Half arguments and problems for the hoax

[darren r]

The 'no stars' claim is the ultimate example of this absurdity. But when pressed as to why NASA didn't simply include stars in the 'backdrop', HB's respond that NASA didn't know which stars would be visible from the Moon! NASA, an organisation with access to pretty much all the world's astronomers.

Ultimately though, they will always wave away any discrepancy as 'whistleblowers' (who, by this point. must consist of most of NASA's employees) or the product of NASA's combined stupidity/arrogance.

[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.

Could you provide  link to the thread, please?

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?160202-Doubting-Thomas-moon-thread

[twik]

The 'no stars' claim is the ultimate example of this absurdity. But when pressed as to why NASA didn't simply include stars in the 'backdrop', HB's respond that NASA didn't know which stars would be visible from the Moon! NASA, an organisation with access to pretty much all the world's astronomers.

The further idiocy, of course, was that NASA couldn't then just put random stars on, because the viewers at home would be able to tell the stars were in the wrong place. Which NASA itself couldn't do.

[bknight]

The 'no stars' claim is the ultimate example of this absurdity. But when pressed as to why NASA didn't simply include stars in the 'backdrop', HB's respond that NASA didn't know which stars would be visible from the Moon! NASA, an organisation with access to pretty much all the world's astronomers.

The further idiocy, of course, was that NASA couldn't then just put random stars on, because the viewers at home would be able to tell the stars were in the wrong place. Which NASA itself couldn't do.

The comment by brother Kaysing was so quick that anyone that might be on the fence, could say yes, that's true.  Instead of stopping and thinking have I ever taken a photo in a lighted place on Earth and had the stars visible and/or with the brightness of the sun would dimmer objects (stars) be visible?

ETA:
This is one of the really bad about the Fox mocumentary, that is almost no opposing views were presented to start the debunking right on the original program.

[smartcooky]

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.

Its known as the "Giorgio Tsoukalos Gambit"...

[Luckmeister]

This is one of the really bad about the Fox mocumentary,.......

I like the term Fauxumentary. 

[raven]

The whistleblowers handwave itself fails because it assumes NASA didn't have any oversight over the production process. They just allegedly told these special and visual effects people to make the most convincing and large scale effects of their life, lie to the general public and not even be able to take credit for it, and NASA didn't have some trusted scientists and engineers to go over the produced material? And if all these people, including those on oversight, were so guilty about faking it as to add these details that, if truly evidence of a hoax, would be incredibly obvious, why haven't anyone come forward?
Where's Apollo's 'Deep Throat'?

[Willoughby]

The 'no stars' claim is the ultimate example of this absurdity. But when pressed as to why NASA didn't simply include stars in the 'backdrop', HB's respond that NASA didn't know which stars would be visible from the Moon! NASA, an organisation with access to pretty much all the world's astronomers.

Ultimately though, they will always wave away any discrepancy as 'whistleblowers' (who, by this point. must consist of most of NASA's employees) or the product of NASA's combined stupidity/arrogance.

The "no stars" claims are really easy to logically debunk, but are hardly ever accepted by the hoaxers. 

If NASA didn't know which stars would be visible from the moon, then why would it have mattered which stars they decided to "make visible"?  If NASA didn't know, who would have known the difference?

If the hoaxers are convinced that it would have been easy to tell that the stars were wrong, then who would be able to tell?  The general public?  Some astronomer somewhere?  If Bob, the astronomer, would have been able to easily tell that stars which should have been visible from the moon were not visible on the photographs (and vice versa) or stars did not appear where they were supposed to appear, then the logical course of action would be to employ Bob, the astronomer, to place the stars in the fake photos, right?  Is this too much logic?

[raven]

Besides, NASA did take photos of stars, both in Far UV and in longer exposure visible light, so the whole argument still unravels from yet another angle.
It's gotten to the point even conspiracy theorists try to distance themselves from the claim, calling it a 'strawman' allegedly invented by the debunkers, sorry, NASA shills, but that's easy to debunk by linking to Kaysing's book on Google Books and other founding documents of the Apollo hoax claims.

[gillianren]

This is one of the really bad about the Fox mocumentary,.......

I like the term Fauxumentary. 

Since "mockumentary" has a specific meaning, it's certainly more accurate here.

[Count Zero]

This is one of the really bad about the Fox mocumentary,.......

I like the term Fauxumentary. 

Just be careful how you pronounce the first two syllables. 

[Dr_Orpheus]

It's gotten to the point even conspiracy theorists try to distance themselves from the claim, calling it a 'strawman' allegedly invented by the debunkers, sorry, NASA shills, but that's easy to debunk by linking to Kaysing's book on Google Books and other founding documents of the Apollo hoax claims.

I think I remember someone, it might have been Dr. Socks, claiming that Kaysing was a government disinfo agent.

[sts60]

The "whistleblower" notion ignores the most obvious source for whistleblowers: the managers, scientists, engineers, and technicians who actually made Apollo happen.  I've worked with some of them.  The idea that they would stand for that sort of crap is laughable, and shows how completely hoax believers are removed from the reality of Apollo in particular and aerospace in general. 

They sometimes try to get around this by saying only a handful of people were really in on it, and everyone else just thought they were working on the real thing.  Such a profoundly silly claim also demonstrates the HBs' disconnect from reality.

[Bob B.]

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.

Yes, I've observed this many times in HB arguments.  Often it will be something like, "this photo is fake because (insert silly reason here) is impossible."  That leads to the question, "then how was the fake photo taken?"  If the photo shows X, and if X is impossible, then that's a problem regardless of which side of the argument you're on.  If true, then X would be just as impossible to achieve in a photo taken in a studio on Earth as it would be in one taken on the Moon.  Of course the answer is always that there's nothing wrong with the photo; it's the HB's flawed and naïve understanding of what the photo should show.

I'm sure there are many examples, but one that comes to mine is an old argument (not sure who originated it) about this photo:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5961

The argument is that the astronaut's shadow should point to his position at the bottom center of the image.  If the landings were fake, then one must presume that the photos were taken by a photographer moving about a fake Moon set in a studio somewhere on Earth.  If the photo shows something that is allegedly impossible, then how did that photographer manage to capture the image?

[Willoughby]

The "whistleblower" notion ignores the most obvious source for whistleblowers: the managers, scientists, engineers, and technicians who actually made Apollo happen.  I've worked with some of them.  The idea that they would stand for that sort of crap is laughable, and shows how completely hoax believers are removed from the reality of Apollo in particular and aerospace in general. 

They sometimes try to get around this by saying only a handful of people were really in on it, and everyone else just thought they were working on the real thing.  Such a profoundly silly claim also demonstrates the HBs' disconnect from reality.

Yes, they claim that only a handful of people were in on it, yet obliviously involve every past, present and future expert when they claim that the radiation in the VAB would have fried them.