASA walking away from the book. I think it had something to do with not wanting to add fuel to the fire.

Very simply, the remains there are too small to be seen. There was some talk about training Hubble (I think) on the landing sites. I don't know what happened with that. But to the true woo such images could be faked.

The Buzz thing sounds like an urban legend. Though I recall some woo thrusting a bible at him and he being rightly indignant.

Your friend sounds like a woo. A test of wooness: Ask him what evidence it would take to make him change his mind. Make him be specific.

You might also ask him to explaimn, specifically, how it is possible that the President of the US can not get a secret BJ in the privacy of his office yet somehow a million people can be part of a vast conspiracy. This includes the Russians who monitered the communications which undeniably came from the moon. I'd really like to know the answer to this one. In my experience this is a killer argument.

[UKBoy1977]

Thanks for that. I thought about asking him what evidence he would require to be convinced but I know he will just say he wants answers to all his questions.

Problem is whatever answer you give him he won't accept he just says 'That is what they say, but they are lying'. So his position is rock solid, evidence for his theory is true, evidence is against is just 'their lies'.

The most annoying thing is trying to keep your cool when he is accusing me of being 'closed-minded' and 'easily led'!

And by the way, he isn't a friend, just someone on another forum. I like to think none of my friends could be so illogical as this guy!

[Ed]

Say that if his position is non falsifiyable (ie. it cannot be rejected) then he holds a belief that is more commonly referred to as religion and there is no point in discussing it.

Ask him about the BJ though:D

[Ed]

Oh, yeah. Check out Phil Plaits pages. He is otherwise known as the Bad Astronomer (bad as in "get down with your bad self"). He is a member and posts here occasionally.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Stumpy]

Hi UKBoy

I think that this article deals with the first two questions:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html (http://)

On the third point, there are a large number of reports suggesting that Aldrin punched a guy who asked him to swear on the Bible that the landing took place. Aldrin claims that he was acting in self-defence having been assaulted by the Bible wielding doubter. Certainly the courts seemed to have accepted this because no charges were bought against Aldrin. I don't think refusing to swear on the Bible on that single occasion and under those circumstances equates to Aldrin being generally against the principle of affirming his moon landing with the Bible. Has anybody else asked him if he would do this?

regards

Stumpy

[Ed]

He really did punch the guy in the nose. Hilarious, a 36 year old decked by a guy, what, 76?

I think that that guy had been badgering him to take an oath and Buzz had finally had enough.

But consider: If you had been a lead player in the biggest hoax in history, involving 100,000+ people, would you hesitiate to take a stupid oath?

[CurtC]

I was pretty impressed a couple of years ago when Buzz decked that guy. Here's the situation, as I recall. This conspiracy nut had been writing that Buzz et al. faked the landings - in other words, that Buzz was a liar. Then one day when Buzz was walking along minding his own business, this guy comes up and taunts him with "will you swear on this bible?" Buzz did the honorable thing and decked him.

Your question #2 about the telescopes and landing site has been answered.

For question #1, what book did NASA prevent?

[AP's sock puppet]

Originally posted by UKBoy1977
I've been debating with someone who has swallowed the moon landing hoax theories. I have barraged him with rebukes to all his technical points but he is still clinging on to the following 3 points. Could anyone provide some good answers to them?

1)Why did NASA prevent the book?

NASA is not preventing the book. They are simply not backing it as an official NASA activity. When it was first announced that they would pursue the book, they took heat because a number of people felt their job was space exploration, not marketing.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by UKBoy1977
3)Why is Buzz so against swearing on the bible that he landed on the moon?

I'm not sure how religious Buzz Aldrin is but I know that some Christians are touchy about the whole swearing on the Bible thing.

Personally I attribute the punch out to being sick of hearing the whole Moon hoax crap for 30 years and finally having enough. I can't blame him. If I'd done something as well documented as landing on the moon and kooks were claiming that I'd not done that, after 30 years, I'd probably have reached my boiling point.

[Drooper]

Well I think it makes perfect sense.

Clearly, Aldrin would have no difficulty in lying for more than 30 years about his part in a grand global conspiracy (and the world's most elaborate hoax).

However, to "swear" on the bible once at the demand of a complete stranger (and obvious fruitcake) would obviously be too much for any man to bear. No wonder he crumpled.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by CurtC
I was pretty impressed a couple of years ago when Buzz decked that guy. Here's the situation, as I recall. This conspiracy nut had been writing that Buzz et al. faked the landings - in other words, that Buzz was a liar. Then one day when Buzz was walking along minding his own business, this guy comes up and taunts him with "will you swear on this bible?" Buzz did the honorable thing and decked him. Even worse, Bart Sibrel (the man whose face intercepted Buzz's fist) lied to Buzz saying he was from some legitimate news agency to set up an interview. Buzz and his daughter went to give an interview and Sibrel ambushed them, jumping out of the bushs, sticking a Bible in Buzz's chest and demanding he swear on it. Buzz tried to just walk away, shielding his daughter from the over 6 foot 200 something pound Sibrel but Bart wouldn't let it go. So Aldrin slugged him. Sibrel staggered back and Buzz escorted his daughter away. The local police department decided not to press charges against Buzz.

The kicker is that just like the sleezeball reporter in Die Hard, Bart's first reaction was to ask if the cameraman "got it." He was obviously just in it as a publicity stunt. Note that Sibrel believes that Aldrin and Armstrong don't give interviews and that this is evidence of a guilty conscience... actually they don't give interviews to conspiracy theorists, and I take it as evidence that they don't like dealing with lunatics.

As Ed mentioned, Bad Astronomy has vast amounts of info on this. There were several threads on the BB over there at the time that have more info that I can currently recall.

As to 1) well, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. If NASA does nothing they get complaints that they're not answering the questions, if they put a book out on the subject they get complaints that they're making it seem like there's more to the story than there really is. I'm not sure why exactly they pulled funding from the book (was going to be written by Jim Oberg, IIRC), but I think the main reason was that it would be seen as legitimizing the moon hoax people's position (i.e. "See, NASA had to respond to us, we must have a point!")

For #2, no earth or NEO based telescope has the resolution to picture the equipment left on the moon. See Bad Astronomy for the details, but even the Hubble couldn't do it. It's not a case of just nobody bothering or looking but not finding, it's a case of technical infeasibility.

[MoeFaux]

The Bad Astronomer is excellent.
My friend knows a certain reality show host/ comedian who happens to be an atheist. That's great, right?
Only problem is - he thinks the moon landing was a hoax. He argued it out with him, tried to reason, but to no avail.
Moon Hoax guy even sent us some awful Fox special on how everything about the moon landing was a fake, and we even watched it one night for laughs. We sent him links to Phil's site, everything. How hard is it to figure out we've been to the moon?!
He's a skeptic who's just too skeptical.

[Reaver]

The Daily Shows interview of Sibrel was a classic, he was stunned when they claimed the shot of him being hit by Buzz was a fake.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
How hard is it to figure out we've been to the moon?!
He's a skeptic who's just too skeptical. [/B]There's a guy at work who insists that the moon landings didn't happen as commonly believed. He's more of the "governments lie, so obviously they must have lied about part of it" type of thinker. After a couple conversations I think I managed to convince him that it was actually simpler to have done it as stated rather than the kind of ad hoc theories he was coming up with (automated probe to retrieve samples, didn't use the "real" astronauts, etc.) Eventually I either convinced him or he just got fed up with me and stopped mentioning it. :D

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Reaver
The Daily Shows interview of Sibrel was a classic, he was stunned when they claimed the shot of him being hit by Buzz was a fake. "Back... and to the left. Back... and to the left..."

(they had to reverse the footage to get the joke to work, but it was indeed a classic)

I loved Jon's comment at the end... "We get questions about whether the people we interview are real. They are." :D

[Wolverine]

This (http://www.clavius.org/) is another excellent resource with information for dealing with the moon-hoaxers and their silly claims.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Reaver
The Daily Shows interview of Sibrel was a classic, he was stunned when they claimed the shot of him being hit by Buzz was a fake.

:roll:

"I can see the matte lines!"

[thaiboxerken]

You should kick your friend in the thigh with a good Muay Thai round house. Then tell him that you faked the kick. His bruise and pain is also faked, as well as his memories of the event. Ahh.. if only it were legal to beat up the stupid.

[Blondin]

The real joke about Bart Sibrel is that he presents all his "evidence" as incontrovertible proof that the Apollo landings were faked yet he's prepared to ignore all the "evidence" if the astronauts will just swear on a bible?

What kind of sense does this make. If all the astronauts swore on bibles that they really did go to the moon then Bart is prepared to accept that his explanations for the converging shadows, flag blowing in the wind, inconsistent lighting, deadly radiation exposure, etc, etc are all wrong?

The fact is that every one of his childish arguments have been explained or disproven. Some of his "proof" is so ridiculous the average 12 year old sees through it. Also Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14) did swear on Bart's bible but he never mentions that. Perhaps he believes that Apollo 14 went to the moon but none of the others did? Or perhaps he doesn't believe a single word of the crap he is peddling but will continue to peddle it as long as there are chumps out there who are willing to buy it.

[WildCat]

How embarrassing for the USA when China (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1997747.stm) becomes the first to put a man on the moon. :wink:

[uruk]

Ask your buddy about the Russians.

The Russians were in direct competition with us to get to the moon. They had spies in the highest levels of our government
as well as NASA. (and if you read Tom Kelly's or Pellegrino's book
there are even implications of sabotage!)
The soviet Union would have known if it was a hoax and would have wasted no time in exposing it back in 1969. Instead the Russians cancelled their program and grudgeingly congradulated us too!

And if He says that the russians knew that it couldn't be done or the radiation belt thing or the money issue. Remeber, they were the first in space, they were willing to spend the money, and they didn't have the same considerations for saftey that we did.
Compare their list of casualties in their space programe to ours.

How embarrassing for the USA when China becomes the first to put a man on the moon.

Ditto. We NEED to go back to the moon. We have the technology
to do it. We've had it for 40 years. The moon is great for the preperation for the manned Mars mission.

[Rolfe]

There's a really funny film clip (filmed in a studio in England I think) showing the "one small step" bit, then a lighting boom comes down and hits "Armstrong" on the head. I've lost the url, but it's fall-down funny. Anybody know where it is?

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Blondin
The real joke about Bart Sibrel is that he presents all his "evidence" as incontrovertible proof that the Apollo landings were faked yet he's prepared to ignore all the "evidence" if the astronauts will just swear on a bible?

*snip* That is an exceptionally good point! I almost wish they would do it, but only after he had publicly declared that it would convince him.

I also like the BJ argument ;)

...and how anybody can read BA's take on it and still believe that crap is totally beyond me.

Hans

[MoeFaux]

Oh jesus.
I just talked to my Mom, who I'm not very close with since she didn't raise me. But we're friendly. I helped her give up god. That's one point for me.
But, I had completely forgotten (the subject doesn't come up often) one of her other wacky things.
While telling her about TAM2, I mentioned Phil Plait and his work to bust the whackjobs.
Well....Mom is one of those whackjobs. I didn't argue with her too much, I pulled up Phils site while we were on the phone and tried to reason it out, but she just said, "boy, they have an answer to everything, don't they?".
She says we've never been to the moon.

Now, I'll go easy on people when they say we didn't go to the moon the first time. We WERE in a race that we had to win, no matter what. So if you want to believe that the first time was a fake, I'll say, "it could have been". But NEVER? Of course we've been.
She says there's no proof. Damn me, I've gotten her to be a skeptic but it sure is a pain in the ass in this instance.
Don't we have hubble photos to prove it? What can I offer her as solid proof? She just brushed off all of the explanations on the BA site.
Oh man, my Mom's a moon loonie.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Don't we have hubble photos to prove it? What can I offer her as solid proof?

Unfortunately, no. Hubble wasn't designed for lunar observation, but even if it had been, it's still not powerful enough to zoom in on such a tiny area of the moon's surface. As of now, there isn't a 'scope on earth capable of showing the materials we left on the lunar surface. This page (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Hubble.htm) provides mathematical examples.

IMO, even if we did have a 'scope capable of resolving on such a tiny area of the lunar surface, that still wouldn't convince the moon hoaxers that we've been there. The fact that they already ignore a wealth of evidence documenting the Apollo missions suggests to me they'd just shrug it off as they have everything else, or perhaps claim the photos were faked too. There is little in this case, from my limited experience, you can do with someone whose mind is already made up.

[Charlie in Dayton]

You can, however, in some photographs of the moon see the elongated shadows of the landers...

Look closely... (http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
You can, however, in some photographs of the moon see the elongated shadows of the landers...

Oooooo :)

Bookmark added. TY sir.

[Marvel Frozen]

OMG!!!111!@!! A face on teh mooon!!11!!!!1

[Crow T. Robot]

I thought that one of the Apollo missions left a laser reflector on the surface of the moon, and that lasers have been bounced off said reflector to accurately determine the moon's distance from the earth. I thought that some college students had even replicated the experiment. Is this true, or is it just a false memory implanted in my brain by the Reptilian masters <g>?
If it IS true, how do the moon landing deniers account for the reflector's presence on the moon?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Crow T. Robot
I thought that one of the Apollo missions left a laser reflector on the surface of the moon, and that lasers have been bounced off said reflector to accurately determine the moon's distance from the earth. I thought that some college students had even replicated the experiment. Is this true, or is it just a false memory implanted in my brain by the Reptilian masters <g>?
If it IS true, how do the moon landing deniers account for the reflector's presence on the moon?

Good point. This is true and is still ongoing.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Crow T. Robot
If it IS true, how do the moon landing deniers account for the reflector's presence on the moon?

Pfft, silly question. Since we never went to the moon, no such equipment can be there.
NASA disinformation agents just want you to believe it's there as part of the illusion. ;)

Yeppers, as Drooper pointed out, good observation indeed. There are a total of four reflectors on the moon's surface. Here's an article (http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/apollo_mirror.html) from space.com on the subject as well as a NASA press release (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/99/lunarlaser.html) and info about the McDonald Laser Ranging Station (http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs.html) (University of Texas), which has participated in the ongoing measurements.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Drooper


Good point. This is true and is still ongoing.

Not just in this country either. (http://skolor.nacka.se/samskolan/eaae/aol/market/experiments/middle/skills206.html)

Of course, the BBC is in on the hoax too. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/399468.stm)

Usually, hoaxers just claim that a robot placed the reflector. Same way they claim that Kubrick did the special effects. :rolleyes:

[Psi Baba]

The one point I think is always a fatal flaw in the Moon Hoax conspiracy is this: The Consequences of Failure. A failure of an attempted hoax would have been far more disastrous than a failure of an attempted actual moon landing. Even if a hoax were being considered at the time, anyone who analyzed the potential risk of failure of the two scenarios would have immediately come to the realization that attempting the moon landing for real would be obvious choice.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Hi UKBoy

I think that this article deals with the first two questions:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html (http://)

On the third point, there are a large number of reports suggesting that Aldrin punched a guy who asked him to swear on the Bible that the landing took place. Aldrin claims that he was acting in self-defence having been assaulted by the Bible wielding doubter. Certainly the courts seemed to have accepted this because no charges were bought against Aldrin. I don't think refusing to swear on the Bible on that single occasion and under those circumstances equates to Aldrin being generally against the principle of affirming his moon landing with the Bible. Has anybody else asked him if he would do this?

regards

Stumpy

To accuse Aldrin of not achieving one of mankind's astounding feats of the 20th century is one of the lowest forms of insult. To ask that he swear to it is further insult. Sibrel had it coming.

[Larry Barrieau]

I teach 7th grade science and in a few weeks we will be studying the moon. I met Phil (BAD Astronomer) last year at TAM and asked where I could get the film. I just found it this past week (actually a student found it for me). I will show the film after we do our moon studies and then ask for other possibilities than what is presented on the video. The next class I will take out Phil's book and go down the list of discrepancies. I have no doubt that the students will come up with many of the real answers. We spend the first part of the year looking at the scientific method by applying it to the paranormal so they are probably more skeptical that the average 7th grader.

Doing something like this might be interesting for the other teachers on the forum. Or for people like you UK. But there is nothing you can do to convince the true believer.

[Loki]

We've obviously been to the moon - really, the evidence (http://www.dangertheater.com/la.html) is overwhelming.

The initial phase (http://minibytes.mondominishows.com/lonely/main.asp?affil=mj)

[Bearguin]

For Rolfe

www.moontruth.com

Scroll to the bottom of the page for the link to the vid clip.