|
Author
|
Topic: Defending Apollo from hoax claims
|
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-12-2007 08:36 AM
   
Many people have excellent knowledge of the Apollo programme. Many people here were involved in the Apollo programme. Many people here have personal relationships to people who flew the various missions.Can I ask — out of interest — why some people do not vigorously defend claims that Apollo landings were "hoaxed" in some way? I actually DO think I know why those people do not — but I'd like to hear why others are not at the forefront of the "debunking" movement. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-12-2007 09:05 AM
Those that argue that the moon landings were faked are primarily doing it for one or more of the following three reasons: - profit
- attention
- laziness
The first two can be defused by not engaging them in debate or even recognizing their existence. The lazy, those who find it easier to subscribe to a conspiracy than to do their own research and learn the facts behind the claims, are like the proverbial horse: you can lead them to the knowledge, but you can't make them learn. Thus why waste your time on them? The best thing that can be done to "debunk" the moon hoax is to continue celebrating Apollo's successes. |
Gilbert
Member Posts: 1340
From: Carrollton, GA USA
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 09-12-2007 09:16 AM
When confronted with this issue I always paraphrase Armstrong (at least I think it was Armstrong who said it), "It is easier to do it [land on the moon] than fake it." |
compass
Member Posts: 42
From: uk
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 09-12-2007 10:11 AM
I think you've got this the wrong way round, in the book "First Man," Neil Armstrong says that the only thing he believes would be more difficult than landing on the moon would be faking it. |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2141
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 09-12-2007 02:32 PM
My now standard retort to moon hoax claimers is that if America was able to fake six moon landing back in the 1960's then why didn't they fake 1 weapon of mass destruction this decade! |
fabfivefreddy
Member Posts: 1067
From: Leawood, Kansas USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 09-12-2007 04:43 PM
People have defended against the hoax claim. James Hansen's book about Neil Armstrong ("First Man") shows the letter he sent out. There are plenty of people that defend it. It just doesn't get press coverage like the hoax theories. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 732
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 09-12-2007 05:58 PM
I also wonder how many folks (including the astronauts) have tried to defend the moon landings from the hoaxers' claims, only to be met with absolute unwillingness on the part of the hoax believers to change their minds. After a while you sort of start feeling like you're beating your fists against a wall, especially when every bit of evidence you present is met with a defiant "oh, that's what they WANT you to believe." After a while, it gets pretty wearying... |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 09-12-2007 06:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ea757grrl:
After a while you sort of start feeling like you're beating your fists against a wall
...or against Sibrel's face, which undoubtedly had to feel good.  |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2516
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 09-12-2007 07:12 PM
Try this approach. Agree with them; tell them you collect for profit and then go on to explain to them that the whole atomic bomb thing was faked as well. That they faked pictures taken only by the "government" and it was all done to justify military spending in the 50s. The Russians caught on and they faked it too just to keep up. The US government could not say anything otherwise they would reveal their hoax. Thus the Cold War was faked as well! It may not convince them the moon landing was real, but they won't even think about it anymore while they are off to research the "bomb hoax." |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 732
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 09-12-2007 10:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
...or against Sibrel's face, which undoubtedly had to feel good.
Dang, I wish I'd thought of that line first!  |
leslie
Member Posts: 231
From: Surrey, England
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-13-2007 06:36 AM
"Where ignorance is bliss... it's folly to be wise." |
R.Glueck
Member Posts: 115
From: Winterport, Maine, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 09-14-2007 08:31 PM
What is sad is the fact that we give these hoaxers any of our time to try to refute such nonsense. |
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-15-2007 06:08 AM
Thanks for all the replies. As I have explained to a few people on the board, I do it because I am simply amazed at the number of people who swallow the lies hook, line, and sinker without trying to check the most basic of facts. Having seen a couple of people fall for the "hoax" then be shown how to research for themselves, how to think independently, well... that's my justification and my reward.Thanks again to everyone!
|
collocation
Member Posts: 387
From: McLean, VA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 09-15-2007 03:55 PM
Easy argument to combat the "hoax" crowd, as Charlie Duke stated, "if we faked going to the moon, why did we fake it nine times?" |
Novaspace
Member Posts: 434
From: Tucson, AZ USA
Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted 09-15-2007 04:56 PM
A major moon hoax debunker is Phil Plait, who spoke (rather humorously) on the subject at Spacefest to a packed room that included several teachers and many students.You can't blame the kids, because they weren't alive then, don't have quick access to the facts, and are easy prey for Moon hoaxers. It IS hard to believe we went to the moon 35 years ago, and can't go today. Young people just as easily turn into believers if presented with the irrefutable facts. That's why we required teachers (who got in free Friday) to hear Phil's talk, so they would be armed with arguments to refute (some of them are youngsters, too). I highly recommend Phil's blog, website and book, Bad Astronomy. His is the site others go to for facts, as he is the Major Dude. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-15-2007 05:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Novaspace:
You can't blame the kids, because they weren't alive then, don't have quick access to the facts, and are easy prey for moon hoaxers.
I wasn't alive for any of the moon landings, nor were any of my school age friends, and yet none of us ever questioned them as being anything but real.With the internet as widespread as it is today, kids have quicker and easier access to the facts than when we were growing up and had to rely on going to the library or using a slow dial-up connection to an online service provider. So I would caution excusing kids from being too lazy to find the answers for themselves. It's not that they are easy prey for hoaxers because they aren't sophisticated enough to know better; it's that they'd rather spend the time texting their friends than double checking what they see on TV. |
Novaspace
Member Posts: 434
From: Tucson, AZ USA
Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted 09-15-2007 06:16 PM
I don't consider you a kid, Rob. You're a few years removed from grade or high school.Kids these days are 20 or 25 years removed from the moon landings, and it's vogue and cool to distrust your parents'generation or beliefs. We did. The internet is a great tool for finding facts — or folly. I think kids these days, (in general) look at Facebook or MySpace, chat or text. Not fact-finding. |
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-15-2007 06:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by collocation:
Easy argument to combat the "hoax" crowd...
No, it's not that easy. To the reasonable person that makes sense. To the Hoax Believer (HB) there are always reasons why it was done that many times. They even use the sopping of the lunar landing programme as evidence of it being a hoax. Apollo 13 was just something different to add drama, etc. quote:
Originally posted by Novaspace:
A major moon hoax debunker is Phil Plait...
Don't forget Jay Windley (AKA Jay Utah). He is the co-lead amongst the debunkers. Some might even place him ahead of the Bad Astronomer.I agree with Robert. People have to check facts. The modern mantra seems to be "they wouldn't put it on the internet if it wasn't true..." |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 09-16-2007 05:43 AM
For kids, I believe it's a matter of whether they first hear about the moon landings from a standpoint of a moon hoaxer or from a believer. If they are told it was a hoax early on, they may not see any reason to check the facts for themselves. And since it appears the moon landings are not being presented in history classes anymore, they often don't have a credible source tell them anything differently. (Or the worst case scenario is that some school teachers have actually bought into the hoax theory themselves.) While a vast amount of information is available on the internet, your average kid isn't going to go onto the internet to read about history. It simply doesn't happen. And if they do go on the internet to check into the moon hoax theory, they may just as easily go to a hoaxer's site first and believe what they read there and not look any further than that. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-16-2007 12:28 PM
The Apollo "hoax" issue will disappear when the first clear pictures of Apollo hardware on the surface of the Moon are returned by the flotilla of new spacecraft being sent to the Moon over the coming years. The first, a Japanese probe, is already en route. Unfortunately, its high-resolution camera has a resolution of 10 metres (33 feet). Guess what? A LM descent stage has a diameter of 31 feet from footpad to footpad. I assume that images taken just after local dawn will be able to show an elongated shadow, but the descent stage is only 10 feet high (allowing for landing leg compression)so the shadow won't greatly exceed the camera's maximum resolution. A better bet might be high-sun images showing the disturbed albedo around the landing-site (like the images of the Apollo 15 site taken by Clementine). I realise some of these nutcases wouldn't admit they were wrong if you actually sent them to Tranquillity Base, but for most doubters, clear images should do the trick.Of course there are reasonably clear pictures of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 LMs (and at least one lunar rover parked nearby) taken by the cameras in the CSM, but nobody ever seems to publicize them. Why not? |
collocation
Member Posts: 387
From: McLean, VA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 09-16-2007 03:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Obviousman:
To the reasonable person that makes sense.
That is my point, these hoax folks are not reasonable, just by the fact that it is being discussed on this site gives them some measure, be it small in my mind, credibility. |
Novaspace
Member Posts: 434
From: Tucson, AZ USA
Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted 09-16-2007 08:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
And since it appears the moon landings are not being presented in history classes anymore...
The moon landings not part of schools' curricula? That's ominous and troubling.Most of the 110-odd teacher in space candidates are in powerful educational positions now, in their respective states, with control over the curricula. I know many of them. Let me do some research. |
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-17-2007 05:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
The Apollo "hoax" issue will disappear when the first clear pictures of Apollo hardware on the surface of the Moon are returned by the flotilla of new spacecraft being sent to the Moon over the coming years.
Nope. Let me predict — and I am not the first — that when our first new images of the Apollo artifacts come in, they will be claimed by the HBs as fake. The claims will involve something like this: Trying to prove these nutters wrong is almost impossible. All you can do is to show people how to research such matter for themselves. |
albatron
Member Posts: 2750
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 09-17-2007 07:48 AM
While I sadly agree, I had to chuckle at your phraseology oft heard elsewhere as well, and about equally as valuable.When you have an assistant principal of an elementary school get vehement in her beliefs that we hoaxed it all, it is scary that you realize the affect on kids. I watched her argue with Yury Usachev about the Van Allen belt. He explains science, she blows it off. Because she read it on the internet so it MUST be true! Some of these folks, their minds are made up and that's all there is to it. Then there are those who make a buck off it and don't truly believe it, also. |
kimmern123
Member Posts: 83
From: Norway
Registered: Dec 2006
|
posted 09-17-2007 02:45 PM
I've read this thread with great interest, and I have myself had to "defend" the Apollo-legacy from hoax believers that based their beliefs on Bart Sibrel's videotapes. The moon landings are barely covered in Norwegian history books in school. Last year we spent six months on the Cold War and guess what, the space race got only a small paragraph with about four sentences. It only said the U.S. landed on the moon and that the Soviets were embarrassed. That's it. But I agree with Robert that you can't say kids today don't care about whether or not what they're seeing on TV/internet is correct. Most people I know don't even know who Neil Armstrong is (and that even includes people who remember seeing the landings on TV as a child. Many only remember the Norwegian TV commentator). I think it basically boils down to that it gives some people the attention they desperately want, and I think for many it gives them a feeling of being smarter than everyone else, since they have uncovered the terrible "truth" and they are the only ones that manage to piece together the puzzle. I just don't get why people think it was impossible to go to the moon in the 60s and 70s. If you have the guts, the hardware, the money and the minds many things are possible, including going to the moon! Some people just don't want to get that, even if they know it to be the most logical solution. To Bart Sibrel and the other hoax-promoters I don't even think they believe it themselves. It's just for the attention and the money. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-17-2007 05:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Obviousman:
They faked the new images, doofus! They faked them the first time, so of course they faked the images of the supposed hardware left behind.
Who are "they"? Would new Japanese images be fake? New Russian images? New Chinese images? I agree that nothing will convince the mad or the bad. But a steady flow of evidence will inevitably prevent people who don't know much about the subject from getting misled. Perhaps when casual surfers keep encountering pictures of Apollo hardware on the moon, taken by people who aren't in the pay of the US government and in some cases don't much like America, they might begin to think for themselves. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 09-17-2007 05:20 PM
I am not sure why there is that much of a surprise that some people believe the events were faked. When most six year olds today have devices with more memory than was found in the computers on board the command module, actually fathoming the missions becomes difficult to do with some. It was a staggering accomplishment.Further, many people have a disconnect at some level with reality and want to believe the strange. The JFK assassination conspiracy theories is a cottage industry. For those old enough, at the same time as the lunar landings, "Chariots of the Gods," speaking of past alien visits to Earth, was a huge seller believed by many. Even today, half the population of the United States (according to Gallop) simply ignores science and believes that mankind started with a deity's formation of Adam and Eve. On this line, I suspect that part of the reason that the moon hoax people are not shouted down is for the same reason that most scientists refuse to be drawn into debates on creationism? They view an agreement to even enter into such discussions as a negative because people will view an agreement to debate the issue as granting credibility to those advocating the hoax position. |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1940
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-17-2007 06:56 PM
I have some input on two points: the moon landings being part of school curriculum, and people knowing who Neil Armstrong is. There is a wide range of curricula thought in different districts and grades within districts. And there are many textbooks used to teach this material. I don't know how typical my county is, but when I taught 7th grade social studies, we had to cover Reconstruction to the present day. The space program was mentioned in the textbook, when we had two weeks to cover the 1960s, it just isn't possible to spend as much time on that glorious, inspiring story as we'd like. This year I am teaching fourth grade. Our science curriculum includes the solar system. The students are learning great stuff about the moon (phases, why gravity is weaker, huge temperature range, etc.) and then we'll be on to the planets (not Pluto!), the Sun, asteroids, comets, meteors, etc. BUT they will certainly learn about the space program as we learn about the natural science. As for Neil Armstrong, during the first week of school I bought from eBay a Frank Borman autograph. I had it shipped to the school and showed it to the students as an example of what they could bring in for the "Five Things in a Bag" they were going to bring to show their interests. They liked it, but one student asked "Do you have a Neil Armstrong?" When I told them yes, they just about fell out of their chairs. So most of my nine-year-old students have heard of Neil Armstrong. They'll know a lot more of the astronauts in the next month. By the way, I will NOT say "Some people think the moon landings were faked, but here is some proof they were not..." because studies have shown that at least a couple of them will only remember "the moon landings were faked." I'll just show them plenty of facts and photos. |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1940
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-19-2007 05:04 AM
Well, bad news: yesterday as we were finishing up a lesson on those basic moon facts mentioned above, one of my brightest students said, "Aren't there suspicious things about the photographs they took that show that they were faked?" AAAAARGH. I said that he had probably seen some junky websites that said that (although for all I know it was a family member), but no, humans flew to the moon. We were out of time, but I don't think I would have said much more anyway. Hopefully showing them footage and astronauts talking about their experience will ease his suspicions. Ten-year-old conspiracy theorists. I don't get paid enough for this. |
fabfivefreddy
Member Posts: 1067
From: Leawood, Kansas USA
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted 09-19-2007 11:03 AM
The length of this thread best explains why this type of stuff will always "sell." |
Peter S
Member Posts: 101
From: Toronto, Ontario , Canada
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 09-19-2007 12:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Of course there are reasonably clear pictures of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 LMs (and at least one lunar rover parked nearby) taken by the cameras in the CSM, but nobody ever seems to publicize them. Why not?
Never seen these... anyone have them? |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4208
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 09-19-2007 05:00 PM
I caught a few minutes of NASA TV this evening showing Dave Scott dropping a hammer and feather that subsequently hit the ground at the same time.That is one hell of a neat trick to pull off in a film studio. Oh bugger me, I forgot; it was a fake feather made of lead! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-19-2007 07:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Of course there are reasonably clear pictures of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 LMs (and at least one lunar rover parked nearby) taken by the cameras in the CSM, but nobody ever seems to publicize them. Why not?
The clearest orbital images, at least that I am aware of, can be seen on Exploring the Apollo Landing Sites. While the location of the LM and rover paths can be pinpointed (as the linked website shows), I wouldn't describe these as "reasonably clear." Are these the images you were referring to? |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-19-2007 08:15 PM
It's a slow business trawling through that site via dial-up, but I did find a picture of the Apollo 17 landing site in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. I agree the little white dot casting a shadow is not going to convince a skeptic, but an open-minded person seeing that shadow-casting "dot" at the Apollo 17 landing site might just put two and two together and make four. Slightly better images can be found, for instance on pages 25-51 and 25-52 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report. The latter is a 100x enlargement of an orbital photograph (probably a panoramic camera image) and is clear enough to show the LM as a bright blob casting a distinct shadow; the rover as a smaller blob nearby, the ALSEP instruments and a line of disturbed ground running between the LM and ALSEP sites. The images on page 25-51 show the Apollo 15 landing site from orbit both before and after landing. Again, I think an open-minded person seeing the obvious bright disturbance at the precise co-ordinates of the landing would put two and two together and make four. |
Novaspace
Member Posts: 434
From: Tucson, AZ USA
Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted 09-20-2007 03:09 PM
One major point that Phil, the Bad Astronomer, brought up at Spacefest was that there are different "points of disbelief" among moon hoaxers.Some agree we went to the moon, but couldn't have landed. Some think we didn't even go to the moon. Some think we've never been in space. The latter people are hopeless, and probably still think the world is flat, or Paul's dead; but the others can be reasoned with, or "blinded with science." |
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-20-2007 09:50 PM
Does anyone have some detail on why NASA cancelled the anti-hoax book? I know that there was an uproar, claims that the $15,000 was being wasted on such a book... but where did the uproar come from? Congress? Letter to NASA? I'm interested in why. If I had the money, I'd commission such a book myself — not only debunking all the points the HBs raise, but also showing that many of the HB proponents are far from being forthright and honest. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-20-2007 10:32 PM
It was canceled because it was deemed unnecessary and when given further consideration, a poor idea. Setting aside the fact that if there really was a demand for such then it could have and would have been done commercially, what better way to bolster the hoaxers, who thrive off attention, then to validate their efforts by suggesting that their conspiracy theories merited debunking?Besides, there are warehouses full of titles already in print that debunk most of the hoaxers claims: namely, elementary school science textbooks. |
Rodina
Member Posts: 836
From: Lafayette, CA
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 09-20-2007 11:12 PM
There are two things to do with a moon hoaxer (legal, anyway): - Tell them that they're an idiot. There's not enough of that in this world.
- Send them here; it's a particular good resource because it can explain stuff (particularly on the photographs) that isn't obvious, like why the marked lines in the glass "disappear" when against a white background, etc.
It's about the most comprehensive hoax-debunking site out there, taking on everything from the "science" of the radiation belt "problem" to the "evidence" of "faked" photographs. |
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-21-2007 08:57 AM
Some wise words there.Thanks again for all the replies. Lest I upset some of the other forum members, perhaps this topic has run it course. In closing, however, a favourite comic of mine... |
R.Glueck
Member Posts: 115
From: Winterport, Maine, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 09-22-2007 10:58 AM
The cartoon is great! I saw Buzz at a National Science Teachers Conference. When somebody at the open mike asked him how to respond to the idiots who debate the Apollo missions, Buzz simply said, "People have to take responsibility for their own intellect. I was there, along with 11 other people. If they don't want to accept that, with all the evidence available, including the rocks, that's their problem." I may have paraphrased a bit, but that was the content. I have to agree with Buzz and some of the other responses cited above. By not dignifying the assertions by holding them up as worthy of response, you deflate them. Similarly, people get tired of being regarded by everyone around them as a complete moron. What do you do with garbage? You throw it away. |
advertisement