Moon Landing Conspiracy

[AZAtheist]

Does that mean World War II never really happened?

It means Joe Rogan is logically challenged.

 

[Panhead56]

I would like to recommend "A man on the moon" by Andrew Chaikin to all that are really interested in the moon landings. Really gives you the A to Z on the Apollo program. Including the things you really don't want to know, like how they handled the human "waste" onboard. Yuck! I'm not a space expert, but none the less found it a great book about the people, both the astronauts and all those on the ground, that made it happen.

From an engineering point of view I believe one could say that going to the moon was both easy and difficult at the same time "Easy" because the rocketry had been tried and tested allready with unmanned trips, difficult because no one had actually done it before, so NASA could not be 100% shure that their asssesment of the condition of the moon surface, etc, was correct.
I really respect those guys who went there, knowing that if something really bad happend to their ship, there was absolutely nobody around to help them home. I believe that also says something about the trust the astronauts must have had in the folks on the ground that designed and built everything.

 

[Ranb]

Two of the best sites to visit to see information on the "Apollo Hoax" are www.clavius.org, , and www.badastronomy.com .

Most of the people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed are the kind of person who, if they do not know how something was done, then it could not have been done by humans. Therefore aliens built the pyramids, man has not gone out of low earth orbit, and engineers use alien technology for advanced aircraft and spaceships.

They usually begin with a conclusion that the landings were hoaxed based on viewing a website or video that says they were. Then they refuse to learn anything for themselves about spaceflight.

Ranb

 

[hubbub2]

I think they should all ask Buzz Aldrin about it. He had the best answer I've seen to ANY conspiracy theory.

Having seen the video of Mr. Aldrin responding to one annoying hoax-believer, I think Mr. Aldrin deserves an ice cold beer...the size of Lake Superior.

 

[Obviousman]

I just listened to the free download (thanks Penn!) and I really enjoyed the show - but I was a little frustrated by it.

- Penn did let Joe overtalk / interrupt Phil too much. Even so, it should have been able to be countered.

- Things were being quoted as fact when they were inaccurate.

- I think Phil might have a little problem in explaining complex subjects (on air) to a level which most people can understand.

- Phil is an expert in many aspects of Apollo knowledge, but he did lack knowledge in many aspects. Perhaps this is where it is easier being a layman; I know the recorded history and reasoning regarding all the issues that Joe raised. I could have easily debated Joe on the issues he raised. On the other hand, if I was asked to produce detailed scientific evidence on a particular aspect, I would have to have an expert in that field explain WHY what I said was correct.

 

[Rrramon]

I've been under the impression that although Joe Rogan is quite familiar and knowledgable about many CTs, that he doesn't actually believe in any of them. (That is to say, like many JREFers he knows lots about them because he's entertained by the idiocy and sheer lunacy that surrounds them).

Joe has some great bits in his stand-up act bashing Creationism, Noah's Ark and the like, but he has a very poor BS filter when it comes to conspiracies, UFOs, etc. He still thinks the jury's out on whether we went to the moon (he posted a clip from a British documentary on his message board that showed a couple of glints above one of the astronauts and said it was evidence that they were being suspended by wires), and he's started a couple threads calling the collapse of WTC7 suspicious, citing Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote as an example.

So, while he happens to be one of the funnest comics working today, like many talented people, he also happens to be batshit insane.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Chaikin's book

I would like to recommend "A man on the moon" by Andrew Chaikin to all that are really interested in the moon landings. Really gives you the A to Z on the Apollo program. Including the things you really don't want to know, like how they handled the human "waste" onboard. Yuck! I'm not a space expert, but none the less found it a great book about the people, both the astronauts and all those on the ground, that made it happen.

From an engineering point of view I believe one could say that going to the moon was both easy and difficult at the same time "Easy" because the rocketry had been tried and tested allready with unmanned trips, difficult because no one had actually done it before, so NASA could not be 100% sure that their assessment of the condition of the moon surface, etc, was correct.
I really respect those guys who went there, knowing that if something really bad happend to their ship, there was absolutely nobody around to help them home. I believe that also says something about the trust the astronauts must have had in the folks on the ground that designed and built everything.

It is terrific, and it helped me, a guy who cannot do math, to understand a lot of the engineering of the Apollo missions. It was the basis for the HBO mini-series.

Chaikin himself appears in the first episode of the mini-series as a correspondent hosting "Meet the Press," with James Webb fielding questions on the space race.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Ancient astronauts? HAH!

Two of the best sites to visit to see information on the "Apollo Hoax" are www.clavius.org, , and www.badastronomy.com .

Most of the people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed are the kind of person who, if they do not know how something was done, then it could not have been done by humans. Therefore aliens built the pyramids, man has not gone out of low earth orbit, and engineers use alien technology for advanced aircraft and spaceships.

They usually begin with a conclusion that the landings were hoaxed based on viewing a website or video that says they were. Then they refuse to learn anything for themselves about spaceflight.

Ranb

I get annoyed with these jerks who think that aliens built the pyramids and so on...one of my best pals is an archaeologist and specialist in ancient civilizations, and we've discussed Erich Von Daniken and his nonsense at length. The Egyptians and Mayans were very capable of building pyramids. They had plenty of labor (not all of it Jewish), understood mathematics and simple machines, and were well-organized.

Von Daniken, by the way, was convicted for embezzlement. I guess ancient aliens taught him how to do that.

 

[PixyMisa]

It was disappointing that Penn allowed Joe to consistently interrupt Phil and wouldn't let him get his point across. Joe was overly aggressive and, in spite of his constant statements to the contrary, really goes out of his way to make the conspiracy case.

I was listening to this just now and had to stop to preserve my peace of mind. As you say, a very disappointing effort by Penn (though Michael Goudeau did chip in on the side of sanity).

 

[Ove]

The truth about the Moon Landings

Focus on one of the landing sites - and go to maximum magnification

http://moon.google.com/

Don't say that the google guys don't have a sense of humor.

I have read a lot of books about Apollo and it is fascinating stuff. For a starter i can warmly reccomend "Apollo the Race to the moon" By Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Race...ef=sr_1_5/026-0898298-3130802?ie=UTF8&s=books and then Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option".
To me the best "counter proof" to hoaxers have allways been the russians. The USSR had it's own spaceprogramme, they shot unmanned ROV's and orbited sattelites. They even had a crashprogramme for a manned orbiting and a doomed-from-start moonlander.

The point is they had all the radio and guidance tecnology. They could very clearly determine that the radio transmissions ideed came from the moon and not from a desert in Arizona or whatever the theory is.

AND - it was during the cold war. USA and USSR were NOT friends. I suspect that the russians would have yelled it out very loud if the americans had tried to hoax..

 

[bonavada]

Sky at Night. Moon Hoax Debunked

there is an old edition of the BBC astronomy programme "Sky at Night" up on google that broadly deals with the moon hoax conspiracy.............

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

the sound and pic are poor but if you are used to patrick moore's presenting style you should enjoy it :-]

BV

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Two more good books and good points

Don't say that the google guys don't have a sense of humor.

I have read a lot of books about Apollo and it is fascinating stuff. For a starter i can warmly reccomend "Apollo the Race to the moon" By Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Race...ef=sr_1_5/026-0898298-3130802?ie=UTF8&s=books and then Gene Kranz's "Failure is not an option".
To me the best "counter proof" to hoaxers have allways been the russians. The USSR had it's own spaceprogramme, they shot unmanned ROV's and orbited sattelites. They even had a crashprogramme for a manned orbiting and a doomed-from-start moonlander.

The point is they had all the radio and guidance tecnology. They could very clearly determine that the radio transmissions ideed came from the moon and not from a desert in Arizona or whatever the theory is.

AND - it was during the cold war. USA and USSR were NOT friends. I suspect that the russians would have yelled it out very loud if the americans had tried to hoax..

I love the Murray and Cox book...it even invades my writing. When I refer to the key point of anything I write, I call it the "flight article," and say, "The flight article has got to dominate," which is a chapter heading in the book.

The Kranz book is great, too.

I read somewhere here on this forum, from a highly capable engineer, the point that there was no aspect of the Apollo program that was not possible for American science, engineering, and technology of the time. All of it was basically the next stage of previous work that had been tried, tested, and worked well. There were no massive leaps...it would not be like Confederate troops attacking Union forces at Gettysburg with AK-47s, as in a Harry Turtledove novel.

So there was nothing that needed to be faked at all. The lunar landing was accomplished the way it was supposed to be done...tests, rehearsals, training, and actual missions.

Only someone with a pre-disposition towards paranoia, conspiracy theories, and other lunacy would believe it was faked.

 

[negativ]

I know, it sounds like a weird combination- but Rogan (the guy from Fear Factor) is a conspiracy theorist ONLY on the moon hoax- and is otherwise a very rational individual. To hear him go at it with the guy from badastronomer makes a GOOD show.

I highly suggest listening to it, it's a good discussion.

I listened to that this morning. Rogan sounds almost exactly like every 9/11 CT guy I've ever heard. Rogan's whole spiel is basically an adapted and specialized version of The Chewbacca Defense. It's immune to rational discussion, and like 9/11 CTs, the entire premise is completely goofy.