Half arguments and problems for the hoax

[Willoughby]

I just wanted to talk about some of the arguments hoaxers make and get the thoughts of some people here.  I find that there are a lot of arguments that hoaxers make that are half arguments or just present the same problem for the hoax.

Like, "There are no rover tracks.  Explain that".  I just want to ask them the same thing based on the premise that the mission was actually faked.  Why aren't there any rover tracks?  It's a unexplained issue in their theory as well.  Never mind the fact that these things are actually explained - I'm just talking about the premise of the arguments presenting the same exact problem for both the real Apollo landing AND the faked mission on a set.  Obviously, they don't see the flaw in the logic, but the reality is - if you couldn't explain something IN EITHER context, then how is it evidence that there is only something fishy going on in one of the scenarios?  Does anyone understand what I am saying? There are lots and lots of arguments just like this.

The boot print doesn't match the boot.  If that's the case, then what did they use to create the boot prints on the fake set?  A boot that nobody had access to?  They were all standing around, and someone said, "Hey, we need to put boot prints over here.  Someone run into the prop room and grab a boot so we can make some prints".  "Why don't you just use the shoes you're wearing?".  "Nah.  We need something from the back".  It makes no sense in either scenario why the boot print wouldn't match the boot. 

I once argued with someone who wondered how none of the astronauts ever got sick.  Thought that was fishy.  Well, they didn't get sick while they were faking it either, so how do you explain that?

Then there are the arguments that I call "half arguments" where they can't explain something, and don't explain exactly how it means it is a hoax.  A lot of the photography arguments are like this.  They imply something can't be explained, but then don't explain how you go from that to "the whole Apollo program was faked".  Like, the cross hairs on the photographs and how the overexposure causes the area to bleed over them.  Where do you go from there?  Assuming there is no explanation for it, they still don't explain how they connect that dot with the hoax dot.  All they know is that whatever happened to the photograph that caused this thing they have no explanation for, they DO know that it would not have happened had the mission been real.

I just wanted to vent a little bit.  Anyone have any similar arguments you've come across?

[Cat Not Included]

I just wanted to vent a little bit.  Anyone have any similar arguments you've come across?

I'd be more curious about whether has any DIFFERENT arguments they've come across, because everything I've seen fits your two categories.
 

[bknight]

I just wanted to talk about some of the arguments hoaxers make and get the thoughts of some people here.  I find that there are a lot of arguments that hoaxers make that are half arguments or just present the same problem for the hoax.

Like, "There are no rover tracks.  Explain that".  I just want to ask them the same thing based on the premise that the mission was actually faked.  Why aren't there any rover tracks?  It's a unexplained issue in their theory as well.  Never mind the fact that these things are actually explained - I'm just talking about the premise of the arguments presenting the same exact problem for both the real Apollo landing AND the faked mission on a set.  Obviously, they don't see the flaw in the logic, but the reality is - if you couldn't explain something IN EITHER context, then how is it evidence that there is only something fishy going on in one of the scenarios?  Does anyone understand what I am saying? There are lots and lots of arguments just like this.

The boot print doesn't match the boot.  If that's the case, then what did they use to create the boot prints on the fake set?  A boot that nobody had access to?  They were all standing around, and someone said, "Hey, we need to put boot prints over here.  Someone run into the prop room and grab a boot so we can make some prints".  "Why don't you just use the shoes you're wearing?".  "Nah.  We need something from the back".  It makes no sense in either scenario why the boot print wouldn't match the boot. 

This one is easy to debunk, all one needs to do is to research the EVA equipment and the over boots that were worn match exactly, not the normal boot bottoms for the suits.  They just need a little research instead of claiming "fake"

I once argued with someone who wondered how none of the astronauts ever got sick.  Thought that was fishy.  Well, they didn't get sick while they were faking it either, so how do you explain that?

But they sometimes got sick, Frank Borman in A8, they had med kits in the capsule, again they need to do research.

Then there are the arguments that I call "half arguments" where they can't explain something, and don't explain exactly how it means it is a hoax.  A lot of the photography arguments are like this.  They imply something can't be explained, but then don't explain how you go from that to "the whole Apollo program was faked".  Like, the cross hairs on the photographs and how the overexposure causes the area to bleed over them.  Where do you go from there?  Assuming there is no explanation for it, they still don't explain how they connect that dot with the hoax dot.  All they know is that whatever happened to the photograph that caused this thing they have no explanation for, they DO know that it would not have happened had the mission been real.

This is best summed up by, I don't know how its done(or I don't understand this), therefore it is fake.

I just wanted to vent a little bit.  Anyone have any similar arguments you've come across?

After venting then go get research, or ask questions of guys/girls around here and present the facts.  Most of the Apollo nonsense if from lack of understanding science/technology that was developed/used during Apollo.  And rest assured most of the hard core won't listen to reason, as they know it all.  I have run onto many in the YT channels

[raven]

But they sometimes got sick, Frank Borman in A8, they had med kits in the capsule, again they need to do research.

Fred Haise's urinary tract infection also comes to mind, as does Water Schirra's head cold. Damn right they don't do research.

[gillianren]

Do research?  They haven't even watched Apollo 13!

[bknight]

Do research?  They haven't even watched Apollo 13!

   LOL They always know "everything" that most of the rest of the world takes as facts

[Apollo 957]

My favourite at the moment is those who think that there should have been (a) a 'blast crater' under the LM descent stage, and at the same time (b) 'dust in the footpads'.

The two are contradictory, excepting the minor instance where the dust hit the (slim) lander legs and dropped into the pads. The rest was driven far, far away

[Willoughby]

Thank you guys for all the responses.  Though, I wanted to take a minute to clear up some confusion.  I didn't need explanations for the arguments.  I know that the arguments have explanations - and that other arguments are just straw men.  The point I was trying to make is that even despite the fact that the arguments have demonstrably accurate explanations, the problem the hoaxers imply exists with the Apollo story is presented identically in the fake story as well - yet they have no problem with that same exact hole (that isn't really a hole) in the fake theory.

Going back to the one argument about how nobody got sick.  Despite the fact that it isn't true (that wasn't my point), the person making this argument - or pointing out this "hole" in the Apollo story - never recognizes that they've created the same hole in their own theory.  That was the point I was trying to make.  Perhaps it's not appropriate for this site?  If so, I apologize.  I was just making an observation; not asking for explanations for these arguments.

[Willoughby]

My favourite at the moment is those who think that there should have been (a) a 'blast crater' under the LM descent stage, and at the same time (b) 'dust in the footpads'.

The two are contradictory, excepting the minor instance where the dust hit the (slim) lander legs and dropped into the pads. The rest was driven far, far away

Yes, I have seen these two made by the same person many times.  Even ignoring the fact that they are contradictory, I don't know how they accept that they are the only ones who have figured this out.  It takes a special kind of oblivion I think.  Even more so, they would have to assume that NASA hired retarded monkeys to set up the stage sets for them to have overlooked as many things as they assert have been overlooked - when of course, in reality nothing has been overlooked.  Their expectations are just wrong.  I've said that many times, and it never sinks in for them.  Other than the types of arguments I talked about in my OP, the rest of the arguments can be attributed to false/uneducated expectations.

[raven]

I find it good to ask 'If there should be a blast crater, why isn't there one? Why didn't the set builders . . . .add one?' I have yet to get any kind of response worthy of the word.

[ineluki]

I have yet to get any kind of response worthy of the word.

I think I posted this before, but it I still think it's a nice spoof of how the fake must have been done

http://web.archive.org/web/20030507134511/www.frabjous.org/writing/moon-hoax.html

[ineluki]

Do research?  They haven't even watched Apollo 13!

Hypothetical Hoaxer:
"Hey, I'm not watching a twelfth sequel, just because Hollywood's writers can't come up with something new."

[twik]

I agree that an awful lot of "anomaly spotting" results in anomalies that would be just as odd in a faked mission as a real one.

Right now on Cosmoquest they have someone going on about how in one photo the leg of the lander looks very large, and the astronaut looks very small. While most commentators have contented themselves by explaining how "large = close, small = far away," one person did point out that if this were the result of a fake, it would mean that the hoaxers had, for some reason, created a giant lander leg just for that photo, and what would be the point of that?

I can only think that the photo-anomalists have never taken photos of their own, and have no idea how perspective, lighting, film speed and distance can make a difference between the scene you perceive in your mind, and what shows up on the screen or developed film. 

[raven]

Did the debunkers on Cosmoquest break out the Father Ted clip yet?
Edit: Yes, they did!

[bknight]

I agree that an awful lot of "anomaly spotting" results in anomalies that would be just as odd in a faked mission as a real one.

Right now on Cosmoquest they have someone going on about how in one photo the leg of the lander looks very large, and the astronaut looks very small. While most commentators have contented themselves by explaining how "large = close, small = far away," one person did point out that if this were the result of a fake, it would mean that the hoaxers had, for some reason, created a giant lander leg just for that photo, and what would be the point of that?

I can only think that the photo-anomalists have never taken photos of their own, and have no idea how perspective, lighting, film speed and distance can make a difference between the scene you perceive in your mind, and what shows up on the screen or developed film.

Could you provide  link to the thread, please?