Plausible Hoax Theories

[Allan F]

And the "pristine bullet" wasn't so pristine when viewed from other angles.

[Chew]

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.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was really two incidents two days apart. In the first incident the US ship was attacked. The next day's incident did not happen.

[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.

It was a different time and I was a lot younger and less wise. Also, it was the pre-internet age, information was really difficult to get and there weren't many books on the JFK assasination. Criminal forensics was also less well understood.

JFK was the only CT I ever believed, and unlike other CTists, as more information became available, much of it on the internet, my belief weakened rather than strengthened. I began to realise that this was simply a lone gunman and there was no conspiracy to kill JFK.

If you ever need anything on the plausibility of the rifle shot, I'll ble glad to help. Shot a Sauer STR200 6.5x55 competitively for around 10 years. And at that distance, with that rifle, Oswald had an easy shot.

If I ever had any doubts about my switch from believer to non-believer, the clincher was the debunking of the "magic bullet theory". I think we all know the story about that, but here is a brief recap for those who don't.

It was necessary to prove that a single bullet was responsible for two wounds as it passed through JFK's body, and a further five wounds as it passed through Governor Connolly's right shoulder and right wrist and embedded in his left knee. Without the single bullet proof, a fourth shot would have to be accepted as fact and that automatically means a second gunman, since LHO could not possibly have fired two shots close enough together to account for all seven wounds. So Arlen Specter came up with a cockamamie piece of bullshit pseudo-ballistics (endorsed by the Warren Commission) to explain how a single bullet followed an unlikely sequence of twists, turns and deflections to make all the wounds

The obvious unlikeliness of this scenario raised a lot of suspicions. It looked like a made up story to cover the existence of  a second shooter. Well, it was made up alright, but it was because they didn't understand what really happened. Spector (and presumably everyone else on the Warren Commission ) failed to notice two really important  aspects of how Governor Connelly was positioned in the Presidential limo...

1. He was not sitting directly in front of JFK, he was seated slightly inboard and lower.

2. At the time of the shot, he had turned partially around (presumably as a reaction to the first shot ringing out)

When you take those things into account, the single bullet does not need to be magic any more... its a straight line through JFK, then through Connelly's right shoulder and right wrist and into his left knee...



   

Yes I think the computer forensics have proved the point that with the correct seating, it was not only possible but convincingly the only real option.  And as Allan F. has posted the bullet was not as pristine as the famous image. 

[bknight]

...
Hunchbacked's latest rationalization is as amusing as it is silly. He now thinks NASA scanned the entire lunar surface with a laser, looking for natural spots that behaved exactly as the real reflectors are purported to do, and when they found them they scheduled their "bogus" Apollo missions to "deploy" retroreflectors at those sites.

Yes, I agree that most of what he indicates in his videos is amusing.  His latest videos, for those that don't visit YT, Lunar regolith movement from LRV tires "proves" the videos "can't" be filmed on the Moon.  Those movements prove to me they were taken in a very low to non-existent atmosphere.
Another is the Apollo mission spent the mission time either in LEO and/or a sub-orbital flight with the capsule dropped by a large aircraft for TV audiences.  This video includes an out of context comment by Pete Conrad about the landings "didn't happen", when in fact Pete is responding to a question about the program being cancelled.

He really seems to be dropping to the blunder level on his videos.

Didn't you believe that he really believes Apollo, but post videos to see how many HB's respond to his videos?  Personally I don't think he believes and attempts to use the videos in an attempt to show "anomalies".

[gwiz]

I think I'm with the majority here, no claim has ever made me doubt Apollo, but some have made me wonder about what exactly was going on and driven me to do a little research.  On that basis, the hoax claims have helped my education if not that of the claimant.

[Luke Pemberton]

That only leaves real data from real retro-reflectors placed by astronauts on missions that really landed on the moon.

We've got to be careful with the retroreflector argument since most of the smarter CTs (I know that's not saying much) know that the USSR landed two rovers with retroreflectors, thus "proving" that the Apollo reflectors could have been placed robotically too.

A fair point, but in balance all other evidence points to the authenticity of Apollo, so I'd say that the LRRRs lend themselves well to the consistency of the overall account. Why should we accept one part of the evidence being more authentic than another part when all other parts meet the consistency of the record. Surely the argument is about the sum of the parts, rather than the individual merits of each component. That was the point I was making in my OP. The hoax theory is so internally inconsistent that it falters against the internal consistency of the Apollo record.

Further,  if I recall correctly, the Soviet retro-reflectors are more prone to thermal fluctuations due to them being placed by probes and not humans. They were not placed accurately. Hence my point about the LRRRs confirming GR to the degree of accuracy needed. Such accuracy is unlikely to be achieved from an object that undergoes thermal fluctuations, and would certainly not be achieved by reflecting a laser of the lunar surface.

[SpaceFrog]

The only Apollo hoax theory that made me really stop and think was the lack of a blast crater under the descent stage of the LM. 

In the Army, when making decisions, we used what was called the Military Decision Making Process or MDMP.  One of the first steps in this MDMP was to gather your facts and assumptions.  So I tried to apply this to the lack of blast crater theory.

So I only came up with one known fact.  The LM did land on the moon.  I could not come up with any real assumptions because of my lack of expertise in the Lunar Geology and Rocket Science.

This is where every single Apollo Hoax theory fails for me.  The assumptions made to support these theories are untenable.  I cannot tell how deep the lunar dust is or if there is any dust at all.  I also do not know if they would land on a rock bed or not.  I would not expect  a rocket engine to dig a large hole in cement (or rock) if it was landing. I have seen videos of rockets attempting to land on earth on landing pads and they do not dig blast craters.  So because of my lack of knowledge, I again have to defer to those with more knowledge.

I have read websites and seen videos on the landings.  These provided information and evidence that I was not aware of and they seem to me to be accurate and factual.  It is also very easy to look up the weight of the LM and the weight of the consumables.  It is easy to extrapolate approximate weights as the LM nears the surface and therefor understand that the thrust needs are not that high at landing.  I admit that I was a little lost on the math of the amount of thrust and the area inside the engine bell, but I would assume that any real mathematician could and would have disputed them if they were inaccurate.

But almost every Apollo hoax theory makes assumptions that I do not believe that they can make.  It seems that the theories are even more unbelievable than an actual landing.  The assumptions made by the Apollo hoax theorists are often contradictory as well. 

I have come to really enjoy finding Apollo hoax theories that I have not heard of and then research for myself to try to find the holes in the theory.  For most on this forum this is probably old hat, but it still is new to me and I enjoy the search.

How hard would it be to have pulled off a hoax on the scale of Apollo?  Because of the shear scope of the program plus simple human nature and the inability of most people to keep secrets, I don't think NASA could have faked it even if they had tried.

So I thank everyone who has responded to my original question.

[Luke Pemberton]

For most on this forum this is probably old hat, but it still is new to me and I enjoy the search.

Not always. I think Fattydash's lost Eagle was a new one for me. I had to take a rear seat there, but learned so much once the real Apollo gurus at this forum got stuck into him. Then there was the PLSS debacle with Romulus. That was a variation on a theme I guess, a new twist on Ralph Rene's spurious thermodynamics of metabolic heat management and sublimation. That debate was more about standards of proof than actual theory, it's a tact that some CTs take - shifting the burden of proof.

I'll echo previous posters, and my own thoughts: The joy of this forum is the education we receive when a CT turns up with a different angle. However, as others have remarked before, the standard of CT really goes to show where the hoax theory sits. Now they are quite rabid, spitting venom as they go over long debunked ground. I understand that in the distant past, long before I got involved in this forum, some of the CTs were quite polite. Jay might be able to confirm a few characters that actually tried to debate their point. Most of the CTs I have met quickly resort to ad hominen

Once in a while there is something new. It happens rarely nowadays. They mostly come at night... when it's dark. Someone remind me, was it also Romulus that aired the missing Saturn V blueprint argument. I learned so much from that episode. This statement alone shows the strength of the forum, the knowledge I gained is more memorable that the person’s name. That speaks volumes.

[Allan F]

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

Here's everything you need to know about the blast crater, calculated and explained by a member of this board.

Bottom line - the energy in the exhaust was at most able to move dust to a depth of less than 40 mm - which matches nicely with the pictures of the ground beneath the descent stages.

[bknight]

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

Here's everything you need to know about the blast crater, calculated and explained by a member of this board.

Bottom line - the energy in the exhaust was at most able to move dust to a depth of less than 40 mm - which matches nicely with the pictures of the ground beneath the descent stages.

This reminds me of the Fox Mocumentary, where Rene used a leaf blower to "model" the rocket engine.  I wish that  I'd have been there to ask a few pointed t destroy the experiment, and I'm only a novice at this debunking.

[smartcooky]

The only Apollo hoax theory that made me really stop and think was the lack of a blast crater under the descent stage of the LM.

The lack of a blast crater is one of the easiest things to debunk, by comparison

The descent motor of the LM has a thrust of about 10,000 lbf (pounds-force), the engine of a Hawker Harrier GR3/9 (in USA - AV8B) VTOL jet has a thrust of between 21,000 and 24,000 lbf depending in the model, more that twice as much. I have seen Harriers land on all sorts of surfaces, including grass paddocks... I have never seen a blast crater under a Harrier

[Allan F]

The only Apollo hoax theory that made me really stop and think was the lack of a blast crater under the descent stage of the LM.

The lack of a blast crater is one of the easiest things to debunk, by comparison

The descent motor of the LM has a thrust of about 10,000 lbf (pounds-force), the engine of a Hawker Harrier GR3/9 (in USA - AV8B) VTOL jet has a thrust of between 21,000 and 24,000 lbf depending in the model, more that twice as much. I have seen Harriers land on all sorts of surfaces, including grass paddocks... I have never seen a blast crater under a Harrier

According to my information, the actual descent engines used, had a max thrust of just below 6.000 pounds of force - because the throttle system restricted the fuel/oxidizer flow. And of course it was throttled way down at landing, otherwise, the LM would have taken off like a . . . . .

(ahem)



....... rocket.

[smartcooky]

The only Apollo hoax theory that made me really stop and think was the lack of a blast crater under the descent stage of the LM.

The lack of a blast crater is one of the easiest things to debunk, by comparison

The descent motor of the LM has a thrust of about 10,000 lbf (pounds-force), the engine of a Hawker Harrier GR3/9 (in USA - AV8B) VTOL jet has a thrust of between 21,000 and 24,000 lbf depending in the model, more that twice as much. I have seen Harriers land on all sorts of surfaces, including grass paddocks... I have never seen a blast crater under a Harrier

According to my information, the actual descent engines used, had a max thrust of just below 6.000 pounds of force - because the throttle system restricted the fuel/oxidizer flow. And of course it was throttled way down at landing, otherwise, the LM would have taken off like a . . . . .

(ahem)



....... rocket.

Well I got the 10,000 lb figure from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System


If I had bothered looking past the "10,125 pounds-force (45.04 kN)"  figure, I would have seen "maximum, throttle between 10% and 60% of full thrust" So, you're right, 60% of 10125 is about 6000, and even less at touchdown.

So that makes the LM descent motor. a quarter to a fifth of the thrust of a Harrier Jump Jet....

Its not looking good for LM blast craters is it?

[raven]

And, as I've said, even if you take the mathematics out, if it was a hoax, why didn't NASA's set dressers simply sculpt one? If they were too lazy or incompetent to do that. why take a photograph under the LM and publish it, why have the astronauts mention looking for it, mentioning how faint it is? (Ctrl/Command+F '
04 18 37 42' and '04 13 25 45', without apostrophes, of course.)
The handwave of 'whistleblowers' fails under even under the mildest scrutiny. Surely, NASA had scientific experts going over the proposed scripts and photographs? If the conspiracy theorists could figure out there 'should' be blast craters, so could NASA.

[smartcooky]

And, as I've said, even if you take the mathematics out, if it was a hoax, why didn't NASA's set dressers simply sculpt one? If they were too lazy or incompetent to do that. why take a photograph under the LM and publish it, why have the astronauts mention looking for it, mentioning how faint it is? (Ctrl/Command+F '
04 18 37 42' and '04 13 25 45', without apostrophes, of course.)
The handwave of 'whistleblowers' fails under even under the mildest scrutiny. Surely, NASA had scientific experts going over the proposed scripts and photographs? If the conspiracy theorists could figure out there 'should' be blaster blast craters, so could NASA.

Its a common story and it applies to quite a bit of the so-called evidence for a hoax

If NASA did fake the moon landings and

1.  they dug a significant fake blast crater under the LM, then rocket scientists would have said "hey, that's not right, there should not be a blast crater", and the game would be up

2. If the lunar surface photographs had shown stars in the lunar sky, then any amateur astronomer (or first year photography student) would immediately have their suspicions raised.