A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Apollo Hoax FAQ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 2nd 03, 04:18 PM
[email protected] \(formerly\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

Dear Nathan Jones:

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
....

The disinformation and lie source! For your personal favorite
anti-knowledge, come to Nathan Jones! He's right on the price, right on
the corner of sci.astro and alt.moron.

David A. Smith


  #2  
Old November 2nd 03, 06:00 PM
ralph sansbury
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

I read your thoughtful discussion of Collier's points and
they do point to the conclusion along with the decision made
after the disasters and supposedly because of them, to stop such
manned missions.
Opponents of the hoax view are the ones that sound like cranks
an crackpots.
Maybe I too am just trying to be politically correct. I like
to think that it was not a complete hoax, that unmanned missions
were made to retrieve moon rocks as
in the ussr case, and that other good science and aeronautic and
communications techniques came out of this 30billion dollar
effort.


(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:F7apb.131690$gv5.88164@fed1read05...
Dear Nathan Jones:

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
...

The disinformation and lie source! For your personal favorite
anti-knowledge, come to Nathan Jones! He's right on the price,

right on
the corner of sci.astro and alt.moron.

David A. Smith




  #3  
Old November 2nd 03, 09:46 PM
Wally Anglesea™
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 13:00:59 -0500, "ralph sansbury"
wrote:

I read your thoughtful discussion of Collier's points and
they do point to the conclusion along with the decision made
after the disasters and supposedly because of them, to stop such
manned missions.
Opponents of the hoax view are the ones that sound like cranks
an crackpots.
Maybe I too am just trying to be politically correct. I like
to think that it was not a complete hoax, that unmanned missions
were made to retrieve moon rocks as
in the ussr case, and that other good science and aeronautic and
communications techniques came out of this 30billion dollar
effort.


You see that's the mental gymnastics that shows why Moon conspiracy
proponents shouldn't be taken seriously:


Moon Conspiracy Proponent "Apollo didn't go to the Moon"
Critical Thinker: "but what about moon rocks and laser reflectors?"

MCP "Oh, yeah, they sent sekrit unmanned probes to land and retrieve
rocks"

CT: "what about the transmissions, and the tracking stations such as
Parkes"

MCP: "Oh yeah, there was special built in delays in the radio, just
like on radio delays"

CT: "but what about doppler effects?"

MCP: "ahh, they were all part of a conspiracy

CT: "but the number of people involved must have been huge"

MCP: "well, there was a watergate and Irangate conspiracy, and that
was only a few people, so there!"

CT: "But watergate and Irangate leaked like a sieve"

and so it goes.






(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:F7apb.131690$gv5.88164@fed1read05...
Dear Nathan Jones:

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
...

The disinformation and lie source! For your personal favorite
anti-knowledge, come to Nathan Jones! He's right on the price,

right on
the corner of sci.astro and alt.moron.

David A. Smith




--
For the Truth about Planet X,
Phil Plait's excellent summary:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/index.html
  #4  
Old November 2nd 03, 10:29 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

In message , Wally Anglesea™
writes
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 13:00:59 -0500, "ralph sansbury"
wrote:

I read your thoughtful discussion of Collier's points and
they do point to the conclusion along with the decision made
after the disasters and supposedly because of them, to stop such
manned missions.
Opponents of the hoax view are the ones that sound like cranks
an crackpots.
Maybe I too am just trying to be politically correct. I like
to think that it was not a complete hoax, that unmanned missions
were made to retrieve moon rocks as
in the ussr case, and that other good science and aeronautic and
communications techniques came out of this 30billion dollar
effort.


You see that's the mental gymnastics that shows why Moon conspiracy
proponents shouldn't be taken seriously:


Moon Conspiracy Proponent "Apollo didn't go to the Moon"
Critical Thinker: "but what about moon rocks and laser reflectors?"

MCP "Oh, yeah, they sent sekrit unmanned probes to land and retrieve
rocks"

CT: "what about the transmissions, and the tracking stations such as
Parkes"

MCP: "Oh yeah, there was special built in delays in the radio, just
like on radio delays"

CT: "but what about doppler effects?"


Ralph doesn't believe in Doppler effects and delays in transmission. The
speed of light is a myth. That's why NASA has lost so may space probes.
If I was a MCP I wouldn't want him on my side (I think there's a line in
"The Abyss" like that).
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #5  
Old November 3rd 03, 09:57 AM
DrPostman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

A fellow named Allen Morgan posted this over a year ago in
response to why they didn't set off a bomb or leave a big
mirror to prove that they went the


NASA: Oh, Mr. Armstrong, there's one more thing.
Armstrong: What's that.
NASA: We'd like you to take a really, really large bomb with you on
the Lunar Lander. Don't worry, we've budgeted for space. Haven't we
Bob?
Bob: You betcha. 200 tons of TNT.
NASA: 400.
Bob: Oh. 400. Right.
Armstrong: Excuse me, a what?
NASA: Bomb. Really big one.
Armstrong: Might I ask why?
NASA: So that you can set it off on the moon.
Armstrong: And....?
NASA: So that we can see it here on Earth
Armstrong: ??
NASA: Well, it would be really cool. And it would prove you went
there.
Armstrong: Are you out of your mind?
NASA: Don't worry, we have a really long detonator cord that you can
use to set it off.
Armstrong: You bozos think I'm going to land on the moon strapped to
200 tons
Bob: 400 tons:
Armstrong: Shut-up pencil neck. 400 tons of explosive????? Did you
decide that this wasn't difficult enough and you wanted to add some
more danger? Are you guys out of your gourd? What purpose does it
serve? What if it goes off on the descent?
NASA: That would *rock*. Suck. Not rock. It would suck, that would
be tragic.
Armstrong: I can't believe this.
NASA: Well, if you don't like that we can ditch it. We have another
idea.
Armstrong: Oh good.
NASA: We'd like you to take a large mirror up there.
Armstrong: Ah, for laser ranging and such. Excellent science.
NASA: Nah, this is so that we can see it from Earth.
Armstrong: What?!?!? How big is this thing?
NASA: Bob?
Bob: A couple of miles across.
Armstrong: Uh?
Bob: Don't worry, it's mylar. Doesn't weigh more than about 50 tons.
Armstrong: 2 miles?
Bob (excitedly): Well, the moon is quite a long way away. If we want
to be able to see the mirror from Earth then it is going to have to
cover a couple of seconds of arc at least. You can do the math
yourself. I like math.
Armstrong: How the hell am I supposed to spread out a mirror that is 2
*miles* across on the moon?????
NASA: Well, you'll have help.
Aldrin: Don't look at me. I have a bad back.








--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar
  #6  
Old November 3rd 03, 07:20 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ


"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A detailed rebuttal has been posted to alt.astronomy, where it first
appeared in this form on my server. To save the tedium of reading it there,
for those not inclined to follow a lengthy rebuttal, here is a summary.

| THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4 - October 2003
| Written by Nathan Jones

| (1) Forward and Intent

Nathan simply quotes from long-discredited authors, whom he inexplicably
considers serious and well-informed critics.

| (2) Table of Contents
| (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

Nathan refers to something he calls the "scientific method," but the method
he describes bears no resemblance to the principles commonly given that
title.

Further, Nathan rejects the historical method, by which events and their
associated evidence are commonly authenticated by historians. He alludes to
this being recent history, and therefore somehow immune from those
principles.

Nathan simply invents his own method, by which he demands that Apollo
evidence must be absolutely airtight, even against unsubstantiated
assertions based on pure conjecture. By avoiding any burden of proof
himself, and by attempting to place an absurdly ponderous burden of proof on
his opponents, he predictably sets up a rhetorical framework in which he
cannot possibly fail to prove his point. Which, of course, is the absolute
antithesis of the true scientific method.

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

Nathan wants this to apply to Apollo data, that an uncaring an uneduated
public will believe proof that Apollo missions were real. Unfortunately it
also applies to conspiracy theorists. And also unfortunately, the
appropriately educated people of the world -- who are not dumb -- side with
the NASA explanation. It seems that dumbness is what characterizes
believers in hoax theories.

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

Nathan correctly notes they should not be visible in the photographs,
however he inexpicably still holds to the notion that they should have been
dramatically visible to the astronauts. He has refused to consider reasons
why his expectation is not valid.

| (6) The flag waves.

Nathan correctly notes that the flag behaves as physics predicts. (Nathan
has previously taken me to task for failing to acknowledge when he departs
from standard conspiracist arguments.)

| (7) There's no dust on the lander footpads.

Nathan still thinks this is suspicious, but draws no conclusion.

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

Nathan still holds to David Wozney's uneducated evaluations. He has not
considered any of the evidence that contradicts his expectations.

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

Nathan still holds to David Wozney's uneducated evaluations. He has not
considered any of the evidence that contradicts his expectations. Further,
he has not attempted to show that his Titan 2 characterization is valid.

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

Nathan bases his understanding of rocket exhaust behavior on a mistaken
interpretation of one photograph and ignores all other evidence. His
anomalous photograph has been explained. He simply refuses to acknowledge
the explanation.

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

Nathan maintains the implication that the LLRV and LLTV were LM prototypes
and that they should have led to better VTOL technology. He continues to
misrepresent both the nature and the flight record of these vehicles, and
other VTOL experiments, despite having been given specific people to contact
to verify the facts. He simply dodges uncomfortable facts.

He continues to maintain that James Collier's heavily misstated and
deceptive work constitutes a valid challege to Apollo claims. While he
acknowledges Collier's inexpertise and errors, Nathan does not consider that
grounds for distrusting him.

| (12) Where's the blast crater?

Nathan simply says he thinks there should be a different effect on the lunar
regolith, other than what was shown in the photographs. He refuses to
justify this expectation and he has ignored attempts to educate him about
the nature of rocket exhausts.

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

This is basically a subjecive difference of opinion. Nathan maintains that
the footage in question shows evidence of the dust being impeded by air. He
does not explain why the effect he explains by this theory acts only in the
horizontal dimension and not in the vertical. He has not factored the wheel
direction into his theory. He has not explained the lack of an aerosol
cloud very familiar to those of us who live in dusty environments. He has
failed to explain why ballistic movement is much more evident in these
videos than in other "rooster-tail" videos where chaotic flow takes over
much sooner.

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

Nathan fails to consider conversations between non-American ground station
operators and the astronauts. He offers no plausible scenario.

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

Nathan offers only conjecture, not a plausible alternative.

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

Nathan correctly notes that no telescope yet in existence can see Apollo
equipment on the moon.

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

Nathan agrees that it is improbable that the Soviets colluded with the U.S.
to hoax the moon landings.

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

Nathan argues that the same techniques that allegedly were used to fake
later missions could be used to fake these as well. While that is as true
for these missions as for later ones, Nathan misses the intended argument.
The early missions and their successes show that a reasonable program of
incremental testing was used. Apollo 11 was not a suprise success as some
have claimed. It came on the heels of lesser successes.

| (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.

Nathan simply reproduces the long-refuted arguments of David Wozney, who is
not an expert. Nathan does not reconcile his arguments with statements by
known and well-qualified individuals, nor with data obtained by other
countries, nor by the policies of public and private space endeavors that
differ from his predictions.

| (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.

Nathan completely misunderstands and misrepresents the behavior of light.
He mistakenly attempts to equate uniformity of incoming light according to
the solid-angle reckoning with an expectation of uniformity of apparent
brightness in illuminated surfaces. The principles of photometry squarely
dispute Nathan's expectations.

| (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein and perspective.

Nathan requires a conclusive alternative to his unsubstantiated suggestions.
In the first case Nathan once agreed that if the surface had been "swept" by
the exhaust, a brighter apparent surface would result. He has now
apparently withdrawn that agreement (cf. previous point). He has now
apparently attempted to show that the surface could not have been swept as
argued. However, evidence of the sweeping is in the photographs at the
point indicated. If there, regardless of cause, it explains the lighting
anomaly. Nathan does not understand that this constitutes subversion of
support.

Nathan's second photograph is a straightforward example of parallax. He has
simply copied the argument of Aulis authors David Percy and Mary Bennett,
who in turn obtained it from a third party who cannot be contacted for
comment. The argument is the straightforward layman's misalignment of
photographs (perhaps intentional) taken from different positions. The
movement of the photographer while taking them is visible in the LRV
television footage. I can produce just such an "anomaly" using nearby fixed
objects and distant mountains simply by changing locations between
photographs.

Nathan's third example is the long-resolved alleged inconsistency between
EVA video footage. This was determined to have been a feature of Collier's
secondary source, which he neglected to verify. Nathan simply scoffs at the
explanation without attempted to verify or refute it. He has no comment
about its effect in exposing Jim Collier's shoddy research methods.

| (22) What still film was used?

Nathan does not know the difference between emulsion and base, and he does
not know which description refers to which. This was refuted at length and
Nathan has made no attempt to acknowledge the refutation.

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

The comment in question was made in a specific context, and Nathan has here
simply thrown a lot of irrelevant pseudo-science at it in an attempt to
portray the originator of the comment as unknowledgeable. He has not
attempted in any way to refute the comment in its context.

| (24) The noon day temperature misconception.

Nathan here simply repeates his mistake from earlier versions. He was told
that the error in his argument was in his failure to account for the varying
rates of change in the angles of insolation between earth and moon. He has
not addressed that error and instead has committed a new one -- arguing that
insolation at low angles for extended periods will have the effect of
producing comparable heating rates.

Despite being carefully guided to the solution to his problem, Nathan
continues to demonstrate that he has no competence whatsoever in the field
of heat transfer. He has claimed otherwise, but has shown no evidence of
correct understanding.

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

Nathan correctly notes that heat loss is not a problem.

| (26) Can the Moon rocks be faked?

Nathan dispenses with a few straw men (straw rocks?) without proposing how
the most discernible features of moon rocks could have been convincingly
falsified.

| (27) Is unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?

As with the other hypothetical examples, Nathan gives no plausible
alternative.

| (28) The Eagle landing site anomalies (new).

Confronted with the swept area of the lunar surface behind the Apollo 11
lunar module, Nathan attempts to show that a landing scenario that would
produce it is inconsistent with photographic evidence. Rather that discuss
the dozens of photographs of all three landing probes, the telemetry, the
motion picture footage, and the testimony of witnesses -- all of which agree
on a single scenario -- Nathan instead extrapolates his own scenario from
one photograph.

I think it's clear that the aim of Nathan Jones is to kick holes in Apollo
whatever it takes. While it's true he has not fallen into some of the traps
of his predecessors, he nevertheless uses their broken arguments and follows
the same lines of reasoning. There is a clear pattern of ignoring evidence
that doesn't favor a hoax conclusion.

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

  #7  
Old November 3rd 03, 11:14 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

In message , Jay Windley
writes

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...



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

Nathan still holds to David Wozney's uneducated evaluations. He has not
considered any of the evidence that contradicts his expectations.


I'll just note that there's a reference in the Apollo Lunar Surface
Journal to the engine being so quiet they could hear the fuel going into
it.

| (25)


| However,..In order to maintain a normal temperature (37C) the
| human body (naked) would have to radiate about 800 watts of heat to
| the cold sky of space.


I have this surreal image of a naked astronaut. "In space, no-one can
hear you freeze to death".
And I begin to see why Jay Windley maintains an interest. This is too
much fun to ignore.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #8  
Old November 4th 03, 12:40 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ


"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
|
| I'll just note that there's a reference in the Apollo Lunar Surface
| Journal to the engine being so quiet they could hear the fuel going
| into it.

Then Nathan will just claim we should be hearing the fuel flow in the LM
CVRs.

| I have this surreal image of a naked astronaut.

I would have selected another word besides "surreal".

| And I begin to see why Jay Windley maintains an interest. This is
| too much fun to ignore.

Wait until you spend hours re-reading several advanced propulsion texts and
then begging time with Apollo astronauts to have your notion confirmed, only
to have someone like Nathan Jones tell you he won't believe you because he
prefers the answers given by an unresponsive, largely anonymous guy on his
personal web site.

Then spend a couple dozen hours in the deep desert knee-deep in scorpions
with a heavy viewfinder-less Hasselblad shooting guess-focused and
guess-exposed pictures of a sweating, barely conscious actor in a space
suit. Then have someone like Nathan Jones, whose expertise probably doesn't
exceed "point lens away from you for best results," tell you exactly what
should and shouldn't be possible with your camera and film.

It's fun for a while until you realize just how little these people know,
just how little they care to know, just how little they care that they don't
know anything, but just how willing they are to pontificate for the
like-minded. I notice I've made several responses to Jones' most recent
statements. I've yet to see him address any of my comments, while he's
addressed those of several others. I rather suspect I'm being deliberately
ignored. But considering the other evidence and opinions he's had to ignore
in order to pretend to question the Apollo findings, I suppose I'm in
excellent company.

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

  #10  
Old November 4th 03, 01:47 PM
DrPostman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Apollo Hoax FAQ

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:47:22 GMT, oceanblue3889
wrote:



Have you not heard, heards are running and so are animals of
other secular means of congregation.

piddy -- get screwed like care bout cattle or sumpin....



Sobriety never lasts long with you, eh?





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apollo 1 Fire Jokes Nomen Nescio Space Shuttle 5 January 30th 04 01:18 AM
Fox TV's Apollo Moon Hoax Hop David Policy 13 September 19th 03 06:14 AM
Apollo pictures taken from the TV screen Doug... History 0 August 26th 03 08:30 AM
The Collins factor Doug... History 27 August 22nd 03 05:57 PM
Need some help Lectu Apollo program is a hoax? Ben History 0 July 28th 03 11:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.