Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Unsure of How to Counter the 'Moon Hoax'
The Associated Press ^ | January 5th 2003 | MARCIA DUNN

Posted on 01/05/2003 5:06:37 PM PST by ContentiousObjector

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Is that the moon or a studio in the Nevada desert? How can the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? Why can't we see stars in the moon-landing pictures?

For three decades, NASA has taken the high road, ignoring those who claimed the Apollo moon landings were faked and part of a colossal government conspiracy.

The claims and suspicious questions such as the ones cited here mostly showed up in books and on the Internet. But last year's prime-time Fox TV special on the so-called "moon hoax" prompted schoolteachers and others to plead with NASA for factual ammunition to fight back.

So a few months ago, the space agency budgeted $15,000 to hire a former rocket scientist and author to produce a small book refuting the disbelievers' claims. It would be written primarily with teachers and students in mind.

The idea backfired, however, embarrassing the space agency for responding to ignorance, and the book deal was chucked.

"The issue of trying to do a targeted response to this is just lending credibility to something that is, on its face, asinine," NASA chief Sean O'Keefe said in late November after the dust settled.

So it's back to square one -- ignoring the hoaxers. That's troubling to some scientific experts who contend that someone needs to lead the fight against scientific illiteracy and the growing belief in pseudoscience such as aliens and astrology.

Someone like NASA.
"If they don't speak out, who will?" asks Melissa Pollak, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation.

Author James Oberg will. The former space shuttle flight controller plans to write the book NASA commissioned from him even though the agency pulled the plug. He is seeking money elsewhere. His working title: "A Pall Over Apollo."

Tom Hanks will speak out, too.
The Academy Award-winning actor, who starred in the 1995 movie "Apollo 13" and later directed the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon," is working on another lunar-themed project. The IMAX documentary will feature Apollo archival footage. Its title: "Magnificent Desolation," astronaut Buzz Aldrin's real-time description of the moon on July 20, 1969.

While attending the Cape Canaveral premiere of the IMAX version of "Apollo 13" in November, Hanks said the film industry has a responsibility to promote historical literacy. He took a jab at the 1978 movie "Capricorn One," which had NASA's first manned mission to Mars being faked on a sound stage.

"We live in a society where there is no law in making money in the promulgation of ignorance or, in some cases, stupidity," Hanks said. "There are a lot of things you can say never happened. You can go as relatively quasi-harmless as saying no one went to the moon. But you also can say that the Holocaust never happened."

A spokesman for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington says there will always be those who will not be convinced. But the museum does not engage them in debate.

The spokesman acknowledges, however, that if a major news channel was doing a program that questioned the authenticity of the Holocaust, "I'd certainly want to inject myself into the debate with them in a very forceful way."

Television's Fox Network was the moon-hoax purveyor. In February 2001 and again a month later, Fox broadcast an hourlong program titled "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

Roger Launius, who agreed to Oberg's book just before leaving NASA's history office, says the story about the moon hoax has been around a long time. But the Fox show "raised it to a new level, it gave it legs and credibility that it didn't have before."

Indeed, the National Science Foundation's Pollak says two of her colleagues, after watching the Fox special, thought it was possible that NASA faked the moon landings. "These are people who work at NSF," she stresses.

The story went -- and still goes -- something like this: America was desperate to beat the Soviet Union in the high-stakes race to the moon, but lacked the technology to pull it off. So NASA faked the six manned moon landings in a studio somewhere out West.

Ralph Rene, a retired carpenter in Passaic, N.J., takes it one step farther. The space fakery started during the Gemini program, according to Rene, author of the 1992 book, NASA Mooned America!

"I don't know what real achievements they've done because when do you trust a liar?" Rene says. "I know we have a shuttle running right around above our heads, but that's only 175 miles up. It's under the shield. You cannot go through the shield and live."

He is talking, of course, about the radiation shield.

Alex Roland, a NASA historian during the 1970s and early 1980s, says his office used to have "a kook drawer" for such correspondence and never took it seriously. But there were no prime-time TV shows disputing the moon landings then -- and no Internet.

Still, Roland would be inclined to "just let it go because you'll probably just make it worse by giving it any official attention."

Within NASA, opinions were split about a rebuttal book. Oberg, a Houston-based author of 12 books, mostly about the Russian space program, said ignoring the problem "just makes this harder. To a conspiracy mind, refusing to respond is a sign of cover-up."

Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell does not know what else, if anything, can be done to confront this moon madness.

"All I know is that somebody sued me because I said I went to the moon," says the 74-year-old astronaut. "Of course, the courts threw it out."

The authorities also threw out the case involving Apollo 11 moonwalker Aldrin in September.

A much bigger and younger man was hounding the 72-year-old astronaut in Beverly Hills, Calif., calling him "a coward, a liar and a thief" and trying to get him to swear on a Bible, on camera, that he walked on the moon. Aldrin, a Korean War combat pilot, responded with a fist in the chops.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apollo; crevolist; fox; istheantichrist; moonhoax; nasa; rupertmurdoch; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-329 next last
To: jeremiah
"But the radiation coming from the sun, strikes the Earth causing the heating of the planet. It does not cool the sun though."

Of course it does. Inside the sun are massive fusion reactions creating mega energy, some in the form of heat, every second of every minute of every day. The sun's surface maintains a somewhat even temperature by radiating off enough heat to balance the heat being generated. If it did not cool off, the temperature of the sun would go up and up and up to infinity.

Actually heat can be transfered by three methods,
conduction, convection, and radiation. Although a vacuum will not conduct heat, it will pass radiation.
101 posted on 01/05/2003 6:56:21 PM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
I believed him the first time too, but one public interview in 30+ years wouldn't kill him. Heck, let him talk to an audience of schoolkids. Does he ever do that?
102 posted on 01/05/2003 6:57:05 PM PST by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
Do people really listen to the nerds of the world?
103 posted on 01/05/2003 6:57:49 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
You may have seen this. On the NASA website are archives of a vast amount of information from manned spaceflight. Included are transcripts of verbal communication as the astronauts made their several landings on the moon. If anyone reads these, they may note the incredible technical detail and obviously unscripted running commentary. These were highly skilled pilots, test pilots used to talking during the test in case it turned out to be a final record. These people wouldn't have any need to act the landings in a movie, not when real engineering is much more challenging. Tinseltown is a world away from them.
104 posted on 01/05/2003 6:58:20 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
>>>...but one public interview in 30+ years wouldn't kill him

He also is probably tired of being called a liar. There are films of him that could be used.

I also would not do a public interview. If it were me, I would do the same as Aldrin. --- A poke in the chops.

105 posted on 01/05/2003 7:03:06 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Why can't they get Senator Patty Murray to talk to these confused kids?
106 posted on 01/05/2003 7:03:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
I don't have any of the old threads but I distinctly remember Michael Rivero trying to debunk the moon landing conspiracy theory, and if that isn't evidence of its falsehood, I don't know what is.
107 posted on 01/05/2003 7:03:30 PM PST by ItsBacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Tell us how they got the 35mm film back to Earth through the radiation field.

They used Hasselblads. It's larger than the 35mm cameras. Custom-built for use while wearing spacesuits.

Well were they encased in lead? Unlikely because of payload restrictions. So how did the film survive? I am not saying that it didn't happen, I just want NASA to answer the freaking questions.

Do they say that the radiation belt doesn't exist? Or do they say that they had special precautions for the radiation? What do they say? They don't say anything, except that it's all just a bunch of kooks asking kooky questions.

108 posted on 01/05/2003 7:03:54 PM PST by Semper911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
My personal feeling is that he does not want to be worshipped and I commend him for that. I ate at a restaurant across from his museum there in Ohio, but had to drive on, no time to visit. You been there?
109 posted on 01/05/2003 7:07:54 PM PST by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
...These are pictures of the Apollo 17 Landing Site taken by the Soviet Lunar rover Lunokhod 2

These pictures were actually taken by the Lunar Rovers TV camera controlled by Houston shortly after Cernan & Schmitt lifted off from the moon.

110 posted on 01/05/2003 7:08:06 PM PST by mcclir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
there must be some earth based telescope that can take a picture of the moon lander.
111 posted on 01/05/2003 7:08:56 PM PST by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
do they say that they had special precautions for the radiation?

They did.

One great danger is that a solar flare could cook them like crustaceans in the shell. NASA observed the sun closely, very closely considering the state of the art at the time. Launches were dependent on a relatively quiet sun. In addition, the astronauts were prepared to turn the entire spacecraft so as to block radiation as much as possible if the radiation had some direction to it. They also passed through the Van Allen Belts quickly enough that the dose they were bound to receive was not overly dangerous. At the same time, if the sun flared while they were on the moon, they would have been in trouble. A dice game, but weighted dice.

Can't say about the film. It would have been buried inside as much mass as possible.

112 posted on 01/05/2003 7:14:47 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: fifteendogs
There really isn't. It'd take one of FR's more expertly-trained optics specialists to tell exactly why, but quite simply, those 'scopes are built to look at things light-years away. That is, for the uninformed, the distance light travels in one year (at its speed of 186,000 miles per second).

Thus, the surface of the moon is simply too close for them to resolve anything of note upon its surface.

Few people, it seems to me, truly have an understanding of the sheer distances involved in astronomy. They're brutal. It has been said that, were there only two bees in flight right NOW over the continental United States, the airspace thereof would be more congested with bees than space is with stars.

THAT is the distance we are speaking of. The Moon is barely a million miles away (I think...someone can provide the exact figure. I believe it is actually less than a million miles, though). A telescope designed to look at bodies trillions of miles away simply cannot look at it.

113 posted on 01/05/2003 7:19:34 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
>>>...You been there?

No, I met him at a convention in Chicago over 20 years ago.

He passed out autographed pictures. I haven't seen him since.

114 posted on 01/05/2003 7:20:36 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Your example of a fridge primarily uses convection and conduction to move heat out of the inside. In space you can radiate heat, like PAtrick Henry said.

The space shuttle has radiator elements on the entire surface of the bay doors so it can dump heat when in orbit.

115 posted on 01/05/2003 7:20:47 PM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Crusader21stCentury
thats right...if they landed there, there should be blast craters right? Oh, I forget, the wind probably wisped them over. ;^)

SR

116 posted on 01/05/2003 7:31:27 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
>>>...if they landed there, there should be blast craters right?

There are blast craters,--- Just not very big ones. Smaller than the lander and so also not visible by telescope.

117 posted on 01/05/2003 7:34:02 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: mcclir
I will have to give this a closer look, the russians are also claiming paternity here, when I get a chance I will post the entire video sequence and you guys can judge for yourself,
118 posted on 01/05/2003 7:37:32 PM PST by ContentiousObjector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble
Good points!

Also, if all of the moon landings were faked, then why in the world didn't they fake a successful Apollo 13 landing?
119 posted on 01/05/2003 7:40:12 PM PST by sultan88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Can't NASA just offer these skeptics a one way trip to the moon

Make sure they save room for Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand.
120 posted on 01/05/2003 7:40:24 PM PST by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-329 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson