I once worked with a (very nice) lady who believed both that a) the U.S. Government has flying-saucer technology gotten from aliens who crashed at Roswell; and b) that the Moon landings were faked. I don’t know why we’d have to fake Moon landings if we had flying saucers; maybe it’s because the flying saucers seem to crash all the time.
Of all the crap on that page, there is one, um, note that seemed based in reality:
On the face of it, this statement seems true - why DOES the ground appear to ‘fade’ in that picture? Is it a result of the camera lens being focused on a particular object?
One a’ these days, Sibris…one a’ these days…BANG! ZOOM! RIGHT to da moon!
</cramden>
You GO, Buzz.
Define utter lack of self-respect: crying to a judge that a 72-year-old man beat your 37-year-old ass down, despite the fact that you were BEGGING for it.
No, violence isn’t the answer. Yes, violence is bad, m’mkay? But dammit, some people need a wake-up call, and IMHO, this guy was richly deserving.
Sure, violence is bad and all that, but damn, don’t it feel good?
Beelzebubba: Wow! As an ex-NASA contractor type, that site was better argued than I imagined it would be.
That particular photograph doesn’t seem problematic. Other things besides atmosphere scatter light. However, some of the other photos seem to have been retouched. Whether by NASA, news services / National Geographic or the site owner is another question.
National Geographic definitely does retouch photographs. They’ve been doing this for decades. It’s not a secret.
NASA will change colors, and composite a number of photographs without necessarily making note. Much reprocessing is involved in making pictures viewable. Did somebody (without permission) do a semi-no-no on a distributed NASA photo to make a prettier picture? Possible.
There were no moon landings? Impossible.
As for the authority of the site owner, note that he says “you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs”, whereas the photo in the previous section seems to have two stars.
“As for the authority of the site owner, note that he says ‘you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs,’ whereas the photo in the previous section seems to have two stars.”
—But Gywneth and Tom were just making cameo apperances, so it doesn’t really count . . .
Let me add my voice to those saying “Way to go, Buzz”. Maybe it’ll teach these lunatics a lesson.
While I’m here didn’t Neil Armstrong have a restraining order out on some of these guys ? Or was it just a “I’m gonna kick yer ass if you come onto my property again” ? Or is that just some half remembered nonsense.
And I would love to see a similar “We did land on the moon” Fox special, it seems only fair to give the same time to both sides. Give The Bad Astronomer some TV time, throw in some other willing dopers and see what happens.
SD
Too bad he didn’t break his jaw, then stomp on him til his innards were soup. He still defended himself well for a 72 year old.
Hey, I didn’t say I disagreed with what Buzz did. 
As I said - I would likely do the same, and I do think the guy deserved it; however, that doesn’t make it ok - You really shouldn’t use violence as a solution. “He was really irritating.” isn’t an acceptable reason for attacking someone, no matter how much we might wish it to be.
Why not? He was properly warned to go away.
kitarak: ‘Really irritating’ does not begin to describe what the moron was. The guy had a large book and was hitting Aldrin with it. I’d call that assault, and, with the screaming, I’d probably be in fear of my life.
Quite simply, Buzz nearly had reason to shoot the bastard. If Bart was a bit more agressive with the book (going for a head shot or violently swinging it around), Aldrin would have had all the reason in the world to draw a gun and end the man’s life.
I think Aldrin should walk.
This kook was well beyond “he was irritating”, he was intrusive, and got in Buzz’s way, in addition to accusing him of theivery and lying. I’ve shoved aggressive panhandlers for less.
Furthermore, this guy has trespassed on Aldrin’s property before, a little detail he does not mention in his crybaby routine.
Sorry, but when a guy prevents me from travelling freely (i.e. getting deliberately in my way) is risking physical violence…from anybody.
Lorem Ipsum is nonsense Latin used as filler by typesetters and designers. I think Libertarian is attempting to equate the parodied thread with nonsense.
Oops. Posted to the wrong thread. 
A few people have mentioned the http://www.badastronomy.com Bad Astronomy site already; I’m becoming convinced the same few people are responsible for all the BB posts in the world. 
Since some people appear to be asking, smackdowns for any and all objections HBs (hoax believers) may have regarding the moon are available at the Badastromy site at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions
The Bad Astronomy site is a good site for learning about good astronomy, something I’m highly in favour of.
(BTW, the reason all the retorts are available is that those guys hardly ever come up with new ideas. They just keep repeating the old ones over and over and over…)
Well thanks anyway, I for one, always wondered what that meant.
Sadly, I think the lesson will be that they can get lots of free publicity by being more obnoxious than they already are.
Oh, and when I’m rich and famous, I’ll make a “why the moon hoax argument is for fools and charlatans” documentary and give it to TV for free.
As far as I’m concerned, having walked on the Moon entitlessomeone to punch out obnoxious conspiracy buffs.
And Alan Shepard should be allowed to use his six-iron.
There’s a .sig if I’ve ever seen one…
From yahoo news
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin offered a spirited defense Wednesday as to why he decked a pushy filmmaker who wanted him to swear on a Bible that he really did go to the moon – self defense.
“The man had him up against a wall and was not letting him pass. All Buzz was doing was trying to get away from him. On the videotape of the incident, you can hear Buzz asking for police to be called,” his lawyer, Robert O’Brien, told Reuters in an interview…
…The police spokesman added that witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible and that Sibrel had lured Aldrin to the hotel under false pretenses so that he could interview him.
Sibrel told Reuters, “I approached him and asked him again to swear on a Bible that he went to the moon, and told him he was a thief for taking money to give an interview for something he didn’t do.” "
The obvious problem here is that Buzz took the wrong action…Sirbel is still able to speak.