The Guardian Tackles the Moon Landing Hoax… Badly

apollo

I despise the so called Moon landing hoax with every fibre of my being, this is probably the reason why I don’t write about it much. Besides, other bloggers do a great job of slamming the conspiracy theorist claims, so there’s little point in me weighing in to pick at the left-overs. Every hoax claim has been debunked to the point that there really can be no doubt that 40 years ago, we landed on the Moon. In fact, we did it six times.

Hoax rehash

As we fast approach the 40 year anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on July 20th, there’s bound to be articles posted about the hoax, but I find that rather frustrating. Here we are, preparing to celebrate mankind’s biggest accomplishment, and there’s that annoying background static of conspiracy theorists trying to divert attention to their small minded idiocy. Oh well, that’s life.

Unfortunately it’s another day, and another occasion where the UK media lets us down. Sure, I get the fact that we’re nearing the lunar landing anniversary, I also get the fact that everyone loves a good conspiracy, I even get the fact that the media wants to exploit this opportunity to get more traffic, but this Guardian.co.uk slideshow seems very… uncomfortable.

The worst thing about it is that they’ve switched the goal posts. They call the conspiracy theorists “skeptics” and the logically-minded, “believers.” I might be nit-picking, but that is a terrible way to look at it.

We went to the Moon

In 1969, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins went to the Moon. Neil and Buzz had a wander around on the lunar surface, checked it out, gave the Apollo Program their seal of approval and we then saw another five Apollo launches until 1972. These are all facts. This is history. Granted, we haven’t been back in 40 years, but the point is, we’ve done it.

There has never been one NASA employee that has shouted “conspiracy,” which seems surprising considering the sheer number of NASA staff that would have had to fake the landings to make them happen. No, judging by the scale of such a scam, it would be easier to send man to the Moon instead! So, did we go to the Moon in 1969? YES!

Skeptical believers? Believable skeptics? What?

Going back to the Guardian slideshow, it might be a good summary of the conspiracy theorist claims, but it’s a tired, re-hashing of all the old bunkum even the Mythbusters ground into the lunar dust a long time ago. Plus, it puts way too much weight behind the conspiracy theory itself; the text causes confusion as to what a “skeptic” is and what a “believer” is.

A skeptic is a person who uses skeptical thought to look at the evidence rationally to arrive at a logical conclusion. All the evidence points to the fact we’ve been to the Moon. Therefore, no Moon landing hoax. We went to the Moon, simple.

A believer is a person who depends on faith, not evidence, to arrive at a conclusion. The “believers” in this case should be the ones who believe there was a hoax, and not vice versa.

Sorry, but the Guardian got it ass-backwards this time.

Source: Guardian.co.uk

About these ads

17 responses to “The Guardian Tackles the Moon Landing Hoax… Badly

  1. I feel the same Ian. When “regular” people find out you're a space enthusiast, it's often one of the first questions that come up – did we really go? Each time I hear that, it hurts. Even though I don't really want to, I patiently explain that, for the moon landings to have been a hoax would have required an enormous amount of effort, requiring not only the (ongoing) collusion of hundreds of NASA staff, but the fooling of deep space telescope operators in Australia who tracked Apollo 11, the faking of huge amounts of data, the production of numerous books and videos since, plus ongoing presentations being given by Apollo astronauts about their experiences. It would have been immensely easier and cheaper to have suffered whatever the penalty would have been of not goingBut anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir. Just wanted to let you know – it bugs me too.

  2. The same thing happens when global warming deniers get called skeptics. For some reason it's common to associate 'skeptic' with 'cynic'.

  3. I made a film called DID WE GO?I was paid $65,000 from the State of Ohio to try and prove we really landed on the moon.I traveled all over OHIO trying to get Neil to talk…he will not talk to anyone.Here is link to my film on youtube. It opens with me on WLW-AM Radio in Ohio, trying to reach out to Neilhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM3Mt1Vym3gplease share this link

  4. was a hoax dude—You really believe it wasnt a letter c written on a moon rock but a hair???Co-incidence—-The fact that the astronauts took thousands of pictures (a picture evrer 15 seconds) in such a short-time with amazing quality, even though they had manual aperture controls and no viewfinder!!! Wake up dude

    • Wow, you totally have us all Apollo believers there. I'm sure the fact that the engineers knew that the astronauts would have no viewfinders and only manual aperture controls and designed the cameras do take extremely high quality pictures, giving them to astronauts for practice for months on end until they knew the cameras inside out, has nothing to do with how well the pictures came out.Also, that “a picture every 15 seconds” figure is a little suspect. Apollo 11 was on the Moon for 30 hours so if they took pictures every 15 seconds, they should have roughly 7,200 pictures. And they would've been doing nothing else but taking pictures since it would take at least a few seconds to take each one. So really, why don't you do some basic math and oh… maybe stop making things up? Just a suggestion.

  5. Poor old addled Granma think the Moon Landings were faked, and Big Time Wrestling is real?! You could say that I cut my teeth on the Mercury models that I glued together as a child, then on to Gemini and Apollo. NASA and I were both born in the same year, and when I was growing up, there was never any kind of doubt about the Space Program. It was as real the apple tree in your front yard. But now enter the Conspirators, and others of that ilk, that feel the louder they scream, the “righter” they are. Amazing how they can take a tiny scrap of supposed information, and twist it into some sort of grand, evil, vast conspiracy? I prefer to use Occam's Razor, and point out the obvious. Something about arguing with a fool only makes two fools arguing?

  6. How can a narrow minded dimwit ever be referred to as a skeptic? To be a true skeptic one has to analyse all the pros and cons, while applying a good dose of logic and common sense. Supporters of the moon landing hoax therefore fall short of earning the skeptic title. The logically minded “believers” are the true skeptics.I think the “skeptic's” conspiracy theories are an insult to the astronauts, the tens of thousands of people who made the moon landings possible and most of all, sound intelligence.

  7. One thing I've never heard the hoaxers explain is the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors that were left behind by all successful landings. The LRRR has been used in various experiments, such as precisely determining the distance from the Earth to the Moon (to within 15 centimeters), learning about the internal motion of the Earth and the Moon, and testing Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The LRRRs deployed by Apollo 11, 14, and 15 are still being used in experiments today. In fact, in March 2005 a team from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that they confirmed Einstein’s Strong Equivalence Principle to double the previous possible precision by using laser range measurements to the LRRR.http://www.martin-english.com/whatsup/2009/07/a

  8. One thing I've never heard the hoaxers explain is the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors that were left behind by all successful landings. The LRRR has been used in various experiments, such as precisely determining the distance from the Earth to the Moon (to within 15 centimeters), learning about the internal motion of the Earth and the Moon, and testing Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The LRRRs deployed by Apollo 11, 14, and 15 are still being used in experiments today. In fact, in March 2005 a team from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that they confirmed Einstein’s Strong Equivalence Principle to double the previous possible precision by using laser range measurements to the LRRR.http://www.martin-english.com/whatsup/2009/07/a

  9. There’s evidence for and against manned moon landings. From what i’ve looked at there’s as much evidence against as for. But until NASA, a government agency, comes clean with truthful answers rather than avoiding many issues, they will at the least “seem” to become more and more disreputable.

    The apollo 11 press conference avoids any mention of traveling to and landing on the moon. Instead the following two statements are made by Neil Armstrong…

    #1
    “The saturn gave us one magnificent ride. Both into earth orbit, and on a trajectory to the moon”

    Why add these three words “on a trajectory”? Why not simply say… “The saturn gave us one magnificent ride. Both into earth orbit, and to the moon”?

    Every day while riding around town I tend to get into a “trajectory” towards China Australia Russia and many other far away countries, but i never get there.
    If i got on my bicycle and rode off one day to return after a week or so, and my neighbor asked were i went? I would not be lying if i said i went “on a trajectory” to China.

    #2
    “Our, our memory of that actually differs little from the reports that you have all heard from the, previous saturn 5 flights, and those, the previous flights served us well in preparation for this flight in the boost as well as the subsequent phases.”

    Why would a trip to the moon seem to differ little from a trip into earth orbit? Even during the first few hours before and after leaving earths orbit there should be very apparent differences than all the previous flights. For one there would be a lot more work to do, there would be the excitement of finally embarking on the journey(they refer to it as an adventure) However the astronauts show no excitement during this press conference.
    The landing on the moon is called “the subsequent phases”
    When my neighbor comes back from a fishing trip he’s excited about the trip regardless the amount of fish he caught. He was excited to be out of the city and floating in an environment we don’t see up close very often.

    Why are the radiation levels now the most important thing for nasa to determine before another trip?
    If there were no ill effects from the previous 6 apollo missions why bother with it today?
    Where was this scientific concern back then?
    Where was the scientific curiosity regarding the radiation?
    After the initial rush to get there wore off there should have been time for this during later apollo missions.

    Google the apollo11 press conference and see what you think.

  10. The company
    one-stop supply, if you have any questions, please consult us online customer
    service, it can give you a satisfactory answer, and hat are famous brand

    baseball hats

    This web site to
    introduce slimming methods, all quick are very popular, drug, satisfies you
    trust to purchase the weight requirements

    slimming capsule

  11. Baseball cap
    pattern and style, is this a few years you have been like baseball cap and
    reform this year, oh!

    baseball hats

    This site to
    recommend the most effective medicine reducing weight, we provide a lot of most
    successful weight-loss products, after a customer high praise, hope to meet to
    friends needs

    slimming capsule

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s