PDA

View Full Version : What Moon Hoax Idea Has Made You Laugh The Most?



jrkeller
2002-May-03, 04:15 AM
I'd have to say that in the six weeks since I've become an official registered member, I've seen a lot of hoax ideas put forward and subsequently shot down. Some of the moon hoax myth ideas have been so silly, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. Anyone have a similar experience? If so, what were they?

My personal favorites in no particular order are?

1) The LRV can't fit into the LM, so obviously it didn't happened. Oops forgot it folded.
2) On the PAX Show, Bill Kaysing saying that "I've seen 10000lbf jet engines blow boulders accross the land" or something like that.
3) Moon rocks made in ovens. I think my personal favorite.

I guess I could have a fourth. That is that thousands of NASA workers and contractors couldn't figure out that the moon landings were a hoax, but that a few non-technical people could.

Johnno
2002-May-03, 05:06 AM
"1) The LRV can't fit into the LM"

That's one of my favourites too.
Ive made posts like this before as well /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Another good one is "it takes the shuttle 90 minutes to orbit the earth, so it should have taken the apollo spacecraft 25 minutes to orbit the moon, not 2 hours".

Ive also had a few good laughs with people who cant figure out what's in the pictures. Jack White had a few jewels, like the 'inward opening in the LM descent stage opened with a zipper' (healium tank outward bulge, he figured why would the compartment be open if there were no footprints around it).

Anyway gotta get ready for school, Ill see if I remember any more really good ones for later.

Johnno

Space Bandito
2002-May-03, 05:28 AM
The "Shake and Bake" Moon Rocks

Johnno
2002-May-03, 05:32 AM
Also a lot of claims regarding 'if armstrong was the first man on the moon, who took the film of him descending the ladder?', and 'how did they film the ascent stages leaving the moon, if there were only two astronauts on the moon, and both returned in the LM?'

Lisa
2002-May-03, 07:12 AM
I kind of like the "where are the stars?" and the "flag waving". Two of the easiest to debunk, yet the HBers still keep perpetuating them. These people need some new materiel.
Lisa

DaveC
2002-May-03, 02:19 PM
It was always "the shadows" for me. The absolutely simplest thing for people to do is observe the behaviour of shadows here on earth and see if they can duplicate what they see in the lunar photographic record. Of course they could, but none of the HBs seem willing to try. Tells me something!

Oh - and of course Piper's long range photo anomalies. If he hadn't been such an obnoxious toad, it would have been even funnier than it was.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-05-03 10:21 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-May-03, 03:27 PM
I made this list of "stupid claims" a while back:

- The flag waves in a vacuum: it's obvious this only happens when an astronaut is holding it
- No bad photos: five minutes at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal will turn up plenty of bad photos
- The astronauts wouldn't fit through the hatch: there are photos of the astronauts doing so, plus there are no actual measurements to indicate the contrary
- The lunar rover wouldn't fit in the LM: Duh! It folded up!
- There were no unmanned missions to the moon before Apollo: there were plenty

Silas
2002-May-03, 03:55 PM
The most offensive claim was that the Apollo 1 fire was deliberate murder...

But the *funniest* I've ever heard was: "There's no gravity in space, so why didn't the astronauts just float away from the moon's surface?" (Answer: "They had weighted boots!")

Silas

DaveC
2002-May-03, 04:02 PM
Silas, I think you win for funniest question and funniest answer. That's priceless. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-03, 04:07 PM
The funniest: The Saturn V was well over 300 feet tall. Since the moon's gravity is only one-sixth that of the earth, the lunar module would need to be at least 50 feet tall in order to reach lunar orbit.

What makes it particularly funny was that it appeared in the official Mensa journal. You know, club for super-geniuses.

Johnno
2002-May-03, 04:13 PM
You gotta be kidding Jay

DaveC
2002-May-03, 04:21 PM
Thanks for reminding us of that, Jay. I remember it was discussed at Apollohoax (in one of the now-deleted threads.
Weren't there some other stupid questions that were part of that same series?

Curious George
2002-May-03, 05:28 PM
The Lunar Rover's tires being filled with air. On the website it states, 'early photos clearly showing the air valves sticking out, ..anyone who didn't notice this needs to get their eyes checked'. (no LRV photos were displayed)
It goes on to say.. 'NASA was made aware of the oversight and quietly retouched ALL the public LRV photos'. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

-Matt

LunarOrbit
2002-May-03, 05:31 PM
The funniest claim I ever heard was the one about "Capricorn 1". Yeah, a movie made in 1978 proves the 1969 moon landing was faked.

One HB also claimed that a James Bond movie (Diamonds Are Forever, I think) has proof that Apollo was a hoax because in the movie Bond finds a movie set where they are faking a moon mission.

AstroMike
2002-May-03, 05:55 PM
One of the most ridiculous I've heard is:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-49-7278.jpg

"Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor go off in various directions, not in straight parallel lines, as expected, suggesting that there is more than one light source."

Have these people ever look into a fish-eye lens before? I guess not.

Geo3gh
2002-May-03, 06:17 PM
My personal favorite is the one about blowing up the photographs in Photoshop, then looking at them on your screen with a magnifying glass. Look! You can see the buildings and stuff. See, they took aerial photographs and doctored them to look like lunar shots. But with my advanced use of Photoshop, their ruse crumbles like a house of cards!

This one still cracks me up.

Chip
2002-May-03, 06:41 PM
People who think NASA could not have gone to the moon, but do believe that aliens are either there, or helped NASA get there. Or - they doubt the Apollo missions really happened, but do believe that a World War II Boeing B-29 somehow crash landed on the moon years ago (through a space vortex - sounds scientific doesn't it?) and NASA is hiding the pictures. (Saw that in National Enquirer several years ago) - the picture was actually of a rare Douglas B 19 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/photo_galleries/aaf_wwii_vol_vi/Photos/00910460_195.jpg), all of which were accounted for. It was a big plane, but in the tabloid photo the wingspan covered the crater Tyco. Pretty big wings eh?)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-05-03 14:42 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-03, 06:59 PM
On 2002-05-03 12:13, Johnno wrote:
You gotta be kidding Jay


Note that Ralph Rene was in Mensa.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-May-03, 08:12 PM
On 2002-05-03 14:59, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Note that Ralph Rene was in Mensa.


Well, we don't need to resurrect the whole Stupid Mensa Tricks thread again, but yes, I agree that finding so-called "super geniuses" falling for such trivially absurd stuff as the non-parallel shadows and such is one of the funniest aspects to me.

But I think if I have to pick a specific claim as the funniest to me, it would be the Van Allen radiation belts are fatal to cross. The reason this one is so funny (to me, anyway, but we all know I'm warped /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif ) is that it is so very much a repeat, in form if not in detail, of the 19th-century arguments against the possibility of heavier-than-air flight or ground vehicles that go faster than about 30 mph (you won't be able to breathe, the speed of your movement will suck all the air away from you, you know).

And yet, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford and NASA seem to have done the impossible. "You can't do that" doesn't seem to have a great track record as an anti-technological argument.

The (and you can't send messages from here to China in less than a second, either) Curtmudgeon

David Hall
2002-May-05, 11:28 AM
Here's the Mensa question thread we had here. Quite funny.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=179&forum=3

I think I like all the claims about the LM the most. The rover that didn't fit, the door that was too small for the astronauts, the crater it should have left, the dust that should be on the landing pads, ad nauseum. I'm particularly fond of the claim that NASA crashed one of them during training while flying it in the Earth's atmosphere and gravity. How they managed that, we'll never know. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-May-05, 11:29 AM
Oh, and don't forget the coke bottle that lady in Australia saw on TV! That's gotta be right up there with the best.

Justincccc
2002-May-05, 11:24 PM
All of them made me laugh

DaveC
2002-May-06, 03:43 PM
Speeding up the lunar footage to show that it would look like it was filmed on earth was another. I didn't think it looked anything like it was filmed in 1g.

Peter B
2002-May-06, 11:21 PM
My fave is that it would be impossible to film the lift off of the LM Ascent Stage with the Rover camera because of the signal delay. The idea that you could practice the procedure and learn to anticipate seems totally foreign to these people.

In fact, the thing that makes me laugh (or shake my head, depending on my mood) the most is that they make a grand claim on some piece of evidence, and in less than five minutes you've found proof to refute their claim. Their research skills are terrible.

JayUtah
2002-May-06, 11:40 PM
Not only are their research skills nonexistent at worst and selective at best, the concept of epistemological falsifiability goes right over their heads.

Their logic works like this.

1. I see an anomaly, A.
2. X implies A, where X is a hoax-related proposition.
3. Since A is observed, I assert X.

Circular and unfalsifiable. Occasionally it's a bit better:

1. I see an anomaly, A.
2. X implies A.
3. X also implies B.
4. B is observed, therefore X is asserted.

Unfalsifiable, but at least not circular.

The missing step is:
3. X and only X implies B.

This simple statement is the concept behind the scientific method. Many HBs assert axiomatically that only X implies B, but almost never can they prove it, or understand why they must.

Lord General MB
2002-May-07, 03:34 AM
The funniest:

The pressure inside an astronuaght's suit, on the moon, would cause them to explode.

Classic.

infocusinc
2002-May-07, 12:44 PM
My favorite is that all the pictures of the rover on the lunar surface with the tire tracks obscured by footprints, show that the rover was actually set in place by a crane on the "moonset".

Peter B
2002-May-07, 12:54 PM
To be fair, infocusinc, I think there are some photos where the non-existent tracks clearly weren't obscured by footprints.

But in those cases, it's clear the astronauts picked up the rover and moved it to a safer location.

infocusinc
2002-May-07, 01:36 PM
Peter,

Thats an interesting thought. I have not read any accounts of the rover being picked up and moved. Do you have any examples from the transcripts or image numbers of these events?

JayUtah
2002-May-07, 03:03 PM
I've also heard the picked-up rover argument, but I can't find any evidence for it. Nothing in the LRV operations manual suggests it is a tested procedure. The other problem is that the chassis of the rover lies below the J-mission suit's comfortable forward reach. Supposedly the rover was picked and turned to save time turning around, or because the terrain didn't allow a U-turn or an n-point turn. If it happened, I don't think it happened routinely.

I always laugh when someone shows me a photo of "trackless" rovers, and within about sixty seconds I can find vestiges of the tracks that have been obliterated by astronaut foot prints. You can find one or two spots of herringbone pattern that remain. Then the standard distraction arguments begin. Remember, first it was "There are no rover tracks in this photo." Then after you show them the tracks they missed due to inattention, the argument becomes, "Those aren't deep/bright/wide/long enough for a rover on the lunar surface," and my favorite, "Maybe those are from some other rover."

These clowns never seem to pick up on the fact that they are the world's lousiest photo analysts.

infocusinc
2002-May-07, 04:38 PM
One of my favorites is a photo showing the rover (sorry I dont remember what image number it is) with curved tracks leading up to the wheels. But the wheels are not turned in the photo, they are pointing straight ahead, suggesting to some that they are not the real tracks from the rover. I havent checked but it seems to me that since the rover was steered with a joystick, the wheels must be self-centering. I have never seen a picture of the rover parked with the wheels turned.

jrkeller
2002-May-07, 06:26 PM
I swear I heard either John Young or Gene Cernan say they picked it up and moved it. Next time I see John Young speak, he speaks three or four a year hear in the Houston area, I'll ask him about that.

JayUtah
2002-May-07, 06:35 PM
The LRV was steered with a T-shaped joystick (T-shaped to reduce hand strain). When the astronaut released the joystick, it would snap back to its center detent, and therefore the wheels would return to the straight-line position.

johnwitts
2002-May-07, 10:07 PM
So, were the wheels turned purely mechanically, or was there a sort of power steering used?

Peter B
2002-May-08, 12:12 AM
Infocusinc

From Apollo 16, EVA 2 (courtesy of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal) comes this exchange and later discussion:

= = = =

145:11:29 Duke: Oh, you want to pick it up, huh?

145:11:30 Young: Yeah.

145:11:31 Duke: Okay. (Pause)

145:11:36 Young: Okay, now. We've got to swing it around. (Pause) There we go.

145:11:50 Duke: Okay.

145:11:51 Young: That's more like it. (Long Pause)

[Duke - "Like I always say, 'If you don't like your parking place, you just pick it up and walk off with it.' It was easy to pick up. I don't remember the details. I'm trying to picture it in my mind; but, apparently, we parked and it was pointed down a slope and there was a little bench behind us, so we just picked it up and hauled it back."]

[Jones - "One at either side at the midpoint?"]

[Duke - "Yeah. You just get out, right where your seat was, and there was a handle on the frame."]

[AS16-107-17511 (**) shows the handle on John's side of the Rover. The Rover has a terrestrial weight of about 230 kg (500 pounds) and a lunar weight of about 40 kg (88 pounds).]

[Jones - "Both hands on the handle?"]

[Duke - "I don't remember exactly, but I think both hands on the handle. It was sort of like you could reach up and...There was a handle down there and, also, you could reach up under the chassis and pick it up - spread your hands apart a little bit, that gave you a little balance on the thing. It was easy to do."]

infocusinc
2002-May-08, 12:29 AM
Peter,

Thanks for the transcript quotes, I didnt remember that one. Now the question becomes is that the only time or was it a regular thing. It may account for a few frames from that mission.

I think the vast majority of the missing rover tracks are accounted for by footprints. I need to go check the images from that segment of mission 16 to see what they show. But thanks for the information.

Peter B
2002-May-08, 12:56 AM
Well, let's just say that I've been working my way through the transcripts, and that was the first time such an event was described on Apollo 16. I don't know whether any photos were taken at the time. I also don't know whether there were any other pick-ups of the Rover, but I don't think they were common.

(Incidentally, would this be a case where I knew something about Apollo that JayUtah didn't? If so, Wow!)

infocusinc
2002-May-08, 01:31 AM
Peter,

As16-110-18006, 7, 8 are all photos from this time frame which show the rover tracks.

ToSeek
2002-May-08, 02:07 PM
On 2002-05-07 18:07, johnwitts wrote:
So, were the wheels turned purely mechanically, or was there a sort of power steering used?


I think it's a sort of "drive-by-wire" approach:

Steering control diagram (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/lrvf1-09.jpg)

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-05-08 10:07 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-08, 03:40 PM
Definitely steer-by-wire. The controller has a detent in the center, which keeps it upright when not being used. This would ensure that the wheels would center themselves and the rover would stop when the control was released. You can imagine the difficulty were the controller allowed to flop forward unrestrained: the rover would take off across the lunar surface, sans astronauts.

temporary40
2002-May-13, 04:33 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if it was the hoax that was hoaxed, not the moon landing.

Russia and America both want to go to the moon. Both governments decide that it is impossible, so they start creating a hoax to fool their publics. Our hoax is better funded but very expensive to the point where actual working prototypes are built. Pressure from Congress to reign in the cost of the Hoax forces disappointed NASA fakers to do the unthinkable: Send Man to the Moon in order to get the Hoax done on time and under budget.

JayUtah
2002-May-13, 04:41 PM
The problem is that most of the Soviets' space program was carried out in secret. They had no need to create a hoax to fool their public because the public saw almost nothing of the program to begin with.

Chip
2002-May-14, 04:40 AM
Here's one that doesn't make me laugh as much as scratch my head. Occasionally on various sites I've read posts from people who begrudgingly state that due to the overwhelming facts, they have to admit that "sadly" the moon landings were real. Several people actually say that. They're disappointed to discover that human beings actually walked on the moon.

"Sadly"? What's sad about it? They're hoping the landings were fake? I guess they just love to wallow in fake conspiracies. Weird.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-05-14 00:42 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-14, 04:58 AM
That's the most telling comment of all. People believe in the moon landing hoax theory because they want to believe in it, not because any evidence led them there. Nobody likes to have his bubble burst. The distraction of "evidence" is just to keep the belief going. And generating profit.

2002-May-14, 01:17 PM
My favoorite of course
the TENs of Millions
spent on the Oregon
Governors Race in
20&02
ahhaHAHA {letters alown cannot express this 1]

Conrad
2002-May-14, 01:35 PM
(Hey, I understand another Hub' post!)

What HB theory makes me laugh the most? One called "Alternative 3", which goes like this: the Earth is running out of room, resources and time. There are 3 alternatives to save humanity: 1) Cut resources 2) Cut population 3) Cut and run.
The Powers That Be opt for number 3, and set up bases on the Moon, crewed by and for the elite and run using genetically-engineered slave labour. The Moon landings were a big cover for the real colonisation program, and presented our technology as actually far less advanced than it really is. It must be true, because it was on TV in an expose!

Well, no, actually. "Alternative 3" was a spoof documentary broadcast on April 1st in the UK. One of the production crew received a letter from a member of the Irish parliament, saying that such panic-mongering was not a good idea and might make the public nervous. The production person, fired by a fit of mischief, faked a letter back from a "whistle-blower", complete with fake bullet-holes and a dying signature and posted it back to the Irish TD. Who fortunately had a sense of humour. The HB's have neither wit nor humour and now routinely refer to Alternative 3 as a real live proper documentary.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

LunarOrbit
2002-May-17, 06:26 PM
Another funny HB claim is the one that says the following picture shows the (giant) shadow of the Command/Service Module on the moon:

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/moonalice/pics/2.jpg

Anyone who knows anything about Apollo can tell that it is actually the sillouette of one of the RCS thrusters, not the rocket bell on the Service Module.

I first heard that claim made by Clyde Lewis in one of his articles (http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/moonalice/moonalice.html), but I'm not sure if it was his original idea or someone else's.

_________________
Kel Jones
www.thespacerace.com (http://www.thespacerace.com)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-05-17 14:29 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-17, 06:32 PM
Yeah, the CSM rocket shadow is a killer. It's been a round a long time, before Clyde, I believe. It's difficult to imagine anyone really thinking a silhouette of a engine cowling is really a shadow miles away.

AstroMike
2002-May-17, 06:39 PM
Heck, even the NSSDC caption (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/a11_h_37_5437.html) says "The large black object in the lower left is not a shadow but a LM thruster in the camera field of view".

SpacedOut
2002-May-17, 06:50 PM
On 2002-05-17 14:39, AstroMike wrote:
Heck, even the NSSDC caption (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/a11_h_37_5437.html) says "The large black object in the lower left is not a shadow but a LM thruster in the camera field of view".



And notice - the Clyde Lewis photo is cropped so that the second RCS Thruster nozzle is not visible – once you see the second nozzle there’s no question about what you’re looking at!

jrkeller
2002-May-21, 05:38 AM
Thanks for all the comments. I think the weighted boots is my favorite.

Simon
2002-May-21, 01:18 PM
Personally, the one I like best is the one where Russia was supposed to have been paid off to falsify their radar and radio, so as not to bust it. Anyone with any brains would know that Russia would have said "yeah okay", then bust it anyway. Hell, that's what AMERICA would have done if the places were switched. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Valiant Dancer
2002-May-21, 03:35 PM
Gee, all this discussion and not one reference to "The one who shall not be named" and his "mini-anomalies".

His almost religious clinging to the "evidence" of mini-anomalies. (usually JPEG artifacts, compression errors, and the results of using a magnifying glass to scrutinize images on a computer screen. The mental imagry alone of the P-word hunched over his computer screen in a darkened room squinting through a magnifying glass gets me in stitches every time.)

JayUtah
2002-May-21, 03:53 PM
I thought we mentioned him somewhere in the middle. My favorite part of all that was when all the other hoax believers were begging him to stay off their side. You know his argument's pretty bad when all his supposed allies think he's an infiltrator from the opposition.

Of course, Bart Sibrel on the radio was pretty funny: "People see what they want to see." Yes, Mr. Sibrel, they surely do.

Geo3gh
2002-May-21, 04:37 PM
On 2002-05-21 11:53, JayUtah wrote:
I thought we mentioned him somewhere in the middle.

I know I did, but I had forgot P's name at the time.

My favorite event in the Piper saga was when someone was debating him on some other site and borrowed my line. "When I use a magnifying glass on my monitor, all I see are the phosphorus dots in all their glory."

I felt so proud to be quote-worthy.

Kaji
2002-May-25, 11:18 PM
This one REALLY made me laugh: "The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change can be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and several articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.". *tsk tsk* /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

johnwitts
2002-May-25, 11:48 PM
As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film.

The real big problem with this statement is that the Apollo 11 Moonwalk happened at lunchtime in Australia, not in the 'early hours of the morning'. This woman is either lying, or nuts, or both.

JayUtah
2002-May-26, 12:07 AM
If it was published in The West Australian then the hoax believers should be able to easily substantiate this by producing the relevant article from a library, a private collection, or the paper's archives. Failing that, the article was obviously written by someone. That someone could be produced. It was approved for publication by an editor, who could be produced. Finally, I imagine The West Australian is read by thousands of people, some of which could be produced to verify they read such a story.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-25 20:08 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-May-26, 12:30 AM
That would be too easy. A 'fact' from HB's that was readily verifiable? No way.

JayUtah
2002-May-26, 12:48 AM
Not only that, were we to produce the relevant copies of The West Australian and demonstrate the absence of the claimed articles, the response is all too predictable: clearly NASA was able to expunge that article from the newspaper and the edition we will have produced was a decoy.

Peter B
2002-May-27, 01:18 AM
I've already checked the West Australian on microfilm at the National Library here in Canberra. I didn't find any article of the sort claimed. Letters to the Editor were roughly evenly split between supporting and opposing the landing, but no one raised any doubts that it was real.

The other strange thing about the quote is that it talks about Honeysuckle Creek and Western Australia. HC is just outside Canberra, on the eastern side of Australia, and it was one of NASA's ground stations for Apollo. Western Australia is a couple of thousand kilometres away. For those geographically challenged, Australia is about the same size as the 48 states of the USA.

Anyway, back in 1969, Western Australia was still a bit isolated from the rest of the world (the only highways between east and west were unsealed). There was also no satellite, co-axial cable or microwave link from WA to the rest of Australia. This meant that West Australians couldn't see events live on TV - the video had to be flown over from the eastern states.

However, for the Moon landing, a last minute arrangement was rigged up, which involved Perth TV stations getting a feed from NASA's ground station at Carnarvon, which is in north west Western Australia (and still about 1000 kilometres or so away from Perth). So people in *Perth* got a different feed from everyone else in the world, but they got it at the same time as everyone else.

And yes, the Eagle landed early in the morning Perth time, and Armstrong stepped onto the surface in the mid morning.

I've asked one of my brothers about the day (he was in year 6, aged 12). He said that all the kids in the school were gathered into a room and watched it live on TV.

David Hall
2002-May-27, 01:55 PM
I just dug this one up on site discussed in the laughable topic (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1364&forum=3&12) thread and I just had to bring it over here. I think we have a new winner in the most ridiculous catgory.

It's number 2 in the list of 32 "questions" found on this page (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html).



2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

Can anyone top this one? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-27, 02:59 PM
That's definitely a good one, all right. The lunar surface Hassies had aluminum cases, so I'm trying to figure out how a pure oxygen environment would melt them at room temperature.

Further the cabin atmosphere is 5 psia oxygen, about the same as the partial pressure of oxygen in normal earth air. That's why it works. It slightly accelerates combustion only becase of the absence of nitrogen, which would otherwise absorb energy.

Conrad
2002-May-27, 03:21 PM
How about: "The thrust of the LM's descent engine would in reality have transformed the lunar cheese surface into a raging fondue that would have engulfed the entire vehicle upon landing. Therefore Apollo is a fake."



Okay, okay, I made that one up. But still ...

AstroMike
2002-May-27, 10:35 PM
The dumbest arguments I have ever seen comes from this site (http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/).

Good for a laugh!!!!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-28, 12:24 AM
Yep, the Nasascam author has to be simultaneously the most ignorant and arrogant person on the planet. He boasts about his willingness to debate, but he won't answer his e-mail, and on the one or two occasions where he debated on web forums, he irritated all the other conspiracy theorists to the point where they asked him to leave. Yeah, he's definitely in the Top Five in terms of ridiculous arguments.

Ironically Clavius gets a message every couple of months from somebody saying Nasascam has the best arguments and that we should go there and check them out. I'll bet they're all from its author. The scary thing is that this guy apparently has no idea just how bad he sounds.

The Rat
2002-May-29, 11:19 PM
All of the claims have made me laugh/cry/throw up/tear my hair out, but the most maddening for me is a claim made on the 'Cosmic Conspiracies' site, because I have written to them twice with absolutely no acknowledgement. They claim that it was not possible for the lunar rover to send back video while moving because the antenna would wander from Earth, therefore such footage was faked.

True, it was not possible to send back video while moving, but that is not what is seen. The stuff we see was taken by a 16mm cine camera attached to the rover, with the video camera plainly visible in front of it!


Try to tell them that and I promise you will be ignored.

Ian R
2002-May-30, 02:31 AM
Why don't you post that on their new forum, dedicated solely to the Moon Hoax:

http://pub15.ezboard.com/fcosmicconspiraciesfrm2

Jim
2002-May-31, 10:35 PM
Okay, I've been thinking hard about this. "What Moon Hoax Idea Has Made You Laugh The Most?"

Well, most of them are more pathetic than funny, generating groans rather than laugh-out-loud mirth. But then, I got not one but two gems in another thread!

...none other than Douglas Arnold, the very same Mr. Arnold who appeared on 'What happened on our Moon'. But surprislingly, he was in the same camp as you guys and said that all the anomalies could be explained. Now considering that this was not his stance when the video was made 3 years ago, I can only guess that perhaps a vast amount of money was involved to persuade him to think otherwise.

Ya gotta admire the chutzpa! It couldn't have been that he was taken out of context in the video, it couldn't have been that he reviewed the facts and changed his mind, he must have been "bought off"!

Someone asked me about the two Apollo pages on my site, one of which talks about the Apollo hoax and the other about photos taken around the Moon of UFOs. That's quite easy to explain actually. All of the pictures that appear on the Moon photograph pages (except one) show UFOs whilst in orbit and thats exactly fits in with my theory that man didn't land on the Moon.

We went to the moon but didn't land on it?

ROTFLM(Deleted by the Bad Astronomer)O!!

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-02, 08:26 PM
Yeah thats right, like the few missions before Apollo 11 where the Apollo craft got within a few miles of the surface and then left without landing.

Tell me it didn't happen.....

David Hall
2002-Jun-02, 08:55 PM
So, you say Apollo astronauts orbited the Moon but didn't land there. Ok. But then that completely contradicts the argument on your page that the Van Allen belts would have made such a trip impossible.

Either way there's a lack of internal consistancy.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-02, 10:33 PM
Yeah thats right, like the few missions before Apollo 11 where the Apollo craft got within a few miles of the surface and then left without landing.

It would have been a bit difficult to land during Apollo 8, having no Lunar Module makes that a bit difficult. Apollo 10 got close, but the LM was still too heavy to land. That was not the goal on 10 anyway. It was to do a final rehearsal to iron out the remaining bugs in the system. Apollo 11 landed, with a bit of finger crossing involved.

Honestly, CosmicDave, we can't win. First you say NASA was foolhardy and rushed things, then you say they couldhave landed earlier. What do you want?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-02, 11:44 PM
It would have been a bit difficult to land during Apollo 8, having no Lunar Module ...

That depends on your definition of "land".

That was not the goal on 10 anyway.

And it made sense. There were a lot of questions to be answered about lunar orbit rendezvous. There were a lot of questions about the landing itself and the ability to take off again. This was one of those times when it was smarter to spread those questions over two missions.

Honestly, CosmicDave, we can't win.

I'm more interested in how the low lunar orbit photographs were taken when the cameras and film supposedly couldn't survive going through the Van Allen belts, or survive for long in the supposedly fierce x-ray environment.

Glom
2003-Jul-20, 03:11 PM
The LM also
had 16 small (110 pound) thrusters for attitude control and
translation complicating matters considerably and which the
Harrier does not have.

Yes. And a steering wheel complicates driving.

BigJim
2003-Jul-20, 03:41 PM
My favorite arguments are that the Apollo astronauts would have needed a launching site to take off from the moon, and the one in my signature.

Zamzara
2003-Jul-20, 08:38 PM
I think the funniest arguments are on the Nasascam site, especially where he attempts to show (with pictures of the training vehicles) how lunar photographs were faked. The funny thing is the examples he gives look nothing at all like real photos of the moon.

Oh, and the ever memorable "FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the conical space capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them."

AstroMike
2003-Jul-20, 09:02 PM
I like this one: "FACT: Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface would be blinded by the light."

:lol:

BigJim
2003-Jul-21, 02:14 AM
I've just remembered another favorite argument - if you play Neil Armstrong's, "That's one small step for a man," backwards, he is supposedly saying, "Man never see this, no, man never spacewalk."

Utterly ridiculous. But hilarious at the same time.

ToSeek
2003-Jul-21, 02:41 AM
I think the funniest arguments are on the Nasascam site, especially where he attempts to show (with pictures of the training vehicles) how lunar photographs were faked. The funny thing is the examples he gives look nothing at all like real photos of the moon.

Oh, and the ever memorable "FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the conical space capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them."

It's a tie for me between that statement and the notion that an orbit around the Moon takes the same amount of time as an orbit around the Earth.

frenat
2003-Jul-21, 03:19 AM
I don't think I have seen it written up anywhere but a caller on C2C mentioned this. He said that dust put into a vacuum chamber will become hard as a rock and therefore dust could not exist on the moon.

First of all lets just ignore what happens to dust in a vacuum chamber. It doesn't matter. All you need to realize is that dust on earth is not the same as dust on the moon. Earth dust formed in an air environment and has air throughout. Moon dust is from the bombardment of meteors. Smash rocks, make smaller rocks. This was the biggest proof this guy needed. Just sad.

jrkeller
2003-Jul-21, 03:41 AM
Another thing I funny is when one of the states something like, there are no photos, movies, documents or whatever of some topic they are talking about. Then I do a google search and all kinds of stuff pops up.

Jason Thompson
2003-Jul-22, 12:01 PM
The two that make me laugh the most are that the LM door was too small for the astronauts to get through (despite the plethora of images and video showing ingress and egress from the LM!), and the claim that there are so few photos of Armstrong on the lunar surface because he was ashamed to participate in such a bare faced lie. That, of course, explains why he was willing to be the first man to step on the surface of the moon and not only make history but have that moment committed to film for posterirty!

freddo
2003-Jul-22, 11:56 PM
The two that make me laugh the most are that the LM door was too small for the astronauts to get through (despite the plethora of images and video showing ingress and egress from the LM!), and the claim that there are so few photos of Armstrong on the lunar surface because he was ashamed to participate in such a bare faced lie. That, of course, explains why he was willing to be the first man to step on the surface of the moon and not only make history but have that moment committed to film for posterirty!

Bah! If he was shame-faced he should have just lowered his visor! You ever see an astronauts face through that?

[edit: yes that one made me laugh too though]

Rue
2003-Jul-23, 05:17 PM
The map on Nasascam marked in Kms and not miles
At least it wasn't furlongs.

And why has not anyone asked regarding the LRV:

"How could a combustion engine work in a vacuum?"

Seems like their kind of logic. :)

Mellow
2003-Jul-24, 03:28 PM
Hmm,

Surely the one that has made me laugh out loud the most...

FACT: Anyone who thinks we went to the moon iss essentially 'green'

I apologise if I've mis-quoted. I laugh and laugh at this, I'm still looking for my 'essentialy green bits'.

Iain Lambert
2003-Jul-25, 08:32 AM
FACT: Anyone who thinks we went to the moon iss essentially 'green'

As supposed to 'rotten', presumably.

Ilya
2003-Jul-26, 02:01 AM
My personal favorite: the Soviets did not reveal the hoax in exchange for US letting them invade Czecoslovakia.

Even better one: the whole Cold War was a hoax. The Soviets were in on it all along! (Variation on the theme: both US and USSR were/are controlled by a secret cabal, which staged Cold War, moon landing, and who knows what else. World War II perhaps?)

GetAClue
2003-Aug-20, 04:10 AM
My favorite...

A Radio show here in the Detroit area was discussing the "Moon Hoax" and asking people to call in with their 'Proof'. One really bright bulb called in and said "The astronauts were kicking up dust with there boots while jumping around on the moon and the dust fell just as fast as they did. Since the dust was lighter, it should have floated longer"

I didn't laugh. I wanted to shoot the Poor SOB and put him out of his misery! Put the Receiver down, slowly back away from the phone before you hurt yourself, you freak'n imbecile!

Lung
2003-Aug-20, 06:51 AM
What cracks me up the most is the one about stars not being visible. What's so pathetic is not that they know nothing about astronomy, but that they know even less about photography, a common pasttime on earth :lol:

For the record, if you exposed a photo of astronauts on the moon in sunlight so the stars were visible, the astronauts would be completely white. You expose the photos to show the detail of the astronauts (they are the entire point of the excercise), not the stars. With such enourmous extremes of brightness, you can't have both. Does anyone here want to hazard a guess as to the brightness magnitude of the astronauts over the stars? Millions??

Kiwi
2003-Aug-20, 04:19 PM
Does anyone here want to hazard a guess as to the brightness magnitude of the astronauts over the stars? Millions??

How about 131,072x?

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=105195#105195

Joe Durnavich
2003-Aug-20, 05:32 PM
Kiwi's account factors in reciprocity failure of film, so it is a better answer in this context, but in terms of stellar magnitudes, the full moon, from Earth anyway, is 1738 times brighter than Venus according to my calculator and 25,119 times brighter than Sirius.

That Ektachrome E200 film Craig used for his experiment had an exposure latitude of about 720 to 1 between the brightest and darkest features it could record. So, there is no way to fit both the moon's sunlit surface and planets or stars within that exposure range. Venus seems to have a shot at being detectable in strongly over-exposed photos.

Superluminal
2003-Aug-21, 02:26 AM
One show ran a film clip from the movie camera on the LRV that showed the LRV following its own tracks back to the LM. But the narrorator says, "Now if we are to believe that the astronauts are exploring an area of the moon where no one has ever been, explain this clip that clearly shows the rover following a road." #-o :lol:

Lung
2003-Aug-29, 05:01 AM
Does anyone here want to hazard a guess as to the brightness magnitude of the astronauts over the stars? Millions??

How about 131,072x?

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=105195#105195

I knew some smartarse here would come up with an answer :wink: It just highlights how stupid some conspiracists are #-o

Andreas
2003-Aug-29, 01:35 PM
Glom has mentioned this one already, but I'll expand it a bit...


People often cite the Harrier jump jet as an example of a
machine with vertical takeoff and landing capability as a
comparison. While that is true the Harrier has 4 powerfull
turbofan driven thrusters for load balancing. The LM would
have had to balance on one engine output only. The LM also
had 16 small (110 pound) thrusters for attitude control and
translation complicating matters considerably and which the
Harrier does not have.
The Harrier has one engine with four exhausts, therefore having to balance on one engine output only. The Harrier also has 8 thrusters for attitude control in slow/hover flight, complicating matters considerably (yes, it would be much simpler if the pilot just pointed the Harrier at a suitable crash site and then ejected).

And that is proof that the Harrier does not exist. :wink:

Alex W.
2003-Aug-29, 02:09 PM
I love the idea that faked photos = faked landing.

It's the basis for almost all of the HB sites, yet it can be brushed off as part of NASA's constant drive for impressive-looking PR.

Throw in the obvious way that the photos aren't faked, and it's even better.

Avatar28
2003-Aug-29, 05:14 PM
I don't think I have seen it written up anywhere but a caller on C2C mentioned this. He said that dust put into a vacuum chamber will become hard as a rock and therefore dust could not exist on the moon.

First of all lets just ignore what happens to dust in a vacuum chamber. It doesn't matter. All you need to realize is that dust on earth is not the same as dust on the moon. Earth dust formed in an air environment and has air throughout. Moon dust is from the bombardment of meteors. Smash rocks, make smaller rocks. This was the biggest proof this guy needed. Just sad.

Well, actually, it wouldn't. If you put dust in a vacuum chamber, evacuate all the air and then shake it, the dust will fly up and instantly sink back down with no air to hold it up, but it's loose.

If you were to do the same with the dust in a flexible airtight container (like you would use to vacuum preserve food), then, yes, it would be hard as a rock (more or less) due to the surrounding air pressure.