"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
| Written by Nathan Jones

.... and spammed indiscriminately without any further creative thought.

| Subject: (1) Forward and Intent

Regardless of intent, the product is an uncritical rehash of the writings of
people with little education and lots of time. It's all wrapped up in an
elaborate attempt to shift the burden of proof and dumped unmercifully at
regular intervals with the same dead links.

| Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof. Jones believes that if he shows
someone else's case is not 100% airtight, it cannot hold and therefore his
raw conjecture must be considered. Though he refers to the "scientific
method" he does not employ it, nor can he correctly describe it. He knows
nothing at all whatsoever of the historical method, which is the application
of the scientific method to historical questions.

| Subject: (4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea.

This FAQ is an excellent example of buying into dumb ideas. Jones has been
exhaustively shown the errors of all or most of these points, yet he
ignorantly repeats them time after time.

| Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?

Jones just declares that the stars would have been a "magnificent sight"
from the moon without showing how or why that's expected.

| Subject: (6) The flag waves.
| Subject: (7) There's no dust on the lander footpads

These are Jones' sacrificial lambs. They're the more ludicrous of the hoax
claims so by rejecting them he cajoles his readers into believing he is
reasonable and listens to criticism.

| Subject: (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio
| broadcasts?

Jones has no understanding of what makes a rocket make noise. Hence he
drags up one brief description and photograph which another author misquotes
and misinterprets, and attempts to make all data fit that one
unrepresentative example.

Jones is unable to discuss evidence that contradicts his conclusion. He is
completely ignorant of the notion of noise-cancellation microphones and
conveniently ignores that the astronauts were wearing their helmets at the
time.

| Subject: (9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?

Jones has no understanding of what makes a rocket plume visible, nor of
factors like photographic exposure that affect the visibility of a plume
from one circumstance to another. Like most layman, he has the relationship
between nozzle ratio and plume dispersal completely backwards.

| Subject: (10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its
| effects?

Again, Jones has no understanding of the fluid dynamics of a rocket plume.
He simply ignores the many statements of experts that contradict his
conclusion.

All his statements regarding rocket propulsion derive from his uneducated
interpretation of one single photograph of a rocket engine firing. He is
unable to intelligently discuss any other evidence.

| Subject: (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?

Jones here tries to impose his uneducated and inexperienced notions of what
proper testing should consist of, upon the developers of the lunar module.

Despite being given the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of people
who can give him first-hand knowledge about the purpose and operation of the
LLTVs, he stubbornly clings to his own opinions, which are not the least
supported by fact.

Jones quotes Jim Collier regarding dimensions of LM hatches and the supposed
impossibility of getting a space suit through the hatch. But Collier was so
frankly stupid that he doesn't even know which hatches the astronauts were
intended to use while wearing suits, where the lunar module was supposed to
go, and many other basic facts.

The LM that Collier measured was LTA-8A, which was a mockup specifically
used on earth to test egress/ingress procedures. Literally hundreds of
people witnessed space-suited astronauts and test subjects going in and out
of that vehicle in a vacuum chamber. Collier simply measures a suit with
the arms arranged for maximum breadth, measures the hatch, and claims fraud.
He never actually attempted to fit a suit through the hatch.

Jones says he does not have any reason to doubt Collier, even though he
admits Collier was underinformed and did not do proper research.

| Subject: (12) Where's the blast crater?

Jones refuses to give any justification other than this handwaving for the
expectation of a crater or other surface effect other than what was seen.
Jones says the photographs of Apollo 11's plume effects on the surface are
wrong, but he can't say how or why.

| Subject: (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.

Jones can only explain why it acts "strange" in one dimension, not why it
acts "strange" in two or three dimensions. He cannot explain the lack of an
aerosol cloud.

| Subject: (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon right?

Red herring. Jones simply tries to cast doubt, as if that refutes the
conclusion.

| Subject: (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof
| right?

Jones simply tries to cast doubt. He cannot show that his conjectural
explanation is any better at explaining the laser rangefinging data.

| Subject: (16) Why don't they point the HST at the landing sites?

Another sacrificial lamb.

| Subject: (17) The Russians had to be in on it right?

Jones dumps a technical-sounding word salad on the reader without explaining
any of the terms and how they could have been -- or were -- used to fake any
part of the Apollo record. He's handwaving, hoping you won't question him
on it.

| Subject: (18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?

Jones misses the point. These missions show a progression of testing and
complexity that make it more plausible the landings succeeded. Many people
pay attention only to Apollos 11 and later.

| Subject: (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.

Jones cannot name the "experts". He cannot discuss radiation based on his
own knowledge. He cannot give any actual flare data from the period in
question. He cannot even reconcile the inconsistencies in these statements.
That's because he stole them wholesale from David Wozney (who doesn't
understand them either) and Ralph Rene (who refuses to discuss his findings
in public).

Finally Jones cannot explain why Dr. Van Allen himself, an eminent expert in
space radiation, specifically repudiates this claim.

| Subject: (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.

Jones cannot discuss the particulars of the photometry arguments he
presents. He cannot show a single equation or response curve that supports
his argument. It's pure handwaving.

| Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows and
| perspective.

Same straw men as he brought up more than a year ago.

| In aS11-40-5903.jpg there is a strong lighting hot spot...

Explained. Jones changed horses.

| Try looking at as11-40-5902.jpg

Explained. Same erroneous assumptions, different photo.

| What about the following images, 10075741.jpg and
| 10075742.jpg.

Explained and duplicated empirically. Jones simply says it "ought not" to
be that way. He cannot account for the empirical evidence to the contrary.

| 10075841.jpg. There are many more examples of images that are
| not right and which may be described as fakes.

But Jones will not provide any more.

| Of course the whole debacle is explained away as human error in
| the editing room by debunkers.

Jones doesn't explain why this is a

| Next have a look at AS14-64-9089.

Explained and empirically shown in another of Jones' sample photos. Jones
provides evidence that disputes his own conclusions!

| Subject: (22) What still film was used?

Jones claims to be a photographer, but cannot describe the difference
between emulsion and base -- a basic principle. If he could do that, he
would be able to reconcile the testimony he says is contradictory.

| Subject: (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?

Jones attempts to curry favor by invoking Sakharov's theories where they
don't belong. For thermodynamic purposes there is no heat in space and
space may be considered a perfect vacuum even though there's stuff in it.
The description Jones offers is thoroughly ignorant from the point of view
of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

Here Jones is trying to portray his enemies as unknowledgeable because they
are unfamiliar with this highly theoretical notion in physics. Jones claims
he is an expert in the "queen of sciences," which I suppose is physics. But
it appears he has only a passing acquaintance with some of the more
far-reaching and esoteric ideas in phyics. It's obvious he has no
understanding of any practical physics.

| Subject: (24) The noon day temperature misconception.

This is something like the second or third attempt Jones has made to fortify
this point. Every time he thoroughly misunderstands the most basic element
of heat transfer that applies to his argument. He cannot understand that
the rate at which the sun's angle changes has a drastic effect on how fast
the surface will be heated by the sun -- a much greater effect than how long
the sun shines continuously on it.

If there had been any doubt over Jones' understanding of basic physics, his
repeated commission of the same basic error should answer it. The notion of
view factors (or form factors, or configuration factors, depending upon
whose text you read) is as fundamental to radiant heat transfer as gravity
is to ballistics, or physical strength is to ballet dancing. It is simply
impossible to believe that Jones can be an expert in physics and not know
about view factors in radiant heat transfer. In fact, he should be able to
quantitatively compute it, along with the thermodynamics equations to bring
the lunar surface into thermal equilibrium. Yet despite all this professed
expertise we see none of the rigor, and only an incorrect smattering of the
theory.

| Subject: (25) How much insulation does it take to keep an
| astronaut warm?

Nothing much to say here.

| Subject: (26) Can the Moon rocks be faked?

Straw man. Jones discusses how some samples might be faked, but cannot
discuss how all samples could be faked. He says certain tests are not 100%
reliable, but does not say how reliable they actually are. This is all
intended to cast doubt.

| Subject: (27) Unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?

Again Jones merely casts doubt without showing how any other explanation is
more plausible. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of
historical proof.

| Subject: (28) The Eagle landing site anomalies.

Jones examines only a portion of the evidence. His theory ignores fully
half of the still photography, all of the video record, and all the
telemetry. Much of that strongly contradicts his statements.

Jones believes that by casting doubt upon what he considers to be the
strongest evidence of Apollo's authenticity, he has injured its value as
proof. This would hold only if the evidence were expected to stand up to
some absolute standard of proof that is necessarily very high. And Jones
has no problem imposing that arbitrary standard upon the Apollo evidence.
He seems to believe that Apollo evidence should be discounted even if it's
merely "possible" that something else might have happened, no matter the
complete lack of evidence that it happened in any other way.

Jones loads down the Apollo missions with an impossibly high standard of
proof, turning his entire FAQ into nothing more than a lengthy and ignorant
straw man.

Even if a proposition to explain a historical event cannot be shown to be
100% reliable, or 100% consistent, or 100% unfakable, it is still held as
the prevailing conclusion if, despite those flaws, it is still the most
reliable, consistent, and plausible among all those offered. Jones tacitly
offers the conclusion that the landings were faked. But he provides
absolutely no evidence for it. He foolishly believes his case is proven
simply because he believes he has knocked a few dings in the Apollo record.

Like all conspiracy theorists, Jones is unable to make an argument for his
claims because he has no clue what a proper argument consists of.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org