Plausible Hoax Theories

[SpaceFrog]

As this is my first post, I will tell a little about me.

 I am not a scientist, engineer or any other type of credentialed person.  I spent 20 years in the U.S. Army as an enlisted Nug (highly technical term) mostly serving in infantry units.  I claim no expert knowledge on any subject.

I was born in 1967 so I was too young to appreciate Apollo at the time it was happening.  Both my parents worked for NASA at Ames Research Center in California (Not on space programs) and as I grew up I was greatly interested in the Space Shuttle.  This interest in the Shuttle naturally led me to Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.

While searching the internet for videos and news on Apollo I kept coming across Hoax videos and websites.  I believe that I have an open mind so I started to watch these videos.  I thought that I would try and give them a chance to see if they had any merit.  However, it seemed that each time I came across a theory that sounded plausible, it was quickly debunked by research, watching other videos or just using common sense.  I can no longer stomach videos by Jarrah White.  It seems like he has a chip on his shoulder and a total lack of scientific training and common sense.  He is very good at setting up straw men and then trying to knock them down.  Additionally, all of the Hbs have no interest in finding the truth.  I believe that they are too invested in the conspiracy to really be objective.

Each of the conspiracy theories I have looked at have ended up, for me at least, in the round file.  There is just to much overwhelming evidence that says we did in fact go to the moon that I cannot believe that there are still people out there that do not believe that we did go.  I am impressed at the ingenuity and tenacity of the Hoaxers in coming up with some of these ideas even though most of these ideas are easy to debunk.   

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?

[Allan F]

No.

[JayUtah]

As this is my first post, I will tell a little about me.

Welcome to the forum.  You don't need to be a rock star or a rocket scientist to have good sense, good research skills, and appropriate skepticism.

I think we agree that hoax claimants have ulterior motives, although maybe not the same ones.  There are those who indeed seem to be in it for the money or the following, or just to stir the pot.

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?

There are some claims that require those of us with relevant knowledge to do what would amount to billable work in order to affirmatively refute some of the claims.  For example, the claim often arises that the spaceship wouldn't adequately protect the astronauts.  It's an offhand claim, not made with any sort of science or computation behind it.  But one of our number went to quite a lot of effort to model the radiation environment on the Apollo trajectory and model the absorption of the spacecraft structure and prove indeed that the Apollo spacecraft offered sufficient protection.  Many years ago I did something similar with the lunar module ascent trajectories and the fuel loadouts.

These are difficult in the sense that they require a professional level of expertise to work through.  But they're not difficult in the sense that the claims resulted in any meaningful doubt of Apollo's authenticity.

[gillianren]

Depends on how you mean.  I was an English major in college, and the highest math I've taken was a pre-calculus class in the 1993-1994 school year.  I really don't have the skills to deal with a lot of the more technical stuff.  Some of the quotes that certain people around here think are absolute howlers, I don't have the education or experience to disprove.  I don't know the math.

On the other hand, since no one has put together a cohesive explanation of how the whole thing was faked, there's nothing that isn't easy to disprove with "okay, but that only explains <x> at best."  Often, even I know enough to know that it doesn't really explain <x>, but if it did, Apollo was invariably a lot more than <x>, and the answer is then, "Oh, they faked it somehow."  Which is not an answer.

[Allan F]

(sorry - put this in the wrong thread)



To elaborate: Most hoax claims fail on some very basic level, like not knowing how the acutal missions were performed. Like claiming the astronauts would have been "fried" in the LEM while passing the Van Allen Belts, or that the LEM never could get off the moon, because all 8 tonnes of fuel was spent during braking and landing.

Once such simple errors have been bypassed, then there's a whole other level of ignorance (mostly willfull ignorance) where the hoax claim has been addressed countless times, and is thoroughly explained by multiple sources. Then there are the arguments from authority (like hunchbacked tried) where some obscure technical detal is claimed to be impossible and therefore the entire programme "must have been faked".

Then there are the scientific illiterate who claim the Earth is flat, rockets don't work in vacuum and so on. "The Earth Is Flat" is just a silly claim, and everyting from that point on is pointless. IF the hoax proponent then has a history of dubious ideas, like "nuclear power doesn't work", then there's usually no point in continuing. I know "even a blind hen can find a kernel" (danish proverb - don't know if it makes any sense in english), but most of the time they are just pecking at dirt.

Also the "guilt by association" has been tried - "The Government always lies" - guess what? The US Government is actually changing all the time - and other governments agree that the moon landings were real. Even the sovjet congratulated US on the landing of Apollo 11.

IF there was a scientifically correct, plausible problem with the moon landings, I haven't seen one yet. And I have been looking for the best part of 10 years now.

(The astronauts were in the much more substantial Command Module during VAB transit - and the LM had two stages - descent stage with 8 tonnes (apprx) of fuel for descent and the ascent stage with a further 2.5 tonnes of fuel for the ascent).

[onebigmonkey]

I have never seen anything posted by a hoax claimant that has made me doubt Apollo, but I have seen plenty f things posted that have made me go do more research to increase my knowledge of the subject.

This is something that hoax claimants seem unable to do.

I have also seen plenty of people feign naivety and who 'just want to ask questions'.

Rarely is that the case and rarely are they interested in just listening to answers.

Let's see how this pans out.

[SpaceFrog]

Thanks for the responses so far.  I think that the professional tone and the well reasoned responses from members here are awesome for all threads.

I agree with Allan F that most of the theories fail on a very basic level.   But it seems that the most common persistent theories are the ones that fail at the most basic level.  For instance the theory that the shadows on the moon converge/diverge and therefor there must be multiple light sources.  Anyone with decent sight can go outdoors on a sunny day and empirically determine that the shape of the ground can easily make shadows appear to converge/diverge.  Unless you believe that light reacts differently on the moon, how can you not dismiss this theory.

So why do these theories persist?  The shadow theory, Buzz being lit while exiting the LM, the “C” Rock, the waving flag among others.  These are so easy to debunk and yet they stick around.

I guess this ties in with my initial question.  Is there one piece of evidence or theory that “HBs” hold onto religiously that make them unable to accept the facts and debunking of all these other theories?

If it is willful ignorance, what is the motivation for being so obstinate?  Maybe this is more of a psychological question.

[12oh2alarm]

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 [...]?

No.

The reason why is easy to state: any hoax theory's big picture doesn't make sense. The big picture is addressed by questions like "Who was in on the hoax?", "Why fake it six and a half times when one would do?", "How to keep the secret?", "Why no death-bed confessions?" and many more. The moment you answer any of these, a contradiction arises.

Compare this to this mathematical proof: On a chessboard, can a knight move from one corner to the opposite corner in 63 moves and touch each square once?
Hoax believers say yes it could be and start making knight moves, in a futile attempt to test all possible sequences of 63 moves.

The rational mind looks at the big picture of black and white squares, notices that a) opposite corners have the same colors, b) a knight move changes color, and c) that after 63 moves you're on the opposite color. So there's no solution. QED.

For some reason, hoax proponent minds tick differently. I have no explanation for that, as I'm not a psychologist and won't speculate. But some have a room-temperature IQ (in Celsius) as evidenced by the videos they make :-)

[Allan F]

The most persistent "evidence" the hoax crowd clings to, is their own conviction that they themselves are "special", have special knowledge, have seen through the "veil" of the establishments lies. Mostly it's a crutch to prop up their own self esteem.

Another mainstay is the usage of old, outdated information, like the 1959 Van Allen paper which states that the radiation in the Van Allen Belts is an obstacle which must be overcome before human spaceflight out of low Earth orbit is possible. That extensive work and study in the following years addressed this exact problem, does not matter to them.

[Apollo 957]

One thing to note is that you never see HBs arguing amongst themselves, even when their hoax theories conflict.

One says rockets don't work in space, another says Apollo couldn't have got through the VABs. How do we know the VABs are there? By sending rockets into space.

One says there should have been a blast crater from the immense rocket exhaust under the LM. Another says the dust should have landed in the footpads. Can't have both, they contradict each other.

[Cat Not Included]

From what I've seen, hoaxers have a tendency of making even ideas that could be possible wind up being crazy.

For example, let's take the Kennedy assassination. The idea that multiple people might have plotted with Oswald to kill Kennedy is not, on the surface, inherently impossible or unreasonable. People HAVE in fact conspired together to murder political figures.

To find out about that, one would need to look in detail as Oswald's connections. Look at his correspondence, his friends, his connections. Find out if he was working with someone. Find out what elements might have needed someone else to plan them.*

But all that is really hard work, so instead the conspiracy theorist makes their "theory" all about how there must have been 3 shooters in three different places and Oswald was really innocent and whoever the mysterious conspirators were really NEEDED it to look like just one shooter (but didn't just use one shooter) because...ummm...because...HEY LOOK OVER THERE! followed by "don't think about it, don't think about it".

Even if the initial premise was plausible, it tends to quickly become implausible.

* Of course, the official investigations DID just this, and came to some very definite conclusions that no, Oswald acted alone.

[bknight]

Being an engineer, some of the video claims made me stop and do some research to understand why the claims did not stand up to scrutiny.  I found this site while actually searching for such proofs.  I found many on here had the photo expertise to guide me to a successful understanding.
I grew up with Apollo and never doubted the program or its predecessors.  The HB claims made me angry that such a technological endeavor could be challenged.  If fact after watching the mocumentary on FOX in 2001, caused me to stop watching the channel for years, since they really NEVER gave any opposing views to the program any time.  There are aspects of the program that I didn't know, but research challenges the conspirator perspective lacking. They (HB's) prey on those that are lazy and want quick answers.  I think it was Jay that posted a thought some time ago, "do you want a quick answer or the truth(and who to get at it)." 
 EDIT:Spelliing

[HeadLikeARock]

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?

Welcome to the forum SpaceFrog.

The closest one I can think of is the WOMD reason for invading Iraq. The whole thing stank to high heaven. Dodgy dossiers based on unreliable evidence, which turned out to be a complete and utter load of clap-trap. We all know the domino-like consequences of that particular hoax, but I'll spell it out anyway.

Thousands of allied servicemen and women were killed or severely maimed.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed.
A power vacuum was deliberately created in the Middle East with the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein.
That power vacuum, and other factors, primed the pump for the Arab spring, to try and take down other dictators such as Gaddafi and Asad.
Attempts to oust Asad led to a 5 year civil war in Syria, with millions made homeless.
Hundreds of thousands of those made homeless seek refuge in Europe.
this is all a primordial soup for the rise of ISIS. The same ISIS who recently behead a 15 year old Iraqi boy for listening to Western music.

And the people who perpetrated the hoax?

One of them is considers himself an ambassador for peace.
The other is trying to get his brother elected as US president.

A simplification, but that's how I see it.

I couldn't disprove that Iraq had no WOMD. I just had very strong suspicions, along with the million who marched for peace in London. The ambassador for peace (OK OK, it was Blair) didn't listen to them.

[smartcooky]

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?

Hoax Theories, no. Conpsiracy theories, yes

There are plenty of events that started as a conspiracy to hide wrongdoing and that turned out to be fact

Watergate
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Iran Contra
MK Ultra
Cointelpro
Operation Mockingbird
Operation Northwoods
WOMD

All denied or covered up by those involved, all actually happened.

For many years, a growing number of historians and people interested in the Vietnam War became convinced that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, an event that was key in the up-scaling of US involvement in Vietnam, was in fact staged or never took place. After years of official US government denials, an internal NSA document declassified in 2005 showed that the CT's were right.  There were in fact no North Vietnamese ships anywhere near the Gulf of Tonkin at the time the incident was supposed to have taken place.

However, as for the better known ongoing Conspiracy Theories; moon landing Hoax, JFK & RFK assassinations, Boston Bombing, 9/11 etc, all BS of the worst kind... and that is from someone who at one time believed there was a second gunman!!

[bknight]

'''

However, as for the better known ongoing Conspiracy Theories; moon landing Hoax, JFK & RFK assassinations, Boston Bombing, 9/11 etc, all BS of the worst kind... and that is from someone who at one time believed there was a second gunman!!

I would never guessed that of you.  I have never been a fan of the CT of JFK's assignation, just a nobody that wanted to be somebody, with a rifle as his chosen method.