LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?

[Edwardwb1001]

inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?

If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?

Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years. We say that it was easy in the first 25 years or so, but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record.  Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked. 

[RAF]

It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false.

I'm sure that millions of people believe in flying saucers....doesn't make them any more real.

Same applies here.

[JayUtah]

Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years.

Yet somehow unable to convince any real scientists, technicians, or other relevant experts.  Repeating the same rote beliefs does not qualify for much.

It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false.

And you know this ... how?

Among the forums I have frequented, for up to ten years in some cases, no one is talking about Apollo hoax theories anymore.  On BAUT, once Ground Zero for such discussions, there is only one thread.  Ditto on JREF, operated by the same sock puppet.  I'm looking at evidence for the decline in interest.  You're telling me that you suppose some number of people still pursue it, but you can't narrow that number down to an order of magnitude.

[smartcooky]

inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?

If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?

Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years. We say that it was easy in the first 25 years or so, but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record.  Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked.

I would also argue that the advent of the internet and home-use digital motion graphics and compositing software such as Adobe After-Effects, and Vue 6, has made it much easier for Hoax Believers to create fake videos to prop up their ridiculous claims, so I wouldn't be so keen to place credence in youtube and discussion forums. You have to keep in mind that,  of the "users" on the internet who vociferously advocate the existence of fakery in the Apollo project, only about 5% are "real"; the other 95% are their various sockpuppets.

As RAF rightly points out, the huge number of people who believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft does not make it true. You can apply the same criteria to the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, JFK, Pearl Harbour, Illuminati, Reptoids etc.

Even more convincing is the range of religious beliefs;  Hindus, Christians, Muslims and tens of thousands of other religious beliefs held by BILLIONS of people, worldwide. They cannot ALL be right!!

Now while I do not believe for one moment that the photographic record was faked, I must accept that it would have been possible to have faked them. However, there is one thing that cannot have been faked. - the unique lunar environment of low gravity in a vacuum. This is impossible to fake without the use of digital compositing; techniques that were simply not available in the 1960's and 1970s. You only have to watch a few episodes of the original series of Star Trek (which was contemporaneous with the Apollo Programme) to see how clumsy their special effects were.

Even if they could have built a vacuum chamber big enough at act as studio (impossible even in this day and age) they could not have simulated the lunar gravity of 1.62 m/s just by slowing down the video. The simple act of speeding up Apollo video shows that this method does not work.......

This one fact is the one that HB's avoid discussing because they know its the smoking gun. I have tried to engage some of them on this point, but they just won't take the bait because they know that once they get the concepts involved, their whole belief system is going to come crashing down around their ears. The unique properties of the lunar environment could not have been faked in 1969; this, more than anything else, is the nail in the coffin of the Moon Hoax Conspiracy....

[Jason Thompson]

Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked. 

The presence of many of these people on the net says very little about the state of the hoax theory, since most of them are trotting out the same tired old arguments that were debunked long ago (in some cases even before the missions flew, but no-one bothered reading up on the subject first). Questions like 'why does the flag wave?', 'where are the stars in the pictures?', 'why are the shadows not parallel?' and 'how did they get the rover up to the Moon in that tiny LM?' are commonplace on the net today. That does not mean they have not been answered. For heaven's sake, the deployment of the lunar rover was carried live on the Apollo 15 mission TV. You can easily SEE the answer to the question of how they got it there, and yet this has escaped people for decades it seems.

[Rob260259]

inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?

If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?

Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years. We say that it was easy in the first 25 years or so, but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record.  Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked.

I think the 'worldview' of many people has changed and it's no big deal to start a website starting your own conspiracy theory with solid 'evidence' and many 'anomalies'. Internet has not changed history, it has just given fools a bigger soapbox to stand on.
Many are abandoning reality and retreating to internet-based fantasy worlds, conjured into existence out of their fears and various prejudices. I think the moon hoax conspiracy theory is a combination of ignorance, distrust, Dunning–Kruger effects, paranoia and anti-Americanism. Some of these people are simply suffering from delusional paranoia, creating elaborate delusional fantasies in which they can play the role of 'Heroes of Truth'.

[Edwardwb1001]

But sometimes Rob, the reason for questioning the 'moon landings' is not as intricate, nor contains ulterior motives - as you postulate. I, for example, am not anti-American.  I have lived and worked in Atlanta and enjoyed it, and I found Americans in general quite affable - like anywhere else. I am also not trying to entertain myself or enliven my existence. With my own business to run, I have enough to keep me occupied - and entertained! It is simply a case of an enquiring mind 'making sure' (so to speak) of the so-called 'facts' presented. 

I think that certainly, and at times, the reasons you mentioned, viz: anti -Americanism, paranoia, and even possibly sub-consciously creating fantasy worlds can be the reason that an individual is a proponent of a particular conspiracy theory.
But not every time.

[Rob260259]

The facts were acknowledged Edward. I really think it is more likely that what you believe are inconsistencies, anomalies and even lies are really just the result of misconception and misunderstanding the information provided.

You have been quoted a lot already Edward. I would love to read your comments on these remarks.

[JayUtah]

With my own business to run, I have enough to keep me occupied...

Indeed, I sympathize, as my engineering business keeps me busy.  I've worked in the aerospace industry for some 25 years.

It is simply a case of an enquiring mind 'making sure' (so to speak) of the so-called 'facts' presented.

That may be true in your case, but as the author of the most widely-quoted resource on the Apollo hoax theory, I can report my experience as that people simply regurgitate ad nauseam old claims that have absolutely no scientific or technical merit, and would have been discovered as such by even cursory research.  It rarely takes long for the ulterior motives to make themselves apparent.

However I note that more of those kind of people seem to be interested these days in 9/11 and Obama's birthplace than in Apollo hoaxes.  That said, I've noticed that long-standing conspiracy theories tend to follow cycles of interest.  We may simply be in a lull.

[smartcooky]

But sometimes Rob, the reason for questioning the 'moon landings' is not as intricate, nor contains ulterior motives - as you postulate. I, for example, am not anti-American.  I have lived and worked in Atlanta and enjoyed it, and I found Americans in general quite affable - like anywhere else. I am also not trying to entertain myself or enliven my existence. With my own business to run, I have enough to keep me occupied - and entertained! It is simply a case of an enquiring mind 'making sure' (so to speak) of the so-called 'facts' presented. 

I think that certainly, and at times, the reasons you mentioned, viz: anti -Americanism, paranoia, and even possibly sub-consciously creating fantasy worlds can be the reason that an individual is a proponent of a particular conspiracy theory.
But not every time.

I don't have any problem with people who are proponents of a theory, or even a conspiracy theory; even ones that I don't personally agree with.

However, what I do have a problem with is people who, when faced with a mountain of irrefutable, testable and provable scientific evidence that they are wrong, continue to be proponents of the theory, and who actually call the whole of the Laws of Physics into question rather than concede that they might be wrong.

These types of people then usually proceed to trot out the same old previously debunked chestnuts over and over, as if they think that repeating them ad-infinitum is going to somehow make then true.

"Rockets won't work in a vacuum because there is no air for the exhaust to push against" is a great example of this. There are still people out there who deny Newtons Laws of Motion, laws that are apparent everywhere in the universe. Rockets DO work in a vacuum. This is verifiable using a simple experiment that we did in our high-school physics class 40 years ago.

Our physics teacher set up a small fireworks skyrocket attached upside down to a set of scales inside a vacuum chamber. The chamber was pumped down to about 0.03"HG (?) and the skyrocket was then set off using an electrical fuse wire (the solid fuel in a skyrocket provides its own oxidiser, so it will burn in a vacuum.). The scales showed a definite downward pressure of a few hundred grammes.

[Edwardwb1001]

To a large extent what you say regarding repetition on the part of hoax believers is true, Jay. You believe that their contentions have been answered. They believe not. Perhaps it is often a case of not understanding scientific principles.

There are however, a few points which I will mention over my next few posts which have not (according to my viewpoint) been satisfactorily answered, some of which do not involve physics in any form.  Perhaps they will be answered here.

If there is any waning of interest in the veracity of the Apollo missions - it is probably cyclical - and that it is (as you say) in a lull.

[nomuse]

Well I'm sorry, I'd like to be polite and you've been a gentleman so far, but in the 10-15 years I've spent following the Apollo Denier crowd around, the number that were intellectually honest, and that truly did come up with their own original questions from primary sources, and that had no ideological bias....were zero.

In fact, it's become a familiar pattern.  One of a mere handful of such.  The poster who shows up claiming to have no dog in the race, a complete unfamiliarity with and disinterest in the standard hoaxie materials, and in fact does present with his first post a question/claim which is unique.

And 100 times out of 100, when pushed, that same poster suddenly starts pulling bait-and-switch and Gish Gallop, dragging old nonsense from Aulis or Sibrel to support a position they seem to have realized is untenable.

Thus revealing, also, their intellectual dishonesty.  If they were true to the spirit of inquiry they pretend, they'd work on -- or reluctantly reject -- the claim they started on.  Instead, every single time, they pull something else out so they never have to admit they were wrong.  Oh, sure, maybe they were wrong about the spot on the film or the dust on the leg or whatever horse they rode in on.  But the fact that something is wrong, that there is an underlying conspiracy; no, that never goes away.  So even when they do admit their first idea was off base, it is always done in a throw-away, "Oh, but that's not important any more," manner.

[gillianren]

To a large extent what you say regarding repetition on the part of hoax believers is true, Jay. You believe that their contentions have been answered. They believe not. Perhaps it is often a case of not understanding scientific principles.

You're right.  Hoax believers don't understand scientific principles.  Now, with that in mind, who is more likely to be right?

[Edwardwb1001]

Nomuse, you do yourself no favours by referring to hoax believers as 'deniers' - nevertheless, disbelievers would level the same accusations at you. Another term which believers use, often with no justification, is that of 'liar'. This seems to be an easy copout. I, in turn, have noticed that believers have not always answered my questions (some have been unique - not anything which Sibrel, Rene et al. have concocted). 

I think it works both ways. Those who have always championed the moon landings as authentic, will not easily alter their point of view, and vice versa.  Believers are of the opinion that their explanations always make sense, that their 'logic' is always unimpeachable, yet non-believers often honestly do not see it that way. I agree that many non-believers would be too hard-headed to admit being misled on certain points. It's not easy to admit that one is wrong, but it serves no purpose lying to oneself.  If answers to questions make sense and are logical, I will accept them. Time will tell.

[Edwardwb1001]

Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se. Nevertheless, certain contentions by non-believers, leading to their doubts, cannot be explained using scientific principles.