Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Given the recent navigation around the moon, this topic seems to have resurfaced. Here we have deniers, such as Marcus Allen ~vs~ Dr Tony Cook of Aberystwyth University, explaining their arguments re: gravity, photography, shadow, wind, stars, radiation, craters, computers and lasers. Uploaded recently.

 

[JayUtah]

Those are some great experiments out there in the California desert. That American presenter sure knows his stuff. And handsome, too, don't you think?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Those are some great experiments out there in the California desert. That American presenter sure knows his stuff. And handsome, too, don't you think?

Humble too!

 

[Vixen]

Those are some great experiments out there in the California desert. That American presenter sure knows his stuff. And handsome, too, don't you think?

You're kidding, right? The Paul Newman lookalike..?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm sorry but I could only watch a few minutes of this ◊◊◊◊.

For the landings to be a HOAX you have to explain (at the very least) why the USSR went along with and how NASA expected not to be exposed if hey did not get everything correct about the Lunar conditions.

 

[theprestige]

I'll be watching this thread closely, to see if anyone comes up with a claim or a rebuttal that wasn't already done to death on ApolloHoax over a decade ago.

There's only so many times you can see the same question, with no answer forthcoming, before the question itself gets tiresome.

 

[Vixen]

This is quite timely, as Marcus Allen died recently.

 

[Norman Alexander]

This is quite timely, as Marcus Allen died recently.

That's no reason to drag a dead horse out of the grave and flog it yet again.

 

[JayUtah]

This is quite timely, as Marcus Allen died recently.

No.

The meat of that show was shot in 2003, more than twenty years ago. He was wrong then. He was wrong before that. He was wrong since that time until his death. Nothing at all is made more timely or accurate about those claims just because he died.

Bill Kaysing is dead too. Ralph René is also dead. They were egregiously wrong while they were alive. Nothing about that changed now that they are dead, and there is no reason to bring up long-debunked garbage again and again at the drop of a hat. That Allen died recently is a current event that bears note. That he's been constantly wrong about something for decades is not a current event.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry but I could only watch a few minutes of this ◊◊◊◊.

Skip past the sensationalism and get to the part where experts debunk the claims. That show is ultimately not a pro-hoax program.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Maybe we can facilitate some kind of communication with experts on the subject. Say, from Estonia?

 

[lionking]

No.

The meat of that show was shot in 2003, more than twenty years ago. He was wrong then. He was wrong before that. He was wrong since that time until his death. Nothing at all is made more timely or accurate about those claims just because he died.

Bill Kaysing is dead too. Ralph René is also dead. They were egregiously wrong while they were alive. Nothing about that changed now that they are dead, and there is no reason to bring up long-debunked garbage again and again at the drop of a hat. That Allen died recently is a current event that bears note. That he's been constantly wrong about something for decades is not a current event.

In Vixen’s judgement regurgitating debunked rubbish like this is the role of the True Skeptic.

 

[theprestige]

Skip past the sensationalism and get to the part where experts debunk the claims. That show is ultimately not a pro-hoax program.

As a self-styled aficionado of the genre, my questions are, do any new claims get made? Do any new rebuttals get made?

 

[arthwollipot]

As a self-styled aficionado of the genre, my questions are, do any new claims get made? Do any new rebuttals get made?

Yes, I'm interested in the answers to these questions too.

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe we can facilitate some kind of communication with experts on the subject. Say, from Estonia?

The relevant experts are closer than you might think.

In Vixen’s judgement regurgitating debunked rubbish like this is the role of the True Skeptic.

It's worth nothing that he passed, and that he was an avowed Moon landing denier. His death doesn't reinvigorate claims or evidence that were provably wrong when he first made them, and proven wrong between when he first made them and when they were captured for the program.

Then again it’s not clear that this muck is being dredged up again because Allen’s death is timely or because Artemis II is timely.

As a self-styled aficionado of the genre, my questions are, do any new claims get made? Do any new rebuttals get made?

The claims are the same old long-debunked nonsense. As I wrote above, the demonstrative portions of the program were made in 2003. The rebuttals are the same as they have always been, but in this program many of them are demonstrated live on video which had previously never been done. (This was made pre-YouTube.) For example, the presenter shows that it's not impossible to take good photographs with the Apollo Hasselblads without a viewfinder by demonstrating it with an identical camera and lens and then showing the resulting photos. There were a lot of other demonstrations showing that what hoax claimants want to say about light and shadow are just factually wrong.

Similarly in 2008 Mythbusters finally did an episode on the Moon landing hoax, doing even more great demonstrations.

 

[The Atheist]

Moon Hoax is by far the best conspiracy theory.

What other CT gave us a moment to treasure like Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Siebel?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm sorry but I could only watch a few minutes of this ◊◊◊◊.

[spoiler alert] It ends by saying it would have been easier to actually do it than fake it.

Though I know what you mean. It's agonising to watch the cranks regurgitate their specious claims.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does the video or whatever explain away the radar returns from multiple countries, moving object that bounced a return from, oh, say, around the Moon?

 

[theprestige]

Does the video or whatever explain away the radar returns from multiple countries, moving object that bounced a return from, oh, say, around the Moon?

There's only so many times you can see the same question, with no answer forthcoming, before the question itself gets tiresome.

 

[JayUtah]

Does the video or whatever explain away the radar returns from multiple countries, moving object that bounced a return from, oh, say, around the Moon?

No. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. routinely tracked each other's space missions. Other countries tracked the Apollo missions too. It's not covered in the video.

The video was originally made in 2003 by Channel 4 in the U.K. and was shared among several outlets such as NatGeo. The linked version has several updated segments evidently made years later. The U.S. version had interviews with American experts such as Jim Oberg who have been replaced in this version with British contributors.