Moon Landing Conspiracy

[~enigma~]

I was reading some material on astronomy and I had a really confusing and somewhat disturbing thought. Do all of the people that believe the moon landing was a hoax claim all other astronomical knowledge is false and that ALL astronomers throughout the world are in on the moon landing hoax or do they accept astronomical knowledge and just deny the moon landing? If the answer is the second then how do they reconcile the fact that we have knowledge of events billions of light years away when the moon is just a quarter million miles away? In the case of the first answer, are they stupider than the 9/11 woowoos?

[Arus808]

what i dont understand is how they think that we couldn't land on the moon? yet be able to orbit earth? go into space? all that time prior to landing on the moon.

what makes it a "far stretch" to landing on the moon from going into space?

[~enigma~]

That's why I'm asking Arus. I can't comprehend the mentality of someone that denies the moon landing. At least with 9/11 it is obvious why some people have hallucinations.

[Rich M]

That's the thing with these conspirators, they won't cut corners. If they needed to actually build rockets capable of landing men on the moon to maintain their false-moonshot plan's cover, then they went all out and really built it. Hey, they must have sent someone there earlier to plant those laser reflector units, that's how dedicated to authenticity they were.

[jhunter1163]

I think they just deny the landing. They see it as a ploy to one-up those godless Commies. I think they should all ask Buzz Aldrin about it. He had the best answer I've seen to ANY conspiracy theory.

[~enigma~]

That's the thing with these conspirators, they won't cut corners. If they needed to actually build rockets capable of landing men on the moon to maintain their false-moonshot plan's cover, then they went all out and really built it. Hey, they must have sent someone there earlier to plant those laser reflector units, that's how dedicated to authenticity they were.
Ok....get out of my damn head. The laser reflectors are the main reason I asked this question.

[~enigma~]

I think they just deny the landing. They see it as a ploy to one-up those godless Commies. I think they should all ask Buzz Aldrin about it. He had the best answer I've seen to ANY conspiracy theory.Yeah but as Rich brought up...how do they explain the laser reflectors that were put on the moon or are the astronomers working with those in on the hoax but the rest of astronomy is ok? More I think about it the crazier they seem. Maybe Penn was right and the "V" on that idiots bottle really meant vodka.

[twinstead]

I would be hard-pressed to find an Apollo hoax believer who doesn't think 911 was an inside job, and vise versa.

Surely, a government who would fake the moon landings would fake 911 as well, right?

Right?

[Alt+F4]

what makes it a "far stretch" to landing on the moon from going into space?

They make up lies regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belt.

[Comsat Angel]

I would refer you to "Bad Astronomy", the website of Phil Plait, who roundly hits the "Apollo=hoax" buffoons around the head with the hammer of truth. And also the Aulis website, which kills all hoax assertions stone dead with cold hard logic and fact.

I'm more familiar with the Apollo-hoax proponents that the 9-11 ones, but certain tropes and attitudes from one manifest in the other. "Batsh*t insane" is one common component. Oh - Jim Oberg is another touchstone for rocketry truth.

[Axiom_Blade]

They make up lies regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belt.

Among other things. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

[Grimes]

Phil Plait debated the topic with "Fear Factor" host and, to my surprise, all-around CT nut Joe Rogan on Penn's radio show. It doesn't go very deep, though they are allowed the whole hour, and Rogan manages to keep Phil on his toes for some of the topics.

The link to the podcast is on this page: badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/02/06/talkin-to-penn-schoolin-joe-rogan-part-ii/

A fun listen even if it's ultimately a meaningless debate.

[~enigma~]

They make up lies regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
I wonder if a moon hoaxer woowoo has ever looked at the old Universal Studios logo and noticed the HUGE holes in the belt over the poles. Not to mention that the Gemini program measured the radiation inside a spacecraft in the Van Allen Belt and found it safe for humans. Besides, doesn't the shuttle go through the belt every 5-6 orbits or so anway? I didn't notice any shuttle pilot dying of radiation poisoning or even getting sick from the radiation.

[Axiom_Blade]

IIRC, Van Allen himself stated that the dangers of the belt were exaggerated.

[geni]

Yeah but as Rich brought up...how do they explain the laser reflectors that were put on the moon or are the astronomers working with those in on the hoax but the rest of astronomy is ok?

Well noramly they bring up this if they know about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2

[FramerDave]

Ahhh.... After all the batshiat crazy lunacy surrounding the 9/11 troofers, a nice Apollo denier thread is quite refreshing.

[SezMe]

what i dont understand is how they think that we couldn't land on the moon? yet be able to orbit earth? go into space? all that time prior to landing on the moon.

what makes it a "far stretch" to landing on the moon from going into space?
I'm not here to defend the bats**t crazies (to quote FramerDave) but I think there is a HUGE difference between going into Earth orbit and going to the moon and (what is equally important) coming back. Arguing that the two are roughly the same serves the crazies, not the reality-based community.

[Arus808]

why is there a "big" difference. There isn't much gravity on the moon, meaning that they wouldn't need a big payload of rocket fuel to get off of it.

The hardest part of "getting" to the moon was the actual take off from Earth and re=entering the earth's atmosphere at the end.

[geni]

why is there a "big" difference. There isn't much gravity on the moon, meaning that they wouldn't need a big payload of rocket fuel to get off of it.

you've got to get there first


The hardest part of "getting" to the moon was the actual take off from Earth and re=entering the earth's atmosphere at the end.

Only because they had to get all the stuff they needed latter on off the earth.

[Totovader]

Penn Jillette had the guy from badastronomer on (same guy in the ******** episode on Conspiracies) talking with the host of Fear Factor.

I know, it sounds like a weird combination- but Rogan (the guy from Fear Factor) is a conspiracy theorist ONLY on the moon hoax- and is otherwise a very rational individual. To hear him go at it with the guy from badastronomer makes a GOOD show.

I highly suggest listening to it (http://penn.freefm.com/), it's a good discussion.

[~enigma~]

Penn Jillette had the guy from badastronomer on (same guy in the ******** episode on Conspiracies) talking with the host of Fear Factor.

I know, it sounds like a weird combination- but Rogan (the guy from Fear Factor) is a conspiracy theorist ONLY on the moon hoax- and is otherwise a very rational individual. To hear him go at it with the guy from badastronomer makes a GOOD show.

I highly suggest listening to it (http://penn.freefm.com/), it's a good discussion.What i have heard (don't know if it is true) is that the moon hoax is something Joe Rogan treats as a joke.

[Totovader]

What i have heard (don't know if it is true) is that the moon hoax is something Joe Rogan treats as a joke.

Possibly- he did seem pretty sincere, however. He certainly wasn't playing dumb.

[Mr.D]

"Fear Factor" host and, to my surprise, all-around CT nut Joe Rogan


I've been under the impression that although Joe Rogan is quite familiar and knowledgable about many CTs, that he doesn't actually believe in any of them. (That is to say, like many JREFers he knows lots about them because he's entertained by the idiocy and sheer lunacy that surrounds them).

[~enigma~]

I've been under the impression that although Joe Rogan is quite familiar and knowledgable about many CTs, that he doesn't actually believe in any of them. (That is to say, like many JREFers he knows lots about them because he's entertained by the idiocy and sheer lunacy that surrounds them).
Want some lunacy here? Check out Lyte Trip's latest posts in his pentacon thread :)

[SezMe]

The hardest part of "getting" to the moon was the actual take off from Earth and re=entering the earth's atmosphere at the end.
Nope.

As just one example, actually "soft" landing on the moon given the fuel reserves of the lander was a BIG deal. They came within seconds of aborting the mission. And whether the moon surface itself was a viable landing place was also in doubt.

[MG1962]

The Moon CT people claim that the exposure to cosmic rays would have killed the astronauts with radiation. In a sense they are right, and there was extreme personal risk involved in the missions.

To this day all the astronauts who made the journey are tested by NASA and will continue to be tested on an annual basis. It is thought that at least some of them will sufffer from cancers brought on by the trip.

This danger was never hidden from these men, and is but a small tribute to each of them that they took on the task, knowing the potential health issues.

Someone mentioned the landing of Apollo 11 - If you listen carefully to the radio transmissions during the last 20 seconds or so of the orginal landing. A small beeping sound can be heard. This is the fuel warning alarm.

A couple of years ago a guy by the name of Sebrel (Who is kinda like our version of Dylan Avery) stalked and asaulted Buzz Aldrin and at one point accosted him coming out of a hotel.

Buzz, over 70 at this stage, displayed the sort of right stuff you need to go to the Moon and flattened Sebrel with one punch :catfight:

[Architect]

The best demolition of Moon Hoax CTers you will ever see is from Jay Utah over at Bautforum - the same chap who runs the clavicus (sp?) debunking site and I think actually might be a rocket scientist (or at least top-notch engineer).

[~enigma~]

Doesn't the fact that there are laser reflectors on the moon and the 5 other moon landings debunk their claim? I mean how stupid can a human be?

[a_unique_person]

That's why I'm asking Arus. I can't comprehend the mentality of someone that denies the moon landing. At least with 9/11 it is obvious why some people have hallucinations.

You want rational explanations for people thinking irrational things?

[~enigma~]

You want rational explanations for people thinking irrational things?Why not? Michael Shermer gave 25 rational reasons.

[Totovader]

Phil Plait debated the topic with "Fear Factor" host and, to my surprise, all-around CT nut Joe Rogan on Penn's radio show. It doesn't go very deep, though they are allowed the whole hour, and Rogan manages to keep Phil on his toes for some of the topics.

The link to the podcast is on this page: badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/02/06/talkin-to-penn-schoolin-joe-rogan-part-ii/

A fun listen even if it's ultimately a meaningless debate.

Ooops- didn't notice you already posted this... sorry.

[R.Mackey]

The Moon CT people claim that the exposure to cosmic rays would have killed the astronauts with radiation. In a sense they are right, and there was extreme personal risk involved in the missions.

To this day all the astronauts who made the journey are tested by NASA and will continue to be tested on an annual basis. It is thought that at least some of them will sufffer from cancers brought on by the trip.

This danger was never hidden from these men, and is but a small tribute to each of them that they took on the task, knowing the potential health issues.
Correct. Solar weather is an important concern for any astronaut. It was believed, during Apollo, that a major solar flare could be fatal to the crew if it occurred during their mission. However, there were none, and the Apollo missions were short enough in duration to make a fairly confident solar prediction and adjust schedules as needed.

Shuttle and the ISS orbit low enough to avoid the Van Allen belts, and are shielded by the Earth's magnetic field, though they too can be affected by solar weather. But as we start reaching further out again, we will again have to contend with this issue.

[~enigma~]

Shuttle and the ISS orbit low enough to avoid the Van Allen beltsDoesn't the SAA come into play on some of the orbits?

[MG1962]

The best demolition of Moon Hoax CTers you will ever see is from Jay Utah over at Bautforum - the same chap who runs the clavicus (sp?) debunking site and I think actually might be a rocket scientist (or at least top-notch engineer).


He is an aeronautics engineer out of Salt Lake City. Kinda like the Moon Hoax version of Gravy. And definately a go to man. Proved a UFO photo was hoaxed, because the headrest of the seat caught in the edge of the photo was incorrect lol - It scares me to think he might have known that off the top of his head.

This is his website http://www.clavius.org/index.html Named after the fictonal moonbase in 2001

[MG1962]

The truth about the Moon Landings

Focus on one of the landing sites - and go to maximum magnification

http://moon.google.com/

[jaydeehess]

Jay Utah has also battled it out with 9/11 CT's as well.

[R.Mackey]

Doesn't the SAA come into play on some of the orbits?

Yes, it does. There's a humorous discussion of the South Atlantic Anomaly and its effects on the International Space Station here (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast04may_1.htm).

The upshot is that the ISS has some additional shielding, but because it doesn't dwell in the Anomaly for very long, its effect on astronauts is manageable. The Shuttle generally stays in lower inclination orbits and misses the Anomaly altogether, except during ISS servicing missions.

Radiation is much worse physiologically if you're forced to stay in it, as any astronaut on a long journey away from Earth will be.

[~enigma~]

Yes, it does. There's a humorous discussion of the South Atlantic Anomaly and its effects on the International Space Station here (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast04may_1.htm).

The upshot is that the ISS has some additional shielding, but because it doesn't dwell in the Anomaly for very long, its effect on astronauts is manageable. The Shuttle generally stays in lower inclination orbits and misses the Anomaly altogether, except during ISS servicing missions.

Radiation is much worse physiologically if you're forced to stay in it, as any astronaut on a long journey away from Earth will be.Thanks for that link. Fred is kinda weird :)

[AZAtheist]

Last night I heard the second installment of the Joe Rogan/Phil Plait debate on the moon landing hoax. Joe uses the normal techniques we see from people arguing from ignorance. He consistently talks over Phil, doesn't let him answer a challenge before interrupting, and brings in unrelated, insignificant arguments. Honestly, a disturbing debate. One of his main points was that Werner Von Braun was a Nazi, war criminal therefore the government of the United States and the space program cannot be trusted. (???).

It was disappointing that Penn allowed Joe to consistently interrupt Phil and wouldn't let him get his point across. Joe was overly aggressive and, in spite of his constant statements to the contrary, really goes out of his way to make the conspiracy case.

[Alt+F4]

One of his main points was that Werner Von Braun was a Nazi, war criminal therefore the government of the United States and the space program cannot be trusted.

Does that mean World War II never really happened?

[AZAtheist]

Does that mean World War II never really happened?

It means Joe Rogan is logically challenged.

[Panhead56]

I would like to recommend "A man on the moon" by Andrew Chaikin to all that are really interested in the moon landings. Really gives you the A to Z on the Apollo program. Including the things you really don't want to know, like how they handled the human "waste" onboard. Yuck! I'm not a space expert, but none the less found it a great book about the people, both the astronauts and all those on the ground, that made it happen.

From an engineering point of view I believe one could say that going to the moon was both easy and difficult at the same time "Easy" because the rocketry had been tried and tested allready with unmanned trips, difficult because no one had actually done it before, so NASA could not be 100% shure that their asssesment of the condition of the moon surface, etc, was correct.
I really respect those guys who went there, knowing that if something really bad happend to their ship, there was absolutely nobody around to help them home. I believe that also says something about the trust the astronauts must have had in the folks on the ground that designed and built everything.

[Ranb]

Two of the best sites to visit to see information on the "Apollo Hoax" are www.clavius.org, , and www.badastronomy.com .

Most of the people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed are the kind of person who, if they do not know how something was done, then it could not have been done by humans. Therefore aliens built the pyramids, man has not gone out of low earth orbit, and engineers use alien technology for advanced aircraft and spaceships.

They usually begin with a conclusion that the landings were hoaxed based on viewing a website or video that says they were. Then they refuse to learn anything for themselves about spaceflight.

Ranb

[hubbub2]

I think they should all ask Buzz Aldrin about it. He had the best answer I've seen to ANY conspiracy theory.

Having seen the video of Mr. Aldrin responding to one annoying hoax-believer, I think Mr. Aldrin deserves an ice cold beer...the size of Lake Superior.:D

[Obviousman]

I just listened to the free download (thanks Penn!) and I really enjoyed the show - but I was a little frustrated by it.

- Penn did let Joe overtalk / interrupt Phil too much. Even so, it should have been able to be countered.

- Things were being quoted as fact when they were inaccurate.

- I think Phil might have a little problem in explaining complex subjects (on air) to a level which most people can understand.

- Phil is an expert in many aspects of Apollo knowledge, but he did lack knowledge in many aspects. Perhaps this is where it is easier being a layman; I know the recorded history and reasoning regarding all the issues that Joe raised. I could have easily debated Joe on the issues he raised. On the other hand, if I was asked to produce detailed scientific evidence on a particular aspect, I would have to have an expert in that field explain WHY what I said was correct.

[Rrramon]

I've been under the impression that although Joe Rogan is quite familiar and knowledgable about many CTs, that he doesn't actually believe in any of them. (That is to say, like many JREFers he knows lots about them because he's entertained by the idiocy and sheer lunacy that surrounds them).

Joe has some great bits in his stand-up act bashing Creationism, Noah's Ark and the like, but he has a very poor BS filter when it comes to conspiracies, UFOs, etc. He still thinks the jury's out on whether we went to the moon (he posted a clip from a British documentary on his message board that showed a couple of glints above one of the astronauts and said it was evidence that they were being suspended by wires), and he's started a couple threads calling the collapse of WTC7 suspicious, citing Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote as an example.

So, while he happens to be one of the funnest comics working today, like many talented people, he also happens to be ******* insane.

[Kiwiwriter]

I would like to recommend "A man on the moon" by Andrew Chaikin to all that are really interested in the moon landings. Really gives you the A to Z on the Apollo program. Including the things you really don't want to know, like how they handled the human "waste" onboard. Yuck! I'm not a space expert, but none the less found it a great book about the people, both the astronauts and all those on the ground, that made it happen.

From an engineering point of view I believe one could say that going to the moon was both easy and difficult at the same time "Easy" because the rocketry had been tried and tested allready with unmanned trips, difficult because no one had actually done it before, so NASA could not be 100% sure that their assessment of the condition of the moon surface, etc, was correct.
I really respect those guys who went there, knowing that if something really bad happend to their ship, there was absolutely nobody around to help them home. I believe that also says something about the trust the astronauts must have had in the folks on the ground that designed and built everything.

It is terrific, and it helped me, a guy who cannot do math, to understand a lot of the engineering of the Apollo missions. It was the basis for the HBO mini-series.

Chaikin himself appears in the first episode of the mini-series as a correspondent hosting "Meet the Press," with James Webb fielding questions on the space race.

[Kiwiwriter]

Two of the best sites to visit to see information on the "Apollo Hoax" are www.clavius.org, , and www.badastronomy.com .

Most of the people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed are the kind of person who, if they do not know how something was done, then it could not have been done by humans. Therefore aliens built the pyramids, man has not gone out of low earth orbit, and engineers use alien technology for advanced aircraft and spaceships.

They usually begin with a conclusion that the landings were hoaxed based on viewing a website or video that says they were. Then they refuse to learn anything for themselves about spaceflight.

Ranb

I get annoyed with these jerks who think that aliens built the pyramids and so on...one of my best pals is an archaeologist and specialist in ancient civilizations, and we've discussed Erich Von Daniken and his nonsense at length. The Egyptians and Mayans were very capable of building pyramids. They had plenty of labor (not all of it Jewish), understood mathematics and simple machines, and were well-organized.

Von Daniken, by the way, was convicted for embezzlement. I guess ancient aliens taught him how to do that.

[PixyMisa]

It was disappointing that Penn allowed Joe to consistently interrupt Phil and wouldn't let him get his point across. Joe was overly aggressive and, in spite of his constant statements to the contrary, really goes out of his way to make the conspiracy case.

I was listening to this just now and had to stop to preserve my peace of mind. As you say, a very disappointing effort by Penn (though Michael Goudeau did chip in on the side of sanity).

[Ove]

The truth about the Moon Landings

Focus on one of the landing sites - and go to maximum magnification

http://moon.google.com/

:) :) :) :) :)

Don't say that the google guys don't have a sense of humor.

I have read a lot of books about Apollo and it is fascinating stuff. For a starter i can warmly reccomend "Apollo the Race to the moon" By Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Race-Moon-Charles-Murray/dp/0671611011/sr=8-5/qid=1172495950/ref=sr_1_5/026-0898298-3130802?ie=UTF8&s=books and then Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option".
To me the best "counter proof" to hoaxers have allways been the russians. The USSR had it's own spaceprogramme, they shot unmanned ROV's and orbited sattelites. They even had a crashprogramme for a manned orbiting and a doomed-from-start moonlander.

The point is they had all the radio and guidance tecnology. They could very clearly determine that the radio transmissions ideed came from the moon and not from a desert in Arizona or whatever the theory is.

AND - it was during the cold war. USA and USSR were NOT friends. I suspect that the russians would have yelled it out very loud if the americans had tried to hoax..

[bonavada]

there is an old edition of the BBC astronomy programme "Sky at Night" up on google that broadly deals with the moon hoax conspiracy.............

-8975320001826403666&hl=en-GB


the sound and pic are poor but if you are used to patrick moore's presenting style you should enjoy it :-]

BV

[Kiwiwriter]

:) :) :) :) :)

Don't say that the google guys don't have a sense of humor.

I have read a lot of books about Apollo and it is fascinating stuff. For a starter i can warmly reccomend "Apollo the Race to the moon" By Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Race-Moon-Charles-Murray/dp/0671611011/sr=8-5/qid=1172495950/ref=sr_1_5/026-0898298-3130802?ie=UTF8&s=books and then Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option".
To me the best "counter proof" to hoaxers have allways been the russians. The USSR had it's own spaceprogramme, they shot unmanned ROV's and orbited sattelites. They even had a crashprogramme for a manned orbiting and a doomed-from-start moonlander.

The point is they had all the radio and guidance tecnology. They could very clearly determine that the radio transmissions ideed came from the moon and not from a desert in Arizona or whatever the theory is.

AND - it was during the cold war. USA and USSR were NOT friends. I suspect that the russians would have yelled it out very loud if the americans had tried to hoax..

I love the Murray and Cox book...it even invades my writing. When I refer to the key point of anything I write, I call it the "flight article," and say, "The flight article has got to dominate," which is a chapter heading in the book.

The Kranz book is great, too.

I read somewhere here on this forum, from a highly capable engineer, the point that there was no aspect of the Apollo program that was not possible for American science, engineering, and technology of the time. All of it was basically the next stage of previous work that had been tried, tested, and worked well. There were no massive leaps...it would not be like Confederate troops attacking Union forces at Gettysburg with AK-47s, as in a Harry Turtledove novel.

So there was nothing that needed to be faked at all. The lunar landing was accomplished the way it was supposed to be done...tests, rehearsals, training, and actual missions.

Only someone with a pre-disposition towards paranoia, conspiracy theories, and other lunacy would believe it was faked.

[negativ]

I know, it sounds like a weird combination- but Rogan (the guy from Fear Factor) is a conspiracy theorist ONLY on the moon hoax- and is otherwise a very rational individual. To hear him go at it with the guy from badastronomer makes a GOOD show.

I highly suggest listening to it (http://penn.freefm.com/), it's a good discussion.

I listened to that this morning. Rogan sounds almost exactly like every 9/11 CT guy I've ever heard. Rogan's whole spiel is basically an adapted and specialized version of The Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense). It's immune to rational discussion, and like 9/11 CTs, the entire premise is completely goofy.