Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory

What is he driving at?

(1/4) > >>

twik:
There is a poster on the BAUT forums who is putting forward a very strange proposition - that "visible" light cannot be seen outside of an atmosphere (or, at least, the ionosphere). He seems very cagey about explaining *why* NASA and the entire astronomical community is covering this up. I sense that he's trying the old "I'm just asking questions," hoping that people will agree with his initial proposal, then turn and yell "AHA! Then conspiracy X must be true!"

He says he accepts that men landed on the Moon (presumably provided with artificial lighting), but is sliding off into hoaxer territory with some of his recent comments. For some reason, he thinks it's significant that some pictures of the Moon show different colorations. I know many people frequent both boards, and I was wondering if anyone has an idea of where, exactly, he is trying to go with this?

Can he be planning, for example, to have us agree that the astronauts carried lighting setups with them, and then insist that if that's so, how can we be sure it wasn't staged on earth with the same artificial lighting? Or does he just assume that every little discrepancy he thinks he sees indicates someone is pulling a fast one, with no main theory tying it together?

Abaddon:
Seems to me, he is simply trying to slide in sly redefinitions so as to achieve his "Gotcha" moment.

It remains unclear which particular flavour of cool aid he wants, but given the thrust, and some of his comments, I would guess he is a moon hoaxer.

Trebor:
Probably Aliens.

sts60:
No, he says he believes men walked on the Moon.  I think he just didn't think about the implications of his idea - at all.  When all the lunar photos were pointed out, including photos taken from lunar orbit, suddenly the Moon's ionosphere was important, despite the fact that the Moon's entire atmosphere masses about ten tons.  When images from deep-space craft were shown, then it was unfair that all that fancy equipment was used - he insisted on using "regular digital cameras", despite the fact that some star tracker images came from equipment less capable than a good amateur's photographic gear.  Ironically, he admitted the MOC used on Mars Global Surveyor (and Mars Observer) was a "regular camera" - only to have it pointed out to him it was a line imager, not like a consumer camera.

He's just enamored of his "theory", even though it makes no sense at all.  I don't think he's deliberately trolling; he just doesn't want to give it up, and thus is busy diving into minutiae on angle this and camera that.  He also started waving his hands frantically when it was pointed out that the astronauts attested to seeing stars during translunar and trans-Earth cruise.

ka9q:

--- Quote from: twik on February 22, 2012, 01:02:44 PM ---There is a poster on the BAUT forums who is putting forward a very strange proposition - that "visible" light cannot be seen outside of an atmosphere (or, at least, the ionosphere).
--- End quote ---
This is just off-the-wall bizarre. There's a lot of vacuum between us and the sun. How do we see sunlight?

In a certain sense, though, he's right -- if "seen" implies not a camera but a sentient human being perceiving it with his own eyes. Our eyes cannot (long) withstand exposure to vacuum, so even an astronaut looking at the moon from an Apollo capsule is seeing it through an atmosphere, that between his eyes and the capsule window.  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page