Plausible Hoax Theories

[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 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.

Oh, I know, but my point is, even if you take the assumptions of hoax mongers and conspiracy theorists that there should be stars in fast exposure photos, that there should be a blast crater, the whole thing still fails.

[bknight]

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"[/i], 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.

That's more to the point, scientists don't doubt the landings, just average Joe/Jane without any formal education doubting the landings because he/she saw something that looks odd.

[nomuse]

Hrm. I'm tempted to propose "Scotsman Question" for this (but then, I haven't had my morning coffee yet). In the world of the Hoax Believer, the vast public never thinks about the evidence at all. If they can characteristically have foolish expectations, it is that whatever NASA shows them must be appropriate.

The discoveries of the Hoax Believers are different. Those come from looking hard at the evidence. And, yes, some of the claimed evidence is foolish and wrong. But you see; since the observations made by and and associated expectations of the Hoax Believers are by definition evidence for their claims, anything that is foolish and wrong was a mistake, wasn't ever actually said, or is a faked claim made by NASA disinfo agents in order to discredit legitimate researchers.


No Hoax Believer claim is ever wrong. If a claim is wrong, it isn't from a real Hoax Believer.

[mako88sb]

So poor Neil Baker is having a hissy fit over on youtube about all the off-topic discussion that's going on in this thread and compares it to the reason he was placed on moderation with the thread he started. Just never ends with that guy and how he thinks the world revolves around him.

[bknight]

So poor Neil Baker is having a hissy fit over on youtube about all the off-topic discussion that's going on in this thread and compares it to the reason he was placed on moderation with the thread he started. Just never ends with that guy and how he thinks the world revolves around him.

Why waste time reviewing what you obviously knows that he will say, just a troll

[Sus_pilot]

Because I'm bored, what's Neil's handle on YouTube?

[bknight]

Because I'm bored, what's Neil's handle on YouTube?

Do you have your foil hat handy?

[Sus_pilot]

Sure, why not?

[mako88sb]

Because I'm bored, what's Neil's handle on YouTube?

He uses his real name Neil Baker. He seems to just post on this video that I know of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk

[bknight]

Because I'm bored, what's Neil's handle on YouTube?

He uses his real name Neil Baker. He seems to just post on this video that I know of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk

Good luck report back when you are out of harms way.

[Sus_pilot]

Aggggh.  The stupid was too much to endure...

[Trebor]

Aggggh.  The stupid was too much to endure...

I found Michio Kaku's response especially annoying. He really should know better except here he is making up a lot of 'answers' which are wrong.

[bknight]

Aggggh.  The stupid was too much to endure...

LOL, and you expected differently?

[bknight]

Aggggh.  The stupid was too much to endure...

I found Michio Kaku's response especially annoying. He really should know better except here he is making up a lot of 'answers' which are wrong.

I watched that video a couple of times, once before our friend neil showed up and then after he started his idiotic thread.  A lot of the viewers picked up on some of Dr. Kaku's errors, but the of the other posters stupidity  was off scale like Sus_pilot's observed.

[Bob B.]

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.