your moon hoax article

that was the most unintelligent argument i have ever read. anyone who believes that man walked on the moon in 1969 (no one has the tech ability to do it today surely not in 69)is an idiot.

The scene that crosses my mind most often, in a situation such as this, is from Three Days of the Condor. They wipe out the CIA station(missing Redford, of course), and send in that incredible “clean-up crew” to remove all traces of what existed moments before. And when someone goes looking for what had existed only moments before, poof ,it never existed.

Bye, bye!

The column to which you’re referring, Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?, is a Staff Report, written by staff member David, not by Cecil Adams, and as such, belongs in the “Comments on Staff Reports” forum. Arnold Winkelried, the moderator of this forum, will be along shortly to move it there.

Meanwhile, you seem awfully certain of your claims there… Is there any particular reason why you know it was faked? Any evidence you might have (particularly evidence not covered in the article) would be appreciated.

Also, before you go off raising old claims, take a moment to review the full-length debate. I wouldn’t recommend trying to resurrect any of the hoax-theory arguments so emphatically debunked in that discussion, lest posters less patient than I react negatively to the repetition.

Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your well-reasoned and vigorous dialectic.
Please include a link to the article if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).

The article to which you are referring can be found at the link provided by staff member Chronos.

Since the article is a Staff Report, not a Straight Dope column, this thread is leaving the «Comments on Cecil’s Columns» forum and going to visit my colleague C K Dexter Haven in the «Comments on Staff Reports» forum.

moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»

I think he managed to successfully prevent that from happening through the expedient of not actually offering any coherent arguments that could be debunked. Anyways, I think I’ll advance the discussion by asking which specific technologies were not available in 1969. Certainly, we had the technology to shoot a big rocket up into the air, unless you care to delude yourself into thinking that the widely viewed launch was somehow faked. What technological advances would be necessary to reach the moon that were lacking?

Hmm. Which specific technologies were not available in 1969?

Was it Velcro?

Nope. Was it Tang?

Nope. Well, then, how about the digital watch?

Ah ha!! Evidently Dahow is correct–we could not have gotten to the Moon in 1969 because we did not yet possess the technology of the digital watch.

Cecil, you’ll have to correct your column.


…and pretend that it’s really DavidB doing the correcting. Ah, how deep the conspiracies go, wheels within wheels…men in black…


dahow, please explain how your comment is worthy of any attention.

Describe why you think the column was an unintelligent argument. Did you find the claims David B. chose to debunk rather silly? Well, that’s not David’s fault, those are all real claims by the hoax believers. Maybe you think you’ve heard better claims. Let’s hear those. Although checking through the debate link should expose you to a number of other claims, and responses to them.

What about your claim nobody has the tech (technical? technological?) ability to go to the moon now? That depends on what you mean. There are no extant spacecraft ready to do the job. If we wished to go to the moon, it would take some time and effort to design a new spacecraft and build it. However, by no means do we not have the technology to do so. We have all the information, materials, and knowledge necessary - we just don’t have it in the conveniently labeled package “moon rocket”. If you think we are short some technological know how, please provide some evidence of what you think we are missing and why.

There are numerous websites providing detailed descriptions of the equipment used. I will provide one reference, and suggest you do a web search.

In short, the only idiot is the person who started this thread without looking at the facts.

We couldn’t have got to the moon in 1969 because shadows had not yet been discovered. And yet, clear as can be, there are shadows in the pictures supposedly taken on the moon. Shadows were discovered in 1974, by Dr. Lamont P. Cranston, who named them after a favorite radio character from the 1930s.

Further, the American flag in the picture is totally anachronistic, for if it were actually photographed in 1969, it would have shown only 49 stars, since New Zealand did not become a state until 1973.

Thus, all the evidence points to the moon landing as having been faked in 1974 or 1975. It never happened in 1969.

The final argument is that people are supposedly walking on the moon, and yet there is no sign of any green cheese. Even forgetting the black-and-white photography (cleverly simulated to look like black-and-white photography, since b & w photography hadn’t been invented yet), the moon’s surface would surely have shown up as cheesy, not sandy.

Also, I read that at the time the men were supposedly walking on the moon, the moon was down to a very narrow crescent size. This clearly belies the claim that men walked on the moon, since if the moon were that thin and narrow, they would have fallen off.

I rest my case.

Neil Armstrong, astronaut. Gentlemen, we can build a moon lander. We have the technology. We have the capability to put the first man on the moon. Neil Armstrong will be that man.


why does the footage show the flag waving?

why is there no blast crater under the lander if the moon surface is (according to Astronauts) like talc powder?

How could they survive the Van allen belt of radiation with only aluminum foil when scientists agree it would require 4 inches of lead?

Why in 2001 no other country Knows how any of it is possible

Why hasn’t NASA set out to prove that the pictures are not tampered with? They obviously are?

And finally why havent we been back?

Why hasnt anyone been back

Because its immpossible

dahow Thanks for coming back. I notice you are on a three-week cycle. Is this the norm on your planet?

In any event, you should scroll-up(that means click on the up arrow at the right of this board), and read the post from Cervaise, telling you to read this thread.

If you have gotten this far, and you can understand our language, you will find answers in that thread. Many of them you will not like. But they are answers, just the same.

*Thanks for playing.

*This is a greeting in our language

all i asked is that you answer my questions! I didnt ask for an ignorant [Rude anatomica reference has been CENSORED - CKDH]

I tried that thread and now im even more convinced

no one will give me evidence

every one has to be a jerk

I have censored the language used, which is inappropriate for this forum. You want to use that language, go to the forum called BBQ PIT. – CKDH, Administrator
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 03-23-2001 at 07:40 AM]

To take your points in the order presented:

1: The footage does not show the flag waving. It shows it just sitting there, in a position that looks like it’s waving, held in place by a wire.

2: The top few centimeters of the lunar surface is fine and powdery. Underneath that, it’s hard and solid. The lander did blast away the powder underneath it, but it’s shallow enough that it’s not too noticeable.

3: What scientist told you that it’d take four inches of lead? Yeah, it’s risky going through the belts with all the more shielding they had. It won’t kill you instantly, but it’ll likely give you cancer down the line. Here we are down the line, and lo and behold, several of the astronauts do, in fact have cancer.

4: Every country on Earth knows how it’s possible. It’s quite simple, really: You make a big rocket, and you put a man on top. Other countries haven’t done it because first, big rockets are expensive, and most countries can’t afford them, and secondly, there wasn’t as much point once the U. S. beat them to it.

5: Of course the pictures were tampered with, if by that you mean that they’ve been cropped to show the good bits. All photographers do that. If you mean some more extensive form of tampering, show us your evidence. They look fine to me, but then, I’m not a photographer. What, specifically, am I missing?

6: We have been back, five times. Why not more? Because people got bored with it, and NASA couldn’t get the funding anymore. If you don’t like that, then write to your senator.

I apologize to everyone who’s read the other threads on this subject, for covering these same points yet again.

samclem: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Both Samclem and dahow: ad hominem arguments are not permitted in this forum. You want to debate the topic, that’s fine, but name calling (and certainly rude name-calling) is a no-no in this forum. Behave yourselves, or I’ll make you go sit in a corner of the lunar lander.

Don’t y’all knows a troll when ya sees one??? :rolleyes:
People who make postings like this aren’t interested in intelligent debate; they are posting to stir you up and make you upset. DFTT, please. :slight_smile:

… besides, no one has refuted my contention that the moon was a crescent on that date in 1969, and so no one could have stood on it without falling off.

Dex I humbly apologize for my inappropriate post. I knew better.

To try to make ammends, I offer, not chocolate, but moon phase .

If that link works, and I entered the info right, the answer is…