Oolite Bulletins

Conspiracy nut, Bart Sibrel, believes that the moon landings were faked. This is what happened when he confronted Buzz Aldrin and called him "a coward and a liar"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrgglDVmm_g

(For maximum customer satisfaction, I recommend watching this clip a few times... )

Buzz should have picked up a crow bar and kept on going. You don't call an air force fighter pilot who saw action in the Korean war "a coward" and expect to keep your teeth.

Buzz da man!

Someone should take that little **** to the moon stand him by the flag and remove his helmet. Seems pretty real now doesn't it Bart? FOOOP! BANG!

I found a similar video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY ... re=related I started to read the comments - it turned into a consipiracy theorist vs it really happened hack and slash - truly horrible, sometimes the anonimity of the Internet just brings out the worst in people...

Whilst I would like to be the sort of person who thinks violence should be a last resort of self defence, a stance that I find admirable in theory. Thats an impressive punch from an old guy and hugely funny.

Ive met an astronaut (not Aldrin) and talked with him one on one, and have no doubt whatsoever about the reality of the space program.

Davidtq wrote:

Whilst I would like to be the sort of person who thinks violence should be a last resort of self defence, a stance that I find admirable in theory. Thats an impressive punch from an old guy and hugely funny.

Ive met an astronaut (not Aldrin) and talked with him one on one, and have no doubt whatsoever about the reality of the space program.

I've met and chatted with Charlie Duke - and while, as a non-religious person, I don't necessarily hold with his views concerning how being on the moon helped him find "God" - I am absolutely certain that he (and the rest) stood on the surface of our nearest astronomical neighbour.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Davidtq wrote:

Whilst I would like to be the sort of person who thinks violence should be a last resort of self defence, a stance that I find admirable in theory. Thats an impressive punch from an old guy and hugely funny.

Ive met an astronaut (not Aldrin) and talked with him one on one, and have no doubt whatsoever about the reality of the space program.

I've met and chatted with Charlie Duke - and while, as a non-religious person, I don't necessarily hold with his views concerning how being on the moon helped him find "God" - I am absolutely certain that he (and the rest) stood on the surface of our nearest astronomical neighbour.

Don Lind was the one I met, and although he didnt walk on the moon, he was a science experiment type guy (crystal growth in space), He gave me no trace of doubt at all that he had been in space and that he knew the guys who had been on the moon etc etc.

Davidtq wrote:

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Davidtq wrote:

Whilst I would like to be the sort of person who thinks violence should be a last resort of self defence, a stance that I find admirable in theory. Thats an impressive punch from an old guy and hugely funny.

Ive met an astronaut (not Aldrin) and talked with him one on one, and have no doubt whatsoever about the reality of the space program.

I've met and chatted with Charlie Duke - and while, as a non-religious person, I don't necessarily hold with his views concerning how being on the moon helped him find "God" - I am absolutely certain that he (and the rest) stood on the surface of our nearest astronomical neighbour.

Don Lind was the one I met, and although he didnt walk on the moon, he was a science experiment type guy (crystal growth in space), He gave me no trace of doubt at all that he had been in space and that he knew the guys who had been on the moon etc etc.

I did a bit of micro-g crystal growth (study of) during my Physics degree - having just checked the web - it's quite possible that I recognise the name from that brief period of my education... Very cool.

When I worked at the Rutherford Appleton Labs one of the old boys in my lab had worked on the moon buggies as an apprentice.

As a rhetorical question - does anybody know what the resolution of the Hubble Telescope is? Just wondering if it was c. 1cm in 250,000 miles we could point it at the moon a photograph the footprints and tyre tracks (since the Conspiracy Theorists could still claim that finding the base units of the landers and the abandonned buggies weren't actual proof of human activity on the moon.

I don't think It will quite do that. But the lunar surveyor might. There is the laser reflector that was put up there to measure it's distance. It would have been impossible to set that up without human aid. Kind of a catch 22 for the conspiracy.

Earth bound mom's basement dwellers are not the best people to trust in relation to the slightly altered environmental factors surrounding interplanetary space travel.

Things you take for granted on earth, do not necessarily apply on the moon.

If it's fake, be a scientist and replicate the results exactly on earth. If you can't then you have to accept the fact people went to the moon.

The thing that gets me is the devils advocate approach. Lets say for one second their right. So what? Big scandal! Linch the Grand dads for lying to us. Ok all good and done now what?

Silence.

It take 0 effort to pick out the mortar, maybe try laying some bricks and actually building something for a change.

Even if you could and did photograph the tracks on the Moon, you couldn't win. The Great Conspiracy mode of questioning would pop up.

"Where did you get that photo?"
"Hubble"
"How do you know that?"
"Errrm, because NASA and Patrick Moore told me"
"They're lying"
"Right ... just hold your chin just there while I ..."

MKG wrote:

Even if you could and did photograph the tracks on the Moon, you couldn't win. The Great Conspiracy mode of questioning would pop up.

"Where did you get that photo?"
"Hubble"
"How do you know that?"
"Errrm, because NASA and Patrick Moore told me"
"They're lying"
"Right ... just hold your chin just there while I ..."

I think the same augment should be applied by these people to life saving medication and pain relief. Well I've never died of ebola, so I don't believe it exists. Hold that thought sherlock, whilst I inject you with this.

The bible says to turn the other cheek, but at times, there is nothing quite as satisfying as a good-ol sucker punch

We've had a few nut cases at our Astronomy club asking questions about the 'fake' moon landings. We dismiss them pretty easily - most of them only have a low level scientific understanding.

As far as Hubble is concerned, there are three reasons this won't work.

1. Hubble can't actually turn fast enough to track the moon. Its orientation systems were designed for deep sky work. They can just about manage the planets, but it's a struggle inside of Jupiter.

2. The moon is too close and too bright. Hubbles focussing systems were not designed for such a bright or close object. It can't stop down sufficiently unless you muck about with some jiggery pokery (it has been down once or twice, but required something NASA called 'ambush mode;!)

3. Hubble's not big enough. Its mirror does not have to resolving power to pick up footprints on the moon. As I recall its theortically able to resolve something about 60metres across. The biggest piece of Apollo hardware up there is about 10metres across.

My favourite 'proof' of the Apollo moon missions is actually from the UK and Australian tracking stations (Ours at Jodrell bank). They clearly show a shrinking angle of incidence which corresponds to the missions progress towards the moon. Impossible to fake, unless you make 'everybody' part of the conspiracy - which is, of course, paranoia.

Cheers,

Drew.

Then there's the former Soviet Union. They also tracked those missions. If the landings were faked, wouldn't they have raised a storm of controversy over it? They wouldn't have been complicit in faking them. Why would they?

And there's the several hundred pounds of moon they brought back with them, and made available for study by scientists all over the world ...

I think this site deals with the subject in the most appropriate way.

It would be in their favour to claim it as a fake. If a prize like that was still out there at the beginning of the cold war then they would have gone for it.

I don't know, all this Anti-American achevement talk. Didn't they create the patriot act specifically to stop this clandestine undermining tactic? Sounds like sedition to me.