• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some moon landing hoax questions

UKBoy1977

Thinker
U
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
211
I've been debating with someone who has swallowed the moon landing hoax theories. I have barraged him with rebukes to all his technical points but he is still clinging on to the following 3 points. Could anyone provide some good answers to them?

1)Why did NASA prevent the book?

2)Why pictures from very high strength telescopes / satalites do NOT show the remains left on the moon?

3)Why is Buzz so against swearing on the bible that he landed on the moon?
 
UKBoy1977 said:
I've been debating with someone who has swallowed the moon landing hoax theories. I have barraged him with rebukes to all his technical points but he is still clinging on to the following 3 points. Could anyone provide some good answers to them?

1)Why did NASA prevent the book?

2)Why pictures from very high strength telescopes / satalites do NOT show the remains left on the moon?

3)Why is Buzz so against swearing on the bible that he landed on the moon?
Click to expand...

I don't recall the precise reason for NASA walking away from the book. I think it had something to do with not wanting to add fuel to the fire.

Very simply, the remains there are too small to be seen. There was some talk about training Hubble (I think) on the landing sites. I don't know what happened with that. But to the true woo such images could be faked.

The Buzz thing sounds like an urban legend. Though I recall some woo thrusting a bible at him and he being rightly indignant.

Your friend sounds like a woo. A test of wooness: Ask him what evidence it would take to make him change his mind. Make him be specific.

You might also ask him to explaimn, specifically, how it is possible that the President of the US can not get a secret BJ in the privacy of his office yet somehow a million people can be part of a vast conspiracy. This includes the Russians who monitered the communications which undeniably came from the moon. I'd really like to know the answer to this one. In my experience this is a killer argument.
 
Thanks for that. I thought about asking him what evidence he would require to be convinced but I know he will just say he wants answers to all his questions.

Problem is whatever answer you give him he won't accept he just says 'That is what they say, but they are lying'. So his position is rock solid, evidence for his theory is true, evidence is against is just 'their lies'.

The most annoying thing is trying to keep your cool when he is accusing me of being 'closed-minded' and 'easily led'!

And by the way, he isn't a friend, just someone on another forum. I like to think none of my friends could be so illogical as this guy!
 
Say that if his position is non falsifiyable (ie. it cannot be rejected) then he holds a belief that is more commonly referred to as religion and there is no point in discussing it.

Ask him about the BJ though:D
 
Hi UKBoy

I think that this article deals with the first two questions:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982142.html

On the third point, there are a large number of reports suggesting that Aldrin punched a guy who asked him to swear on the Bible that the landing took place. Aldrin claims that he was acting in self-defence having been assaulted by the Bible wielding doubter. Certainly the courts seemed to have accepted this because no charges were bought against Aldrin. I don't think refusing to swear on the Bible on that single occasion and under those circumstances equates to Aldrin being generally against the principle of affirming his moon landing with the Bible. Has anybody else asked him if he would do this?

regards

Stumpy
 
He really did punch the guy in the nose. Hilarious, a 36 year old decked by a guy, what, 76?

I think that that guy had been badgering him to take an oath and Buzz had finally had enough.

But consider: If you had been a lead player in the biggest hoax in history, involving 100,000+ people, would you hesitiate to take a stupid oath?
 
I was pretty impressed a couple of years ago when Buzz decked that guy. Here's the situation, as I recall. This conspiracy nut had been writing that Buzz et al. faked the landings - in other words, that Buzz was a liar. Then one day when Buzz was walking along minding his own business, this guy comes up and taunts him with "will you swear on this bible?" Buzz did the honorable thing and decked him.

Your question #2 about the telescopes and landing site has been answered.

For question #1, what book did NASA prevent?
 
UKBoy1977 said:
I've been debating with someone who has swallowed the moon landing hoax theories. I have barraged him with rebukes to all his technical points but he is still clinging on to the following 3 points. Could anyone provide some good answers to them?

1)Why did NASA prevent the book?
Click to expand...
NASA is not preventing the book. They are simply not backing it as an official NASA activity. When it was first announced that they would pursue the book, they took heat because a number of people felt their job was space exploration, not marketing.
 
UKBoy1977 said:
3)Why is Buzz so against swearing on the bible that he landed on the moon?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how religious Buzz Aldrin is but I know that some Christians are touchy about the whole swearing on the Bible thing.

Personally I attribute the punch out to being sick of hearing the whole Moon hoax crap for 30 years and finally having enough. I can't blame him. If I'd done something as well documented as landing on the moon and kooks were claiming that I'd not done that, after 30 years, I'd probably have reached my boiling point.
 
Well I think it makes perfect sense.

Clearly, Aldrin would have no difficulty in lying for more than 30 years about his part in a grand global conspiracy (and the world's most elaborate hoax).

However, to "swear" on the bible once at the demand of a complete stranger (and obvious fruitcake) would obviously be too much for any man to bear. No wonder he crumpled.
 
CurtC said:
I was pretty impressed a couple of years ago when Buzz decked that guy. Here's the situation, as I recall. This conspiracy nut had been writing that Buzz et al. faked the landings - in other words, that Buzz was a liar. Then one day when Buzz was walking along minding his own business, this guy comes up and taunts him with "will you swear on this bible?" Buzz did the honorable thing and decked him.
Click to expand...
Even worse, Bart Sibrel (the man whose face intercepted Buzz's fist) lied to Buzz saying he was from some legitimate news agency to set up an interview. Buzz and his daughter went to give an interview and Sibrel ambushed them, jumping out of the bushs, sticking a Bible in Buzz's chest and demanding he swear on it. Buzz tried to just walk away, shielding his daughter from the over 6 foot 200 something pound Sibrel but Bart wouldn't let it go. So Aldrin slugged him. Sibrel staggered back and Buzz escorted his daughter away. The local police department decided not to press charges against Buzz.

The kicker is that just like the sleezeball reporter in Die Hard, Bart's first reaction was to ask if the cameraman "got it." He was obviously just in it as a publicity stunt. Note that Sibrel believes that Aldrin and Armstrong don't give interviews and that this is evidence of a guilty conscience... actually they don't give interviews to conspiracy theorists, and I take it as evidence that they don't like dealing with lunatics.

As Ed mentioned, Bad Astronomy has vast amounts of info on this. There were several threads on the BB over there at the time that have more info that I can currently recall.

As to 1) well, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. If NASA does nothing they get complaints that they're not answering the questions, if they put a book out on the subject they get complaints that they're making it seem like there's more to the story than there really is. I'm not sure why exactly they pulled funding from the book (was going to be written by Jim Oberg, IIRC), but I think the main reason was that it would be seen as legitimizing the moon hoax people's position (i.e. "See, NASA had to respond to us, we must have a point!")

For #2, no earth or NEO based telescope has the resolution to picture the equipment left on the moon. See Bad Astronomy for the details, but even the Hubble couldn't do it. It's not a case of just nobody bothering or looking but not finding, it's a case of technical infeasibility.
 
The Bad Astronomer is excellent.
My friend knows a certain reality show host/ comedian who happens to be an atheist. That's great, right?
Only problem is - he thinks the moon landing was a hoax. He argued it out with him, tried to reason, but to no avail.
Moon Hoax guy even sent us some awful Fox special on how everything about the moon landing was a fake, and we even watched it one night for laughs. We sent him links to Phil's site, everything. How hard is it to figure out we've been to the moon?!
He's a skeptic who's just too skeptical.
 
The Daily Shows interview of Sibrel was a classic, he was stunned when they claimed the shot of him being hit by Buzz was a fake.
 
MoeFaux said:
How hard is it to figure out we've been to the moon?!
He's a skeptic who's just too skeptical. [/B]
Click to expand...
There's a guy at work who insists that the moon landings didn't happen as commonly believed. He's more of the "governments lie, so obviously they must have lied about part of it" type of thinker. After a couple conversations I think I managed to convince him that it was actually simpler to have done it as stated rather than the kind of ad hoc theories he was coming up with (automated probe to retrieve samples, didn't use the "real" astronauts, etc.) Eventually I either convinced him or he just got fed up with me and stopped mentioning it. :D
 
Reaver said:
The Daily Shows interview of Sibrel was a classic, he was stunned when they claimed the shot of him being hit by Buzz was a fake.
Click to expand...
"Back... and to the left. Back... and to the left..."

(they had to reverse the footage to get the joke to work, but it was indeed a classic)

I loved Jon's comment at the end... "We get questions about whether the people we interview are real. They are." :D
 
In addition to Phil Plait's page...

This is another excellent resource with information for dealing with the moon-hoaxers and their silly claims.
 
Reaver said:
The Daily Shows interview of Sibrel was a classic, he was stunned when they claimed the shot of him being hit by Buzz was a fake.
Click to expand...

:roll:

"I can see the matte lines!"
 
You should kick your friend in the thigh with a good Muay Thai round house. Then tell him that you faked the kick. His bruise and pain is also faked, as well as his memories of the event. Ahh.. if only it were legal to beat up the stupid.
 
The real joke about Bart Sibrel is that he presents all his "evidence" as incontrovertible proof that the Apollo landings were faked yet he's prepared to ignore all the "evidence" if the astronauts will just swear on a bible?

What kind of sense does this make. If all the astronauts swore on bibles that they really did go to the moon then Bart is prepared to accept that his explanations for the converging shadows, flag blowing in the wind, inconsistent lighting, deadly radiation exposure, etc, etc are all wrong?

The fact is that every one of his childish arguments have been explained or disproven. Some of his "proof" is so ridiculous the average 12 year old sees through it. Also Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14) did swear on Bart's bible but he never mentions that. Perhaps he believes that Apollo 14 went to the moon but none of the others did? Or perhaps he doesn't believe a single word of the crap he is peddling but will continue to peddle it as long as there are chumps out there who are willing to buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom