Well, first things first, his old sites are apparently down, but he has a new site. Some highlights:
Most of it has been around for years. He
still is claiming that the real rovers used pneumatic tires (wrong), they would have exploded on the moon (wrong), and that all the pictures online were changed by NASA, and he still has a copy of a picture with a rover with rubber tires on the moon (put up or shut up).
He claims that the huge gantry at Langley was used to fake the landings. As has been covered here before, the claims about staff at Langley being 'sworn to secrecy' are wrong, and the gantry is next to a public highway. One of the pictures
on his own website shows said highway clearly in the background. He also helpfully provides a period color picture that shows the gantry is painted in bright red and white stripes.
He then claims that the simulated lunar landscape below was used to fake the landings. He provides a quote that even out of context doesn't support his argument, The thing is,
his own pictures show it as looking
completely fake, and nothing like any of the real footage. He also has the plaster of paris mockup of the moon which, well, doesn't actually look exactly like the moon. There are noticeable differences in the pictures
he provides to show they look identical.
On the plus side, he's actually changed some arguments after being corrected. It's now the Apollo 1 fire, not the Apollo 7 fire. He now knows that the 'conical space capsule' is the command module, and dropped the part about the heat shield being in the way. (he still claims the parachutes were in the way)
On his NASA Facts page, it seems he's actually discovered something. He bases a large part of the page on a chart showing that Apollo 12 took half as long to get to the moon as the other missions. It shows total duration as being 143 hours, which, since it's the same as Apollo 13 directly below it, I suspect was just a misprint in his source. It's not encouraging that he says the data in the chart came from two different sources. He then spends the rest of the page discovering that apparently, some NASA webpage actually listed dates that are off by a few days, and not consistent, for photos taken on Apollo 16. I can't check the page myself, government shutdown and all.
Not only that, but he's actually managed to discover that
Johnston would have had to been the one who planned the fake landings, not Nixon. (Progress, I guess.)
His FACTS page has a few howlers as well, as does the rest of the site. He claims that spacecraft travel between planets 'by a series of ever increasing orbits' (correct for ion engines, wrong for everything else), and that's way it takes 66 hours for the shuttle to reach the ISS (funny).
He says that the Saturn V only puts 3% of it's mass in earth orbit, as if that means something, then moves on as if he'd made a point. That's how rockets work, and by math shows closer to 4%, including the roughly half-fuled S-IVB. He actually tires to claim as evidence his observation that a plastic model kit of a Saturn V doesn't have the word 'moon' on the box.
Oh looky, he says that with no wind on the moon, what blew the dust off the top of the rocks, since there was no dust on them? (There wasn't any wind to blow them on the rocks in the first place. The answer's staring you in the face, Colby.)
Otherwise, let's see:
Uses Uri Geller as an authority? Check.
Fails to understand thermodynamics? Check.
Computer chips not invented, and comparing to a lunar landing game? Check.
Not understanding the difference between short term and long term missions when it comes to radiation? Check.
Classified files due to be declassified in 2026? Check.
NASA still can't get a rocket to take off and land vertically? Check.
Still claims the J-mission LM was unchanged? Check.
LEM? Not check. Yay, he figured out there's no E in it!
This one's interesting, he says not a single picture taken on the lunar surface has a picture of the earth in it. That's odd, there have been a few of them linked to from this very forum I recall seeing.
Bizarre political story occupying a full page, involving the CIA, about why the moon landing were hoaxed to prove the were? Check. Also, hippie drugs were a CIA plot.
Mars rovers are faked for the same motive as the moon landings (see above)? Check. (and why would they have to fake them anyway? He says that Apollo was faked because of radiation, but that wouldn't apply to unmanned probes.)
Complains that Apollo mission didn't take new astronauts along for transferring experience, then
in the very next paragraph complains that they sent astronauts to the moon who had never been in space before? Check.
No class? Check.
He says anyone who believes in the moon landing must be "essentially green." What does that even mean?
He also mocks the optimism of those who believed that Apollo was the beginning of sustained, increasing exploration and colonization of space. That one was painful to read.
Link, for anyone who's interested.
http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk/
