US museum aims to set record straight over moon landing

[snopes]

A museum honoring the first man to walk on the moon is not afraid to confront conspiracy theorists who argue his 1969 lunar landing was a hoax.

The museum in western Ohio has set up a display featuring some of the talking points that conspiracy theorists make in books and numerous Web sites to try to back up their claims that NASA staged all of its moon landings from 1969 to 1972 in a movie studio.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...ing-Museum.php

[Lainie]

For example, a favorite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

Duh. They explained that to us in elementary school in 1969.

[diddy]

Most of the moon hoax proponents are people who are genuine nut cases who are simply very ignorant of how the moon landing actually worked and will continue to believe their theories despite the factual evidence.

That flag? They won't listen to what NASA or anybody else tells them about it. They will continue to believe the outrageous story that somebody opened a door to the closed off studio while they were faking the whole thing and a gust of air flew in.

Arguing with conspiracy theorists is like trying to fly by flapping your arms. These guys will disappear for a short while after you expose them and return back later on and spout the same old arguments. They remind me of the ID proponents. Whole lotta wind, but no real substance.

[Mr. Billion]

Gotta agree, the conspiracy nuts won't be convinced by any old "facts". I mean, you can use facts to prove things that are even remotely true.

The most unfortunate consequence of this museum's efforts is that it's actually dignifying those idiots with a response.

[chillas]

Originally Posted by diddy

Arguing with conspiracy theorists is like trying to fly by flapping your arms. These guys will disappear for a short while after you expose them and return back later on and spout the same old arguments. They remind me of the ID proponents. Whole lotta wind, but no real substance.

I agree completely.

The problem is not the conspiracy nuts themselves, but the fact that their nonsense is repeated so loudly and so often that eventually some of it starts to become accepted. Look at the "magic bullet" nonsense from the Kennedy assassination for an example.

Wait, you mean the bullet wasn't magic?

[chillas]

Originally Posted by Unklesam

Wait, you mean the bullet wasn't magic?

Only if doing what it was designed to do makes it magic.

[Kutter]

If you throw it into fire the words "One Myth to Rule Them All, And In The Paranoia Bind Them" in Dark Speech reveal themselves.

Then Oliver Stone bites off your finger and falls into a bad historical drama.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Unklesam

Wait, you mean the bullet wasn't magic?

If by "magic" you mean the uncanny ability to travel in a perfectly normal trajectory and cause perfectly logical and consistent wounds to two people and behave exactly as a bullet should, then yes it is magic.

The Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy nutjobs love to pound their chest about how a single bullet would have to have done things that it couldn't in order to cause the woulds in both President Kennedy's back and neck and Governor Connelly's chest and wrist. The paint horrible strawman scenarios of the bullet having to hover in midair for several seconds or make unrealistic turns, and by falsely claiming that the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital was in too pristine a shape to have caused the injuries to both men.

Most of this involves the mistaken idea that President Kennedy and Governor Connelly were seated directly back and front of each other, when in fact Governor Connelly was seated on a folding trundle seat that was much lower to the floor and toward the middle of the car then a normal seat, placing Connelly behind, lower then, and off center of Kennedy, making the bullet trajectory from Oswald's position in the window of the School Book Depository through the wounds in both Kennedy and Connelly perfectly consistent.

Conspiracy nutjobs always use the same tactics. The IDers, the Moon Landing Hoaxers, the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, and the Kennedy Assassination Theorists always use a mixture of half truths taken out of context and totally made up bullshit and then mix it together with a twinge up paranoia in an attempt to make it sound good.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by chillas

I agree completely.

The problem is not the conspiracy nuts themselves, but the fact that their nonsense is repeated so loudly and so often that eventually some of it starts to become accepted. Look at the "magic bullet" nonsense from the Kennedy assassination for an example.

And this is my fear as well. If enough people spout nonsense the nonsense becomes respectable. The truth, sadly, is not democratic. I don't want it to become as "hip" to spout moon landing hoax nonsense or worse, 9/11 theory nonsense, as it is to spout the equally illogical but more popular Kennedy conspiracy nonsense.

[Tootsie Plunkette]

Some still doubt lunar landing 40 years later.

Skeptics point to dozens of questions about the original footage. Why were the astronauts’ shadows different lengths? Why is the flag waving in space where there’s no wind? Why aren’t there stars in the background?

Garmann has answers. The moon’s uneven surface distorted the shadows. The flag waved because the astronauts were rotating the pole back and forth as they set it in the soil. The camera was set to capture the images of the astronauts on the glare of the moon’s surface, making a starry background too faint to see. He plans to disprove more hoax claims during his presentation, but last week, he was still fuming that he’s defending the moon landing 40 years after the fact.

“Why does the moon hoax theory still have legs?” he said. “Those people are so far out into the ozone. … The flag waved? Pu-leeze. NASA wouldn’t be so stupid.”

[crocoduck_hunter]

Anybody else remember when a guy accused Buzz Aldrin of participating in the hoax and Buzz, 82 at the time, punched him in the face?

[effo5231]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Anybody else remember when a guy accused Buzz Aldrin of participating in the hoax and Buzz, 82 at the time, punched him in the face?

I do... Myth (and that guy's nose) busted.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Anybody else remember when a guy accused Buzz Aldrin of participating in the hoax and Buzz, 82 at the time, punched him in the face?

Yes, I remember Bart very well. He is the ass who thought it would be a good idea to harass someone like Buzz Aldrin (these guys are really sick of the whole HB thing and have little tolerance of them). Good for Buzz.

The thing about conspiracy theorists is that these guys suffer from a cognitive dissonance that makes them no better than loud jerks. They reject logic and at the same time expect to be taken seriously. You cannot use logic to argue a position that was obtained by rejecting that logic. There is no way to convince them that they are wrong. Heck, you could take them to the moon and show them Tranquility Base and they would still accuse you of drugging them and taking them to a fake set. Its just bizarre how they can argue the same, debunked talking points. It's an interesting observation on humans though.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by effo5231

I do... Myth (and that guy's nose) busted.

"That's one small punch for man, one giant blow for mankind."

[snopes]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Anybody else remember when a guy accused Buzz Aldrin of participating in the hoax and Buzz, 82 at the time, punched him in the face?

Not to mention the lunatic who punched John Glenn in the face:

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Galle...-Slugged/2009/

[diddy]

Wow... That guy was a loon! At least it wasn't about the moon hoax theory. My favorite part of the article was this line:

Glenn’s only response, “I haven't been hit like that in 30 years.”

[Singing in the Drizzle]

All the prof these idiots need can be found at Apache Point Observatory or any other observatory that has a lunar ranging laser. Then they can try and explain how a reflector got on the moon were Apollo 11 was supposed to have landed. This is a issue I have never seen the conspiracy theorists address.

Just did a search for reflectors and conspiracy theories. It seam they could easily had been deployed and aligned by those secret Russian moon landings with robots or something similar. I could just see the US and Russia working together on something like this and keeping it secret all these years. Then there is the question of a program large enough to do this in the US being keep secret.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle

Then there is the question of a program large enough to do this in the US being keep secret.

You've never heard of it, so obviously it must have been kept secret, right?

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle

Then there is the question of a program large enough to do this in the US being keep secret.

Yes, in Cold War era 1969... Right before Watergate... 7 Times (each moon landing)... And a conspiracy that can fool the massive intelligence program that Russia had that could have easily called us liars and had a distinctive propaganda advantage to do so... We can go on for hours...

Its silly. Even their own theories are contradictory. They just want the best of both worlds so to speak.

All the proof these idiots need can be found at Apache Point Observatory or any other observatory that has a lunar ranging laser. Then they can try and explain how a reflector got on the moon were Apollo 11 was supposed to have landed. This is a issue I have never seen the conspiracy theorists address.

They aren't looking for proof. If they were, they would have accepted any number of logical arguments that have been addressed numerous times. If they doubt the mountain range of evidence that we did go to the Moon, nothing, and I do mean nothing, will convince them otherwise. Especially an authoritative source that can be seen as a lackey to NASA or the space program (and thus part of the conspiracy).

And for the record, I have seen people argue about the reflectors (they talked about them on the Mythbusters special where the telescope operator says he has meet many of them - HB - and think they are crazy) and the explanation is that they, like all of the objects they would find on the Moon were placed by a remote satellite.

You could take them to the Moon directly and they would think they are still on Earth being deceived.