Mushroom

Headline »

Photo of World’s Largest Mushroom: Debunked

July 20, 2014 – 10:02 PM | 1,930 views

Hi everybody. I just came across a really interesting skeptical website named Waffles at Noon. There, I found an interesting piece on a step-by-step debunking of a photo that has long circulated on the internet …

Read the full story »
crypto

Cryptozoology, strange creatures

Paranormal

News, stories, articles about the paranormal

UFOs

Flying anomalies from around the world

Submitted Stories

Our reader’s true encounters

Interviews

GhostTheory interviews with leading researchers and high profile cases

Home » Conspiracies, Editorial Articles, Espionage, Follow up, Government, Headline, Hoax, Research & Science, Videos, Weird news

Failed Attempt To Prove A Moon Landing Hoax

Submitted by on December 4, 2013 – 7:19 AM11 Comments | 1,730 views

I don’t know haw many ways conspiracy theorists can continue to try to show that the Apollo Moon landings were hoaxed, nor what facts people need to hear to convince them. I guess some people will just never face what is in front of them, but then that is what the conspiracy theorists say as well.

Published on Apr 14, 2013

Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel presents his highly acclaimed (and much hated) controversial documentary showcasing newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the first mission to the moon, proving that the crew never left earth orbit.

Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt, much less the most complicated one ever imagined, landing on another heavenly body on its maiden voyage, and returning roundtrip with a crew that lived to tell, all with 1960′s technology. (More computing power is found today in a $10 watch.)

According to William Kaysing, a NASA contractor for Apollo, a classified interdepartmental memo rated the odds of a successful and survivable manned lunar landing on its first attempt at one in ten thousand. That is why the returning men of the mission looked so dejected rather than triumphant at their press conference, as they were blackmailed into lying about the alleged greatest accomplishment of mankind, to the detriment of their own souls.

Sibrel has been interviewed, and his documentary about the moon landings have been featured on, The Tonight Show, The Daily Show, Geraldo at Large, The Abrams Report,
Coast to Coast, NBC, CNN, FOX, Time Magazine, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Washington Post and USA Today.

Let’s look at the video. It opens ( for some reason) with a short history of the Titanic and the statement.

It was boasted to be “The ship that god himself could not sink.”

Well if you are going to offer a documentary trying to prove your case, you had better do the research. If you are going to get things wrong in your introduction you are not making a very good case for the rest of the show. As for the quote, the closest any advertising by White Star Lines for the Titanic is this statement:

As far as it is possible to do, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.

“Two” referring to the Titanic and here sister ship Gigantic. As for the “God himself…” statement, it is urban legend attributed to a deck hand speaking to a passenger, from no official or informed source if the statement was made at all.

And while it is true the Titanic “never completed its first voyage” people tend to forget her sister ship, the Gigantic completed many voyages, until she was sunk during WWI by either a mine or a torpedo. And, yes, while it is true she did sink, it is hardly a fair criticism that she did so as result of the intentional application of explosives designed for the purpose.

The documentary goes on to criticize NASA:

The same Space Program couldn’t put into orbit a telescope with a lens that focused.

Again not exactly true. The problem with the Hubble’s lens was not that it did not focus, but that an error was made in the shape of the lens. They fail to mention that the problem was repaired, while somehow drawing a parallel between launching a one-off mission like the Hubble to the series of 2 unmanned, 12 manned Gemini missions that preceded 4 manned Apollo missions, two of which orbited the moon and returned to Earth, all 18 of which were designed to test various equipment and mission aspects of the Apollo 11 mission which finally landed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon.

The documentary then launches into old territory of conspiracy theory starting with the “Lethal Radiation” of the Van Allen Belts.

That question is addressed Here:

The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:

Range in Aluminum [cm]
Energy
[MeV]
electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person’s body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

At one point the documentary offers a montage of images juxtaposing the development of the space program with various scenes of extreme poverty and cultural tragedy around the world. While I do not disagree that possibly money is better spent on Humanity than on exploration of the Moon, this is simply an emotional appeal that really offers no evidence about the Moon landings being faked. All it does offer is more corporate/government/illuminati type conspiracy rhetoric.

They then offer a comparison between keeping the Manhattan Project secret and keeping faked moon landings secret. What they fail to recognize in this comparison is that the Manhattan Project needed only be kept secret for a few years until the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, at which point I think the secret is out. What they also fail to recognize is that while the Manhattan Project was intended to be kept secret, it did not work out that way. The Russians, while nominally allies, were informed of the work on the atomic bombs almost as soon as work began. You can read that story Here. This documentary, demonstrating once more its quality of research and accuracy of presentation makes the clear statement that “The secret did not get out.”

Next they make the claim that mission rehearsals done here on Earth could have been been re-broadcast via satellite to seem like they were coming from the Moon. And that there is no way the Russians could have been tracking the Apollo missions that went there to somehow show that they did not. Unfortunately for those ideas to work, simple and indisputable facts prove them wrong. The Apollo missions were transmitting constant telemetry back to Mission Control. A signal easily tracked, and by triangulation easily determines the position of the command module. This same triangulation eliminates the possibility of using an Earth orbiting satellite to transmit the “faked” footage. Since they make the case that Cold War motives were behind the fakery of the Moon Landings, and since it can be shown that Russia kept pretty well informed of our activities, and since Russia had every bit as much ability to track an orbital craft as the US, then it seems if they want to prove their hoax theory, the place to go is demonstrate that the Soviet Union knew the Moon Landings were a hoax. Yet that case is never made.

Next they raise the same old questions of photographs, while claiming “anomalies of light and shadow, they demonstrate a complete lack of awareness either, which I will not bother to rehash here, but offer you This Article that covers the topic instead.

Finally they get to the supposed keystone of their case for the trickery and like all conspiracy theories, if you even halfway listen to what is actually said, and shown in the video, their analysis is based on broad assumptions with no foundation.

While laying claim to having done research which proves a Moon landing hoax, this documentary repeatedly gets simple facts wrong. If you apply their own stated logic (based solely on their interpretations assumptions and ignorance of facts), “If they genuinely went to the moon why would they be faking any part. By faking being halfway to the moon, it becomes apparent that they did so because they could not even go half way.” then I submit that if they cannot get their facts half correct, then they fail to do so because they cannot get any of their facts correct an,  so their story is a fraud.

I will recall you this statement from the description that accompanies the video:

Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt…

And say to the producers of the “documentary” that they themselves admit that there were many flights to orbit, as well as failures in the early attempts. Apollo 11 was not the first flight. Your own case contradicts the argument you try to make. Like most conspiracy theories, this one relies wholly upon the ignorance of the audience to make its case, manipulating or outright fabricating information where none supports its version of the true story.

If all else fails, mirrors are not a naturally occurring phenomenon, especially not specifically designed mirrors which always reflect back 180 degrees, called retro-reflectors, to the source of light. We have placed those on the surface of the moon and researchers in many countries regularly use them to take measurements on the distance between the Moon and the Earth.

Since it is the documentarians who make the case here, possibly their time would be better spent recording and making public the poverty, abuse and injustice many governments enforce upon their people rather than fabricating a poorly made case for government hoaxes as the cause for those social problems. Provided they could do it honestly, with facts, it might just wake some people up to change that needs to happen.

[email protected]

Find us on FaceBook for updates and more

The following two tabs change content below.

Henry Paterson

Editor at GhostTheory
I would like nothing more than the proof of various cryptids, alien civilizations, even alien visitors to be found. But that proof will come only through rigorous science and objective analysis, and by holding evidence to the highest standards of scrutiny. Born in south eastern Pennsylvania, i have found myself at one time or another living in Chicago, Cleveland, Raleigh-Durham, on the island of Kaua'i and finally landed on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. I have turned my hand to various professions from early work in 3d graphics to historic building restoration, carpentry and log home building to working in a bronze art foundry on the WWII Veterans Memorial. Currently I am a writer, script writer and working for a non profit organization called Empowerment Through Connection which is involved in equine assisted therapy for veterans, at risk teens and women.

Latest posts by Henry Paterson (see all)

  • IThinkso
  • HumanBeeing

    Perhaps YOU should do a little simple research before you write an article like this. Sibrel’s reference is probably from a line from James Cameron’s movie, “Titanic”. He took some artistic license, as did Sibrel, but if you think ANY “documentaries” are “100% objective factual truth” without any artistry and such, then you don’t know much.
    I quit reading your “article” when I saw your FIRST extreme error. I’m guessing that, even though you start out “acting” like you are going to be “objective” (a la that (so-called) conspiracy theorists and “anti-CT’s” both use similar language and claims to make their points), like many who make claims like you do with this article, that was probably a ruse-setup like is common by your ilk — start people out thinking you are “Mr. Objective”, and that psychologically gives your later B.S. “validity” and “believability”. Unfortunately, most people fall for tricks like that.
    (and there might have even been (some) “absence of malice” there — people often like to convince themselves, and “believe their own lies”, and use phraseology to fallaciously strengthen their arguments, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it; especially in written works like this — it’s WAY more common than you might think, but easy to see if you train yourself to look for it)

  • HaywoodZarathustra

    I like Dave McGowan’s view on this, and I claim to sit on the fence. I no longer believe much of ANYTHING the media reports.

    http://davesweb.cnchost.com/

  • http://GhostTheory.com/ Henry

    Was it the title of the article, or the first sentence that caused you to think I was offering an objective view?

  • jonnylungs

    “Why” are “you” “attacking” “Henry”?

    In all seriousness, I’m one of those “crazies” that does NOT believe we landed on the moon.
    However, I agree with Mr. Henry here that this attempt to debunk was absolutely pathetic. And he in no way shape or form said he was being objective in pointing that out. He is making a greater point here, look a little harder when you calm down.

  • Prince Petropia

    I have been reading a lot recently on the moon landing conspiracy theories. I will say that this is the most incredible one. They have failed again and again to validate the theory, yet they try again. But then again they have their own arguments and propositions. Please do have a look at my blog All About Occult if possible: http://allaboutoccult.blogspot.com/

  • rnsone

    Titanic’ssister ship wasn’t named “Gigantic”, it was Olympia. The Mythbusters(oxymoron?), whose motto should be “always believe your government”, didn’t prove a thing with the light/laser refractors. The Soviets had placed theirs there with an unmanned mission. Our government has lied and people died. So I wouldn’t put hoaxing the Apollo program past them.

  • Henry

    It was originally named Gigantic, and renamed after the accident, to distance it from the association of it’s sister.

  • rnsone

    Not what I read, do you have a link? Thanks.

  • Henry

    Actually I do not, because it was the Britannic, not the Olympic that was originally to be called Gigantic. You are correct and I got them mixed up.

    Regardless, the quote is still wrong, and this documentary is bs. It offers no evidence in support of its case.

  • Henry

    And the Lunokhod reflectors were “lost” in 1971, only relocated in 2010. So whose reflectors were being used in the time between?