Plausible Hoax Theories

[bknight]

Another HB point about the Saturn V was the "lack of power" that it had to do the work.  Of course this fails also if yu have the knowledge, such as Bob B. has.

Another classic favorite. I think we've discussed this here before, but to summarize I usually challenge the claimant to find a combination of sub-nominal thrust and less-than-nominal gross liftoff weight that simultaneously satisfies the following properties of the Saturn V as verified by non-NASA parties (news media and especially crowds of the general public):

1. A liftoff acceleration (as verified by tower clear time) of about 1.4 g.

2. Mach-1 at about T+66 seconds, as verified by shock clouds forming momentarily around the launcher.

3. Engine burn times of 135 sec (center engine) and 162 sec (outer engines).

4. Propellant masses constrained by observed dimensions of S-IC stage and known densities of RP-1 and LOX.

I could go further and require adherence to the observed look angles (azimuth and elevation) vs time, but I'll assume that most TV camera operators and members of the public didn't bring protractors or surveying equipment.

I've used a similar line of argument to debunk the "Pokrovsky paper".  For those unfamiliar, there is a paper written by (Russian PhD?) Stanislav Pokrovsky alleging that the Saturn V was not traveling as high and as fast as claimed by NASA near the end of its first stage burn.  With just a basic understanding of rocketry, it can be shown that the Saturn V could not have lifted off the launch pad at the observed acceleration, burned propellant at the rate needed to produce the observed acceleration, burned its engines for the observed amount of time, and could end up traveling as slowly as Pokrovsky estimates.  The numbers just don't add up, Pokrovsky's claim is a physical impossibility.

As your simulation showed.

[ineluki]

My question to this forum is:  Are there any hoax theories that any of you more educated people have seen that made you stop and think or were difficult for you to disprove?

Nothing that made me doubt the landings, but there are some claims that are less obviously stupid as most of them, and may require some actual knowledge about math and "rocket science", so they could be called "more difficult".