Questions for hoax trolls

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Hans-Joachim Widmaier

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 3:03:24 AM7/10/01
to
I know this is kind of a touchy subject, and this posting could very well
be seen as feeding the trolls, but I'm pretty sick of people running around,
questioning well established facts while failing to provide any proofs.

In order to raise some suspicion with me, I'd first want to have some
simple questions answered.

1. When, who and why?

When did the hoax start? Project Apollo began in NASA's early days, well before
Kennedy's famous speech. It was meant to be a cislunar project, but said speech
changed it to include a lunar landing. That was 1961. Did the whole thing start
as a hoax, or was it meant to be real and turned into a hoax later on? Who was
responsible for saying: "Erm, instead of landing on the moon, we just pretend to
do it." And why did they choose to abandon the landing? If it was unfeasible,
they could have just admitted it. After all, Kennedy was dead since, and new
governments usually do not remember well the promises of previous ones, much
less intend to keep them ... And if it was unfeasible, they wouldn't have had to
be afraid of the Russians doing it, as it would have been unfeasible to them, too.
I see no evidence that this has ever happened.

2. Who was in it?

This looks like a *big* secret to keep. So you tell it only to the people who
absolutely must know, else the truth is out. Who where them? Bob Gilruth,
alright. The astronauts, obviously (maybe that'S why Gordo didn't get a seat
on Apollo -- they already knew he can't keep a secret, as he showed be
telling the UFO story :-)). Who else? Did Webb know/have to know? The president?
The flight directors? The controllers? Probably easiest. Somebody has to run the
show, why not them? By now we're talking about quite a lot of men. And all of
them still keep it?

3. How was it done?

This and the next one's are my favourites. So you want to show the world 2 guys
walking around on the moon without them being there. How are you going to do it?
Now, that's easy -- Hollywood does it all the time. Does it? The moon's
gravity is 1/6 that of earth, and there's no athmosphere to speak of. In order
to give a convincing show, you have to simulate these 2 peculiarities (you cannot
just say "air is invisible, so it doesn't care" -- it does, as you want dust not
to float in the air but to settle quickly). Ok, let's tackle the gravity thing.
A) Suspend the astronaut actors by ropes. While it seems easy at first, it turns
out to be terribly difficult if you want to do it right. Then there's the ropes,
which can and *will* be spotted, as you can't easily edit them out (unless you
don't do it in real time; but that'll open another can of worms as well ...).
Anyway, you're not going to use this technique. B) Like with zero g, fly 1/6 g
parabolas. Very good, but lasting only a few 10 seconds, and the space is somewhat
confined in an airplane. They didn't do it that way. C) Use a pool. Quite good,
but too easy to see, and somewhat hard to make a vacuum. No way. D) Dig a hole
some 1000 miles into the ground and make there a nice, big cave. Has the
advantage of giving some secrecy, too. There's the slight disadvantage of being
impossible and many times more costly than the whole Apollo project. Obviously
this is not how they did it. E) Simulate the whole thing in computers. This is
just for completenes' sake. Even today you need render farms to make an
artificial movie of some length. 30 years ago, simulating men in real time?
I really don't see how they simulated those scenes on the moon.

4. Why did they do it over and over again?

Being the dumb ass that I am, if I had to run that hoax show, I'd do it once,
exactly once, at most once, hoping to get away with it! I'd invent some medium
emergency, "bring the guys home," and tell the world that we've done it, and
that it's too dangerous to do it again. I'd find a reason not to include a
TV camera (weight), and I'd let the film in the Hasselblad jam after several
exposures. But no, they did this moon landing show 6 times, they did bring
ever better colour TV cameras, even rovers, they stayed 3 days and made
hunderds of extremely sharp pictures. Why should they do that? Just to show off?

5. Where was the money coming from?

Running that hoax couldn't have been cheap. The easy answer would be that the
money came from project Apollo, obviously. But that budget is accounted for, up
to the last cent (methinks). And they *did* build the boosters, spacecraft,
crawlers, ground support thingies; they did write the procedures; they did
launch those rockets; all this cannot be dismissed. So, who paid for the hoax?

6. So, why?

It appears to me that actually going to the moon is much easier than convincingly
pretend to do so. Your simulation will be absolutely flawless, as it is no
simulation, but for real. You'll have no secrecy problems, as there is no
secret to keep. Of course, there'll be some disappointed trolls who'd prefer to
unveil a monstrous conspiracy and are destined to fail to do so. But then, you
can't have it all, can you?

I'm still amazed that there's people who take missing reseau lines on a
photograph as evidence for a fake moon landing. Telling them why the lines are
missing, they're just ignoring the answer and ask the same question again a few
weeks later. If the whole thing was faked so convincingly, which is, as I tried
to explain, almost impossible to do, why weren't they able to fake some reseau
lines on photgraphs, too? Seems a reasonably simple operation to me.

Now to apologizing for this long troll fodder. I'm reading this newsgroup since
quite some time, and haven't seen some of above arguments yet (which might
just mean I've missed them). At first, I wanted to write a little "last of the
brethren in the know" story, where I answered all the above questions (making
the answers up, of course). This might have been more entertaining to you but,
alas, my writing skills and especially my time are limited.

So, trolls, believers of the greatest hoax of all time, I'd like
a consistent scenario of the why, when and how it happened.

Hans-J.

StarFurie

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 4:27:49 AM7/10/01
to
In article <6e990e29.01070...@posting.google.com>, hjwid...@web.de
(Hans-Joachim Widmaier) writes:

>I know this is kind of a touchy subject, and this posting could very well
>be seen as feeding the trolls, but I'm pretty sick of people running around,
>questioning well established facts while failing to provide any proofs.

You realize that you're asking for reasonable answers from unreasonable people.
You might as well be asking for water from the moon. :-)

Star...@AwOL.com
Knowledge is power, reasoning is torque.

Terrell Miller

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 7:41:12 AM7/10/01
to

"Hans-Joachim Widmaier" <hjwid...@web.de> wrote in message
news:6e990e29.01070...@posting.google.com...

> I know this is kind of a touchy subject, and this posting could very well
> be seen as feeding the trolls, but I'm pretty sick of people running
around,
> questioning well established facts while failing to provide any proofs.
>
> In order to raise some suspicion with me, I'd first want to have some
> simple questions answered.
>
<snip>

>
> 4. Why did they do it over and over again?
>
> Being the dumb ass that I am, if I had to run that hoax show, I'd do it
once,
> exactly once, at most once, hoping to get away with it! I'd invent some
medium
> emergency, "bring the guys home," and tell the world that we've done it,
and
> that it's too dangerous to do it again. I'd find a reason not to include a
> TV camera (weight), and I'd let the film in the Hasselblad jam after
several
> exposures. But no, they did this moon landing show 6 times, they did bring
> ever better colour TV cameras, even rovers, they stayed 3 days and made
> hunderds of extremely sharp pictures. Why should they do that? Just to
show off?

If you're a conspiracy theorist and you're presented with these facts, you
would explain it thus:

The *first*two* landings were hoaxes: in 1969 NASA still didn't have it
right, but they still had to keep their funding by meeting JFK's mandate, so
they faked A11 (really grainy pix, who'd know?) and A12 (Beano fried teh
color camera early), then arranged for A13's O2 tank to rupture enroute,
making a dangerous but survivable inflight abort necessary. That buys NASA
time to either figure out how to achieve an actual landing, or to honorably
cancel the rest of the missions (it's just too dangerous, folks).

Which makes Al Shepard the actual first man on the moon in 1971.

Sad thing is, this is the kind of reasoning that conspiracy types actually
concoct! :(

--
Terrell Miller, Ordo Pantheris
terrel...@mindspring.com

"The bigger the power, the bigger the politics. It's the oldest linear
equation in human affairs."
- Pierre Oullette


Darkhop

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 10:14:09 AM7/10/01
to
Hans-Joachim Widmaier wrote:
>
> There's the slight disadvantage of being
> impossible

My SO doesn't seem to think this is a disadvantage...


/John -- except when *I'm* impossible...
http://www.darkhop.com/
remove "rarely"

Sam Seiber

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 12:20:34 PM7/10/01
to
Hans-Joachim Widmaier wrote:
> In order to raise some suspicion with me, I'd first want to have some
> simple questions answered.

The question I want an answer from the CT'ers, is this:
Since the USSR could track Apollo to the moon just as the USA did,
wouldn't the USSR be the first country to cry fowl if they noticed
nothing heading toward the moon? Tell me the USSR was in on the
hoax too! Yea, right.

Sam

John Beaderstadt

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 1:36:25 PM7/10/01
to
Sam Seiber wrote:

> Since the USSR could track Apollo to the moon just as the USA did,
> wouldn't the USSR be the first country to cry fowl if they noticed
> nothing heading toward the moon?

Or "foul," as the case may be. ;-)

--
Beady's First Law of Social Harmonics: "Never let the engineers write the
instructions."


Joseph Nebus

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 9:30:45 PM7/10/01
to
Sam Seiber <tingr...@earthlink.com> writes:

>...wouldn't the USSR be the first country to cry fowl if they noticed


>nothing heading toward the moon?

Clearly, the Soviets would have, but were too chicken.

Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrell Miller

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 10:50:01 AM7/14/01
to
"Joseph Nebus" <neb...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:nebusj.9...@rcs-sun1.rcs.rpi.edu...

> Sam Seiber <tingr...@earthlink.com> writes:
>
> >...wouldn't the USSR be the first country to cry fowl if they noticed
> >nothing heading toward the moon?
>
> Clearly, the Soviets would have, but were too chicken.

Big, embarrassing state secrets like that would likely be worth far more as
blackmail than as propaganda. IOW, the Sovs could have figured that they
could gets lots and lots of concessions (start pulling out of Vietnam, etc.)
from Uncle Sam if maybe their ambassador one fine day went to a White House
reception and just so casually happened to mention "technical difficulties"
that Sov tracking sites had in acquiring the Apollo spacecraft that were
supposedly enroute to the moon...than the benefit they would have gotten
from tabloid headlines in Pravda.

Or, the Sovs could have just tracked the spacecraft as they in fact went to
the moon and back <g>

Michael Gallagher

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 12:30:52 PM7/15/01
to
On 10 Jul 2001 00:03:24 -0700, hjwid...@web.de (Hans-Joachim
Widmaier) wrote:

> .... When, who and why?
>


For me, this is interesting because, as I understand it, there are
_several_ theories which contradict eachother. If the Moon flights
had been a hoax, wouldn't it just go down to one theory over time? As
it is, either (a) we DIDN'T go because (1) radiation would have killed
the astronauts after only a few minutes and/or (2) NASA simply didn't
have the technology for it; or (b) we DID got and had to fake the
footage because (1) we found an alien base on the Moon and wanted to
keep First Contact secret from the world and have to this day; or (2)
the missions were exactly as reported, but the film didn't survive in
the cameras, so the PHOTOS had to be faked even if the mission was
one. If the hoax trolls would kindly pick one scenario and stick with
it, I would appreciate it.

>... Where was the money coming from?
>

And where did it GO?

> .... But that budget is accounted for, up to the last cent (methinks) ...


You could argue that those budgets were all faked, but then the
question becomes, what happened to $24 billion ($80+ billion in
today's dollars)? The closest I came top an answer from a troll was,
"I can think of lots of places the money could go," but that's not
good enough; show me the money and who got it! Which of course ties
back into which hoax scenario is "true."


> ... It appears to me that actually going to the moon is much easier than convincingly
>pretend to do so ...


Yep!

> ... So, trolls, believers of the greatest hoax of all time, I'd like


>a consistent scenario of the why, when and how it happened.
>


So do I, but I don't think we should hold our breath!


JGDeRuvo

unread,
Jul 29, 2001, 6:20:09 PM7/29/01
to
I've actually written a short film on this subject, poking fun at it.
It's in docudrama style.

I believe this is from Mr. Clarke for several reasons I'd rather not
go into. However, I cannot say for certain.

Mike Cabbage
-----Original Message-----
From: James DeRuvo [mailto:jgde...@home.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:29 AM
To: mcab...@orlandosentinel.com
Subject: FAKE MOON & Arthur C. Clarke


Dear Mr. Cabbage, can you please confirm that Arthur C. Clarke has
responded to your article w/ the following letter? I am eager to
verify it's authenticity.

Thank you.

As a long-time admirer of the United States, I am appalled to
hear that a recent poll suggests that 20% of Americans are ignorant
fools: I hope the figure is grossly exaggerated, as no other term is
strong enough to describe anyone who believes the Moon landings have
been faked. If the late unlamented Evil Empire was still around, I
might have suspected some of being communist sympathisers attempting
to discredit the one achievement for which the U.S.A. may be
remembered a thousand years from now.

Remembering how quickly Watergate unravelled, how could any sane
person imagine that a conspiracy involving *hundreds of thousands of
people over more than a decade* would not have done the same? Ben
Franklin put it well : `A secret known to three people can be kept -
as long as two of them are dead.'

And how do these nitwits account for the fact that, for the last
thirty years, the laser reflectors and radio sensors on the Moon have
been transmitting terabytes of data back to Earth? Who do they think
put them there - E.T.s?

But I can't waste any more time on lunatics: I am too busy
proving that George Washington never existed, but was invented by
the British Disinformation Service to account for a certain minor
unpleasantness in the Colonies.

Sincerely,

Arthur Clarke 11 Jul `01.


hjwid...@web.de (Hans-Joachim Widmaier) wrote in message news:<6e990e29.01070...@posting.google.com>...

OM

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 2:34:15 AM7/30/01
to
On 29 Jul 2001 15:20:09 -0700, james...@yahoo.com (JGDeRuvo) wrote:

> But I can't waste any more time on lunatics: I am too busy
>proving that George Washington never existed, but was invented by
>the British Disinformation Service to account for a certain minor
>unpleasantness in the Colonies.

...Leave it to Sir Arthur to prove that not even moving to Sri Lanka
can take the pompousness out of you damned Limeys :-) :-) :-)


OM

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages