Quick Poll: Apollo Hoax Believers.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Exactly.

My girlfriend is essentially a scientist. She doesn't know a thing about physics.

Oh My Buddha! How do you guys get it up? 😀😀

-m. 😛 😉

I have come across this argument SO many times and in the process, I found that the best site in debunking the conspiracy theorists can be found here:

http://www.clavius.org/

I find that the arguments that moon hoax conspiracy theorists have are incredibly weak.

EDIT: In terms of technology, I have linked directly to save a little time.

http://www.clavius.org/technasa.html

Originally posted by mikelom
Oh My Buddha! How do you guys get it up? 😀😀

-m. 😛 😉

I guess they don't call him Proper Knob for just any old reason. 😛

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Exactly.

My girlfriend is essentially a scientist, she has a Master of Science (MSc) degree in Rehabilitation Science. She doesn't know a thing about physics.

So he has doubts about the moon landings. That does not destroy whatever credentials he has as some kind of scientist. If he goes to the debunking sites it would answer his questions about the issue. He is just going by the evidence as he sees it. So the evidence is faulty, that is his issue to overcome.

He is not leaping on a bandwagon and trying to force everyone to believe the moonlanding was a hoax.

There is a difference between a real hoaxter and someone who wants a couple of points cleared up.

The true hoaxter (Sp?) will find problem after problem to support his claims, just like creationists who want to destroy 200 years of science behind evolution. Same mental set. Plus the desire to make a career out of these conspiracy theories. There is a lot of money in this crap, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
This site's fuzzy thinkers make me so sick on the Debates Forum, I just gotta ask:

Does ANYONE here on the Science Forum really think the moon landings were faked?

Seriously?

I do not think they were faked.
I suggest anyone who does try to find the Myth Busters show on the moon
landing. I didn't think they were faked before the show, but that show did
reveal why some people's assumptions caused them to think it was.


YouTube
Kelly

Originally posted by Basmania
Although I am a scientist and have always assumed the lunar landings to be true, there is one compelling hiccup in the photographic evidence that is rarely discussed and has no apparent resolution.

The lunar surface is dusty, lots of tiny loose particles are evident in footage whenever astronauts are filmed walking on the surface. In so doing they contin ...[text shortened]... 'moon proud' and took a broom with them this is a distinct and major flaw in archived footage.

There is no air on the moon, therefore no gusting or billowing of air. The dust kicked up from the engine travelled away from the lander only.

Did you say your were a scientist!

Flapping flag:

Mmmm sure they were inside a big hanger filming the hoax and some accidentally turned on a really big fan to mimic the natural air currents found all over the moon!

Aldrin wept.

Angles of shadows

FFS don't hoaxers percieve how light falling over different geometry or landscapes creates apparent angular effects especially when represented in 2 dimensions.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So he has doubts about the moon landings. That does not destroy whatever credentials he has as some kind of scientist.

Actually, yes, it does. Given the massive amount of serious debunking by serious scientists, all available at the click of a web link, anyone who still maintains that there are doubts about the reality of the moon landing is dealing his own scientific repute some serious damage. Had there been the slightest evidence for a conspiracy, you would have the slightest glimmer of a point. But there isn't, and moon conspiracy believers have ipso facto no scientific standing.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Actually, yes, it does. Given the massive amount of serious debunking by serious scientists, all available at the click of a web link, anyone who still maintains that there are doubts about the reality of the moon landing is dealing his own scientific repute some serious damage. Had there been the slightest evidence for a conspiracy, you would have the ...[text shortened]... isn't, and moon conspiracy believers have ipso facto no scientific standing.

Richard

I believe he stated that he didn't doubt that we landed on the moon he just didn't know what to make of a few, to his mind, strange occurences.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Actually, yes, it does. Given the massive amount of serious debunking by serious scientists, all available at the click of a web link, anyone who still maintains that there are doubts about the reality of the moon landing is dealing his own scientific repute some serious damage. Had there been the slightest evidence for a conspiracy, you would have the ...[text shortened]... isn't, and moon conspiracy believers have ipso facto no scientific standing.

Richard

You perhaps notice Basmania is not publishing this in Nature, he is speculating at a rhp forum. There is no doubt in my mind his scientific credibility will have not so much as a smudge from his opinion. Look close at his post, there is no fire and brimstone coming out. Are you a scientist? Or just someone grousing nobody should be able to express an opinion?