ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: ApolloEnthusiast on April 05, 2019, 12:25:25 PM

Title: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on April 05, 2019, 12:25:25 PM
Hello,

I have three purposes for making this post.  The first is introduction.  I've been reading here for years and decided to start posting and thought I should introduce myself first.  I'm a professional musician with a lifelong interest in the sciences, and consider myself to have a logical mind capable of learning about subjects with which I have minimal formal training.  I'm from the US, but I hope those abroad won't hold that against me as I like to think I am not a stereotypical American  :)

Second, I wanted to talk a bit about how I came to be here, especially while we have an active JR Knowing, who I think could benefit from my story.  As someone who grew up in a world where the Moon landings were a part of history, I spent a good deal of my life taking them for granted and not really appreciating the magnitude of the accomplishment.  It was simply another item on the long list of things that happened before I was born.  I don't know exactly what precipitated the thought, but one evening as I looked up at the Moon, I started thinking about the trip to go there.  I was overcome with a sense of wonder as I imagined what it would be like to try to make that journey.  I was overcome with a desire to know everything I could about the people who had made this absurd undertaking into an actual reality.  I had finally come to understand at a visceral level what made the Apollo project so special and I wanted to learn more.

As so many contemporary layperson research projects begin, I started with the internet.  What wonders and secrets were available at the touch of just a few keys?  As I'm sure many of you are well aware, though I found information about Apollo, I also quickly encountered my first real brush against the allegations that it was all a trick.  I won't rehash all of the claims, but within days I think I'd seen about everything, from damning pictures, to the radiation showstopper.  As a layperson, I didn't have enough information to dismiss these claims out of hand, and even the possibility that this epic adventure could have been nothing but a sham was emotionally devastating for me. 

Here is where my story is different from many of the conspiracy cranks.  While recognizing that I didn't have enough information to dismiss these claims, no matter how badly I wanted them to be false, I also recognized that I didn't have enough information to accept them at face value either.  I resolved to clear the slate of both my wide eyed wonder at the achievement and my fear that it could have been faked, and to begin doing whatever research would be required to satisfy myself one way or another which claim was valid.  I knew that if the project were real, there would be evidence demonstrating that fact, and if the project were faked, there would be evidence demonstrating that fact.  Either way, one answer was true, and the information existed to resolve which if I would be willing to look for it. 

It wasn't long before I found the Clavius site, which had an extremely convenient, nearly comprehensive if not completely comprehensive catalog of the many different claims used to try and discredit the Moon landings.  I'm sure you're all well aware, these claims were accompanied by explanations of each claim and why it was misleading or incorrect.  While some of the explanations were easily understood using nothing more than my high school physics background, some of those explanations, the photo analysis and the radiation in particular, involved technical terms that I didn't understand well enough to confirm that the explanations were accurate for myself.  My skepticism that was necessary for me to find the truth about this issue prohibited me from accepting science explanations I didn't fully understand just as I wouldn't accept the hoax claims with insufficient knowledge.  Why should I accept the Clavius information at face value any more than the websites promoting the hoax?

What became immediately apparent upon examining the information at Clavius is that I wasn't necessarily expected to take it at face value.  There were no vague inferences or questions meant to lead someone in a certain direction.  I researched photo analysis and radiation.  Not enough to use the information in a professional context, but enough to recognize that the information at Clavius could be independently substantiated from experts in their fields.  The information held up consistently as I investigated source after source and familiarized myself with technical terms and their applications.  When I attempted to apply this scrutiny to the hoax claims it was quite clear that they weren't independently verifiable, were largely inconsistent, and all of them founded on a general ignorance or deliberate obfuscation of well understood scientific principles, that even I, without any significant training, was able to learn well enough to apply to the problems.

I know conspiracy people like to think of themselves as "free thinkers", unwilling to accept what others insist upon as truth.  Somehow, this doesn't apply to the vague inferences and provocative questions that are the beginning and end of hoax claims.  These can be accepted at face value with hardly any scrutiny whatsoever.  Not to sound immodest, but I believe my personal experience is a better reflection of actual free thinking, in that I took full responsibility for gathering all of the information necessary to satisfy my curiosity.  I would ask people like JR Knowing to let go of all preconception, and address the entire issue with equal scrutiny.  Don't trust Jay, or any of the other engineers and scientists here.  But don't trust the people who make hoax claims either.  Question everything, even the things that you want to believe, and see what is still standing at the end of a true intellectually honest inquiry. 

Finally, I just wanted to express appreciation to anyone here involved with the Clavius site; it is an incredible resource.  And thanks to everyone here for further expanding my understanding and appreciation for all things Apollo.  I've lurked here for years, and the enormous wealth of knowledge and expertise is tremendous and I enjoy learning more and more about what I consider the greatest achievement in the history of humanity.

If this was too long or too boring, I apologize.  I know it's not really part of the hoax theory, but I thought it somewhat relevant for people who may be struggling with how to find the truth.  I'm looking forward to interacting with everyone more actively, and I promise with fewer words next time  :)
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: JayUtah on April 05, 2019, 01:03:36 PM
I'm a professional musician with a lifelong interest in the sciences...

Hi! I'm a professional engineer with a lifelong interest in music.  Clearly there will be much to talk about.

Quote
Don't trust Jay, or any of the other engineers and scientists here.  But don't trust the people who make hoax claims either.  Question everything, even the things that you want to believe, and see what is still standing at the end of a true intellectually honest inquiry.

That's as clear a summary of rational skepticism as can be had.  Clavius was never meant to succeed by hiding information or presenting only the cherry-picked facts that lead to a desired conclusion.  It's a summary, so by that nature it glosses things and resorts at times to ipse dixit.  But it's a summary written with the understanding that if it ultimately cannot stand up to scrutiny based on the best knowledge in each applicable field, then it will have failed.  If you're following up on something you read there, then you're using it in the way it was meant to be used.  If you're coming away with the impression that it's an honest presentation, then you've validated its goals.

Quote
If this was too long or too boring, I apologize.

As you've discovered, there is a wealth of expertise here, including people who well know the English language and how help people write it clearly and concisely.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: bknight on April 05, 2019, 01:08:56 PM
Welcome to the forum lurker turned poster.  :)
I came here for a slightly different perspective.  I knew that Apollo was real, but I ran across some site that presented a case for fraud that I could not debunk, so I asked a direct questions what/how to debunk the observation of the HB. 
I got lots of help from everyone here and I have had some personal interchanges with some of the members.  Some had personal experiences that I am envious.  I had only one myself, talking to a female astronaut who had been scheduled for the next mission after the disastrous Columbia.  We discussed that and to her personality, she accepted the risks and still wanted to go.  Sadly I lost contact with her including forgetting her name so I can't check whether she made into orbit on one of the following flights of the shuttle.
But back to Apollo, I don't believe the program landed six crews on the Moon, rather I know it happened because of ll the data literally mountains that exist.
Kudos to Jay, onebigmonkey, ka9q, sts60, Abaddon and any others that have helped in my education to Apollo.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: jr Knowing on April 05, 2019, 01:18:00 PM
Hi Apollo Enthusiast,

I agree with virtually everything you are saying. Of course, others will beg to differ :) .

Big fan of music myself. I wish I could play. Love all sorts of music but my 'era" revolves around '77-85' of alternative new wave and punk, The Clash, The Jam , Kate Bush etc.  Perhaps this is where I get this get all this skepticism of what the "man" is telling me. :)
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: JayUtah on April 05, 2019, 01:34:39 PM
I agree with virtually everything you are saying. Of course, others will beg to differ :) .

No, we don't beg to differ.  We differ while showing ample evidence of your duplicity.  You constantly say one thing and then behave in a contrary manner.  He is encouraging you to verify things for yourself.  Instead you knee-jerkedly dismiss criticism and cling to your suppositions and speculation, which you refuse to question.  You obviously don't agree with him.  Do you understand that implicit rejection is just as fallacious, and for the same reason, as implicit acceptance?
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on April 05, 2019, 02:33:37 PM
I agree with virtually everything you are saying.
I find that difficult to believe, because your actions on this board are completely opposite of the philosophy underpinning what I wrote.  You have consistently made unsubstantiated claims and refused to accept or concede that you were wrong.  I deliberately avoided making any claim whatsoever until I was confident that the claim was firmly grounded in verifiable facts.

You have used the same vague inference style, incomprehensible interpretations, and gish gallop style common to the conspiracy community.  I reject the use of all of these on general principle.

You claim skepticism of "the man", but where is that skepticism towards whichever lunatics convinced you there was anything to doubt about the authenticity of the Apollo program?  Why are you so skeptical of science that, with enough motivation you can experimentally verify much of at home, but accept, seemingly without question, implications that impugn the work of half a million people without an apparent blink of the eye?
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: JayUtah on April 05, 2019, 04:00:46 PM
You claim skepticism of "the man", but where is that skepticism towards whichever lunatics convinced you there was anything to doubt about the authenticity of the Apollo program?

Indeed.  Jr Knowing probably didn't come up with that bit about Armstrong and "truth's protective layers" all by himself.  That's from Richard Hoagland, and it's been around for years.  It's such a spectacularly bad line of reasoning that it's hard to believe two people came up with it independently.  Maybe Jr didn't get it from a Hoagland source directly, but it's not likely to be an original thought.  The point remains that almost everyone who comes here to take his turn chipping away at the Apollo record has been primed to do so by some book, video, or web site.  And they have rarely, if ever, questioned those sources the same way they question "the Man."  Granted we all prefer sources that agree with what we already believe.  That's what rational skepticism seeks to overcome.  Don't just question "the man."  Question yourself too, and all you hold dear.

The "truth's protective layers" argument is purely interpretational.  The fact that Armstrong said those words is undisputed.  The dispute comes from what they were intended to mean, and that's mostly a lot of second-guessing, speculation, and innuendo on Hoagland's part.  He frames the facts and places them against a backdrop predicated largely on his own personal gripes with NASA.  Long ago, NASA apparently slighted him in some way, allegedly stealing his academic work.  And Hoagland has made it his mission for decades thereafter to discredit and demean NASA all he can, by whatever means.  Ironically Hoagland believes the Apollo missions were real.  Instead he believes that the truth being covered by "protective layers" is evidence of extraterrestrial life.  Starting with some comically inept manipulation of Apollo photographs, he has accused NASA of hiding evidence of large crystal domes on the Moon, life on Mars, etc.

Bringing this home, if Jr Knowing had followed his "suspicious" Armstrong quote to the origin, the guy who first threw out that line of reasoning, then he would have discovered that it's a guy with a pretty big axe to grind with NASA.  Maybe his framing, backdrop, etc. of the speech is going to be a little bit ... biased?
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: bknight on April 05, 2019, 04:12:38 PM
You claim skepticism of "the man", but where is that skepticism towards whichever lunatics convinced you there was anything to doubt about the authenticity of the Apollo program?

Indeed.  Jr Knowing probably didn't come up with that bit about Armstrong and "truth's protective layers" all by himself.  That's from Richard Hoagland, and it's been around for years.  It's such a spectacularly bad line of reasoning that it's hard to believe two people came up with it independently.  Maybe Jr didn't get it from a Hoagland source directly, but it's not likely to be an original thought.  The point remains that almost everyone who comes here to take his turn chipping away at the Apollo record has been primed to do so by some book, video, or web site.  And they have rarely, if ever, questioned those sources the same way they question "the Man."  Granted we all prefer sources that agree with what we already believe.  That's what rational skepticism seeks to overcome.  Don't just question "the man."  Question yourself too, and all you hold dear.

The "truth's protective layers" argument is purely interpretational.  The fact that Armstrong said those words is undisputed.  The dispute comes from what they were intended to mean, and that's mostly a lot of second-guessing, speculation, and innuendo on Hoagland's part.  He frames the facts and places them against a backdrop predicated largely on his own personal gripes with NASA.  Long ago, NASA apparently slighted him in some way, allegedly stealing his academic work.  And Hoagland has made it his mission for decades thereafter to discredit and demean NASA all he can, by whatever means.  Ironically Hoagland believes the Apollo missions were real.  Instead he believes that the truth being covered by "protective layers" is evidence of extraterrestrial life.  Starting with some comically inept manipulation of Apollo photographs, he has accused NASA of hiding evidence of large crystal domes on the Moon, life on Mars, etc.

Bringing this home, if Jr Knowing had followed his "suspicious" Armstrong quote to the origin, the guy who first threw out that line of reasoning, then he would have discovered that it's a guy with a pretty big axe to grind with NASA.  Maybe his framing, backdrop, etc. of the speech is going to be a little bit ... biased?

One of the reasons I love this site.  I didn't know what set Hoagland off initially.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: JayUtah on April 05, 2019, 04:14:44 PM
One of the reasons I love this site.  I didn't know what set Hoagland off initially.

Phil Plait might remember it better than I do.  We collaborated on a Hoagland rebuttal many years ago, and that was the part he researched.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: bknight on April 05, 2019, 04:45:10 PM
One of the reasons I love this site.  I didn't know what set Hoagland off initially.

Phil Plait might remember it better than I do.  We collaborated on a Hoagland rebuttal many years ago, and that was the part he researched.

To bad he isn't around here.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Allan F on April 06, 2019, 12:18:52 AM
I invited him to come here, but he said, he had "done his bit for queen and country". Exact quote.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 06, 2019, 12:31:15 AM
Hi Apollo Enthusiast,

I agree with virtually everything you are saying. Of course, others will beg to differ :) .

Big fan of music myself. I wish I could play. Love all sorts of music but my 'era" revolves around '77-85' of alternative new wave and punk, The Clash, The Jam , Kate Bush etc.  Perhaps this is where I get this get all this skepticism of what the "man" is telling me. :)

That's my musical era, along with many other decades before and after, but my scepticism and cynicism about 'the man stands alongside rationalism and an enquiring mind that doesn't blindly accept things that aren't true just because they take an anti-authoritarian stance. Knee jerk contrarianism is not a healthy approach to enquiry, and just because you don't trust someone, doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.

I didn't start playing guitar until my 40s. You are never too old to acquire new knowledge of any kind.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Obviousman on April 06, 2019, 08:41:10 PM
Hi ApolloEnthusiast, and welcome.

You said something which I always tried to include when debunking hoax claims, especially the photographic claims: don't trust me. Yep, listen to what I have to say but don't just believe me unless you are personally convinced it is backed up by science. Repeat photographic claims yourself (e.g. non-parallel shadows), go find some experts in the field regarding a question and listen to what they say. Do research yourself: find articles in papers, check dates and sources, etc (e.g. Una Ronald's "coke bottle" claims regarding when the broadcast was show and what the newspapers reported; virtually none of it was true).

Cheers!

Edited to add: I'm not a scientist (though I have an interest) and I am not a musician (I can't be bothered to learn)... but it takes all types, doesn't it? 8-)
 
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: smartcooky on April 06, 2019, 11:53:44 PM
Hi Apollo Enshusiast, and even if you;'re a long time lurker, welcome anyway

One of the key things for me that brings me to understand that the Apollo Programme was real (apart from the fact that I was 14 at the time of Apollo 11 and experienced A11 to A17 over the course of my early teens) is that fact that no matter what you investigate, everything, and I mean everything is self consistent. All aspects of Apollo spacecraft design, development and construction adhere to well understood and well tested engineering principles. There are no no gaping holes in the technology.

However, on the other side of the argument, this is not so. Hoax Believers' entire basis for the hoax is based on the failure of reality to match their personal expectations. Certain things, they say, "don't look right" or "shouldn't act that way", and big part of that this down to their own failure to properly understand that they have spent their entire lives living on a planet with an atmosphere and 1G of gravity, and they can't make the transition to understand that what they are looking at is how things look and act on a planet with 1/6G and a no atmosphere. jrknowing's latest nonsense about lunar regolith is a prime example of that failure to make the transition of understand what you are looking at.

However, there is another issue here, and that is, even if NASA had wanted to perpetrated a hoax, there are certain key aspects of such a hoax that would have been impossible to fake. One of those was filming the lunar surface operations. While you might think that this would be relatively simple it would have been utterly impossible in 1969, in fact, it is still impossible today, even with modern CGI techniques. The 2009 movie "Moon" and the 2011 movie "Apollo 18", despite both having pretty damned advanced CGI techniques available to them, utterly failed to show the low-g/vacuum environment correctly. In fact, there is really only one way to film shots that look like 1/6th G/vacuum, and that is to shoot it in 1/6G/vacuum. HBs would have you believe it was shot on a sound stage at Area 51 in NV, and then slowed down to fake the moon walking. Uh Uh. It doesn't work.  It would take 100% CGI to fake lunar surface operations... and they didn't even have anything remotely like CGI at all in the late 1960s.

Furthermore, the lunar surface operations were shown around he world live, as they happened. Much of it ran uninterrupted for hours; there are reasons why that was impossible too, but I'll let an expert explain why...



Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: ApolloEnthusiast on April 07, 2019, 09:13:26 PM
Hi ApolloEnthusiast, and welcome.

You said something which I always tried to include when debunking hoax claims, especially the photographic claims: don't trust me. Yep, listen to what I have to say but don't just believe me unless you are personally convinced it is backed up by science.
Thanks for the welcome!  And yes, I believe credible people don't insist on being believed, they simply provide information and allow people to investigate as they need.  I also probably shouldn't have specified scientists and engineers, as there is a lot of people here with relevant expertise who are not necessarily scientists or engineers. 

Hi Apollo Enshusiast, and even if you;'re a long time lurker, welcome anyway

However, there is another issue here, and that is, even if NASA had wanted to perpetrated a hoax, there are certain key aspects of such a hoax that would have been impossible to fake.
Thanks for the welcome!  I agree with everything you wrote, it didn't take me very long in my research to discover exactly what you said.  No matter how difficult or seemingly impossible the Apollo project may seem, faking it is simply out of the question. 
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: bknight on April 08, 2019, 08:38:06 AM
Hi Apollo Enshusiast, and even if you;'re a long time lurker, welcome anyway

One of the key things for me that brings me to understand that the Apollo Programme was real (apart from the fact that I was 14 at the time of Apollo 11 and experienced A11 to A17 over the course of my early teens) is that fact that no matter what you investigate, everything, and I mean everything is self consistent. All aspects of Apollo spacecraft design, development and construction adhere to well understood and well tested engineering principles. There are no no gaping holes in the technology.

However, on the other side of the argument, this is not so. Hoax Believers' entire basis for the hoax is based on the failure of reality to match their personal expectations. Certain things, they say, "don't look right" or "shouldn't act that way", and big part of that this down to their own failure to properly understand that they have spent their entire lives living on a planet with an atmosphere and 1G of gravity, and they can't make the transition to understand that what they are looking at is how things look and act on a planet with 1/6G and a no atmosphere. jrknowing's latest nonsense about lunar regolith is a prime example of that failure to make the transition of understand what you are looking at.

However, there is another issue here, and that is, even if NASA had wanted to perpetrated a hoax, there are certain key aspects of such a hoax that would have been impossible to fake. One of those was filming the lunar surface operations. While you might think that this would be relatively simple it would have been utterly impossible in 1969, in fact, it is still impossible today, even with modern CGI techniques. The 2009 movie "Moon" and the 2011 movie "Apollo 18", despite both having pretty damned advanced CGI techniques available to them, utterly failed to show the low-g/vacuum environment correctly. In fact, there is really only one way to film shots that look like 1/6th G/vacuum, and that is to shoot it in 1/6G/vacuum. HBs would have you believe it was shot on a sound stage at Area 51 in NV, and then slowed down to fake the moon walking. Uh Uh. It doesn't work.  It would take 100% CGI to fake lunar surface operations... and they didn't even have anything remotely like CGI at all in the late 1960s.

Furthermore, the lunar surface operations were shown around he world live, as they happened. Much of it ran uninterrupted for hours; there are reasons why that was impossible too, but I'll let an expert explain why...



That video along with its follow up, a rebuttal to the blunder are great examples of what the HB crowd ignores.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: mako88sb on April 08, 2019, 12:19:28 PM
Yes, both great videos by Collin's but I'm very surprised at the ridiculously lower viewer count of the "For Jarrah" video vs "Moon Hoax Not". Especially since it goes into much greater detail about the topic.

Edit: Oops! I didn't realize he took down his original "Moon Hoax Not" video and replaced it with a "Comments Disabled" version. Much less viewer count than the original. Too bad, I loved pointing out to Hunchedbacked and Blunderboy about how that one video of Collins had more views than all of theirs combined in no time at all. Really helped to put into perspective how the moon hoax theory isn't as highly thought of as they and other hoax believers claim.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: JayUtah on April 08, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
I invited him to come here, but he said, he had "done his bit for queen and country". Exact quote.

Yeah, that sounds like him.  Last I talked to him in person (last summer), then sentiment was that I and others with engineering backgrounds do a far better job than he of addressing this particular fringe theory.  "I would rather stick my head in a beehive than debate JayUtah," is also an exact quote.  He's more interested these days in less controversial outreach efforts.  And raising goats.  I don't blame him.  Each of those activities is ultimately more rewarding and less stressful.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Matt D on September 06, 2019, 01:57:18 PM
I've also been lurking here for several months, and this thread inspired me to sign up because my story has a lot of similarities to what the OP described. 

It has taken me a long time to get my account approved and activated, but here we are.  Professionally, I'm an engineer, working in the field of powertrain R&D.  I'm also a hobbyist musician, photographer, cook, and homebrewer.  :)  Ontario, Canada is home. 

My introductory tale will be a confession.  There was a period of time when I strongly suspected that the moon landings were faked.  I saw that Fox television special in 2001 when it first aired, and my mind was blown.  I was CONVINCED.  I'd argue with people about it at the bar or around the campfire.  Heck, I even managed to convince a few people who to this day probably still believe it (shame on me).

The problem, of course, was that I was introduced to the superficially-compelling hoax idea at a time when my technical/historical understanding of Apollo was effectively nil.  My engineering background definitely played a role in eventually snapping me out of it, but at the time that background consisted of school only (i.e. no real-world professional experience) with only rudimentary treatment of directly relevant topics.  Not only that, but I hadn't yet developed a solid working knowledge of the technical side of photography, knowledge which would eventually play a large role in helping me spot the gaping flaws in photo analysis for which hoax believers are world renowned.  Lastly - and this is a big one - I was definitely going through a phase in my early 20s where I found conspiracy theories "entertaining" for some reason, so there was this weird tendency to almost "prefer" them to be true rather than honestly arrive at the conclusion that they are.   

Anyway, following the Fox special, I was extremely excited and intrigued to learn more, so, like ApolloEnthusiast, I turned to the pre-Youtube internet to see what I could dig up.  I was fully expecting that the more and more I "researched" the fakery of Apollo, the more and more mind-blowing stuff I'd uncover. 

But the hoax story never came close to living up to that promise.  In retrospect, the Fox special might be the most misleading movie trailer I've ever seen. 

After a period of searching, I was disappointed to find what amounted to - at best - a hollow shell of a narrative for the hoax idea.  Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say I found multiple disjointed hollow shells.  Conspicuously absent at every turn was any sense of cohesiveness or self-consistency tying it all together.   

Still, I couldn't let it slide without being certain.  If a decisive evisceration of the "official narrative" were possible, I wanted to find the pieces and assemble it.  But it wasn't to be.  It gradually became clear that the hoax case would never get any better or stronger, only more scattered and desperate. 

I hopped on the tour bus to Hoaxtown expecting to behold a ponderous, ever-growing snowball of mutually consistent evidence barreling forth in support of a hoax, but what I found would more accurately be described as a disparate smattering of discrete snowflakes that would instantly melt on contact with the warmth of logic and facts.

Not only that, but that whole seedy underbelly of the internet where the rabid conspiracists lurk started to take on a superficial likeness to a cult, with everybody treading water on the same old tired points, and shamelessly dodging strongly-developed counterarguments without even attempting to take them head on.  This irked me a lot.

The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was probably the first time I saw a detailed technical rebuttal of some hoax claim (heck, it could have been from a member of this site for all I know), and the hoax believer's response was to completely ignore the technical rebuttal and accuse the other guy of being a "paid government operative" or something along those lines. This moment was very instructive; an apt demonstration not only of how readily "superficially compelling claims" can shatter like brittle glass with just a little bit of qualified critique, but it also underlined the ridiculous levels of desperation inherent in conspiracist debate tactics.  To quote a tired internet meme, it's one of those things you can't "unsee." Following that incident it became very conspicuous just how often capricious expansion of the conspiracy was invoked in an attempt to nullify and parry attacks against it, and I think that was when my disillusionment with the hoax believer ethos crossed into a state of thermal runaway. 

Thankfully, I was able to muster the wisdom to realize that paranoid speculation, denial, and conspiratorial innuendo can be fun to BS about, but they're not evidence of any sort, nor are they a rebuttal of any sort.  If these things are the foundation of the case against the historicity of the moon landings - and they are - then, at least for the purposes of debate and discourse, the historical record stands.  Period. 

With the acquired wisdom of many more years, I look back with mild embarrassment at that time period.  I can see now that it is absolutely impossible for intellectual honesty to co-exist with Apollo hoax belief.  It just cannot be done; these two things are completely incompatible.  On its face, it is highly irrational to disregard the warehouses full of documentation, testimony, photos, videos, and corroborative evidence for Apollo in favor of a disjointed hodge-podge of spurious claims set forth by hopelessly unqualified ignoramuses and predatory grifters.     

Fringe ideas are not new, but if conspiratorial thinking is like a strain of bacteria, then Youtube has been a petri dish of historic fertility.  It is the de facto architect of the rabbit hole.  One cannot have an informed position when their intellectual diet consists primarily of unvetted conspiracy claims being piped into their swiveling eyeballs by Youtube's recommended videos algorithm.  It is becoming increasingly clear that some people are hopelessly ill-equipped to sift through such a torrent of raw, unchecked information and process it in a responsible way.  Throw in a climate where distrust in authority is at all-time high levels and boom, Apollo was filmed in a studio and the earth is flat. 

An honest researcher needs to look at everything he or she encounters, even the dry details, both technical and historical, and make it a point to account for all of it.  That which is beyond the understanding of the researcher must be acknowledged as such; for the relevance of such things is not contingent upon who understands them and who doesn't.         

The "Apollo truther" mantra is always some variant of "Open your eyes!  Do your research!"  That is very funny, and here's why: like intractable 4 year-olds throwing tantrums when they're expected to eat their broccoli, the defining trait of the Apollo denier is his or her embarrassing and obstinate refusal to research anything at all.  To wit, I present to you Exhibit A: the fool who believes that an astronaut making a single quote about "destroying the technology" constitutes a compelling argument in favor of the entire program being fake.  The level of understanding needed to debunk this crap is laughably shallow, yet the deniers somehow manage to avoid obtaining it, despite all their claims of "doing research."   

Lots of truthers like to say things along the lines of "I believed in the moon landings for decades, and I really want to believe they happened!  But the evidence I have uncovered is overwhelming!"  Presumably, this is an attempt to lend an air of innocence and wide-eyed curiosity to their pathological denialism and scientific illiteracy.  But, transparently, it's just crank magnetism masquerading as intellectual honesty.  Absolutely nobody who actually has any depth of knowledge on Apollo suddenly starts believing it was a hoax, based on Youtube videos and memes.  In other words, only clueless people are susceptible to falling for that stuff, like I did in 2001 when I was clueless about Apollo. 

That's why, before going on the internet to belligerently spread trivially debunkable trash, I wish Apollo deniers would make an honest effort to learn some of the finer details about what the "official story" even says.  It's downright alarming how many of them don't even seem to understand that "the moon landing" wasn't just a single, isolated event; we also have the vast history of Mercury, Gemini, Ranger, and the earlier Apollo missions that all culminate in the historical achievement of Apollo 11, which is then followed up by FIVE MORE successful landings, each replete with their own swaths of corroborative evidence, data, videos, photos, recordings, artifacts, rock samples, documentation, and testimony.       

Don't get me wrong, it's very easy to see why many conspiracists can't be bothered to learn such details, no matter how readily available they are.  The amount of Apollo information freely available might as well be bottomless, which is a great thing, but it necessarily means that it takes a certain level of curiosity and patience to wade through all of that information, process what you can, and begin to develop a nuanced appreciation for the story that it tells. 

In contrast, hoax belief requires no such effort or time investment.  The staying power of the hoax fairytale derives from the fact that its claims are typically understandable at a glance, and consumable in an "a la carte" fashion by the lazy-minded.  There are no pre-requisites to understanding any of it; just click on the video with the most intriguing title, and enjoy. 

The hoax talking points are figurative islands that need not respect the constraints imposed by co-existing claims and evidence.  Thus, the feckless conspiracist is seduced by a mirage of effortless enlightenment.  Whereas the honest Apollo researcher might spend several months - years, even - developing a decent "space-nerd-level" understanding of the Apollo technology and history, it is possible to become a veritable expert on the history of faking space missions simply by watching a few Youtube videos on your phone while riding the bus to work. 

Just like a toddler picking through a box of Lucky Charms and only eating the marshmallows, the truther can summarily bypass that which is not palatable and devour only the tastiest zingers like the little morsels of intellectual junk-food that they are.

These days, I argue with people all the time on the internet about Apollo, this time on the side of verifiable reality.  I'm not sure it brings out the best in me, and I often question whether it's good for my mental health, but I get so frustrated with the abject nonsense that I see and can't help myself. 

With Apollo falling further and further into the rearview mirror of history, and with more and more people coming of age who can't recall a pre-Youtube world, I firmly believe that fighting against such misinformation is worth doing, and why sites like this need to exist.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Abaddon on September 06, 2019, 04:22:57 PM
Welcome to the board, Matt And well written.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: JayUtah on September 07, 2019, 12:25:41 AM
Hey, you got here.  I'm glad you got your account approved.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 07, 2019, 03:03:28 AM
Great post Matt, and welcome.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had 'Shill' shrieked at me, a bit like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/z1alCAR.png)

as if the source of the facts somehow negates the facts. It wouldn't matter if I was being paid by NASA (I wish!), what matters if whether the facts I present are true or not.

I also see quite regularly people posting stuff like "I looked closely at the photos..." or "when I really looked into it.." before posting some ill-informed claim. My response is increasingly "Well, I also did that and...".
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: gillianren on September 07, 2019, 10:52:07 AM
Man, can you imagine how much NASA's shill budget would have to be?  They wouldn't be able to afford to do any actual science!  Or even the fakery!
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: bknight on September 07, 2019, 10:59:57 AM
Man, can you imagine how much NASA's shill budget would have to be?  They wouldn't be able to afford to do any actual science!  Or even the fakery!

Military Black Ops Funds.  ::)
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: NthBrick on September 07, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
I also see quite regularly people posting stuff like "I looked closely at the photos..." or "when I really looked into it.." before posting some ill-informed claim. My response is increasingly "Well, I also did that and...".

One of my favorite examples of this is the "fake Netherlands moon rock" story that made the rounds a few years back, and still gets dredged up uninformed HBs to this day. They either watch a YouTube video or read one article, and think they know the full story. Meanwhile, you've got Phil Webb examining the rock itself and the placard accompanying it, observing that both are radically different from formal gift moon rocks given out by the US, and also asking the question of why the US would give such a large lunar sample to the ex-PM of the Netherlands, rather than more contemporary high-level dignitaries. When all the facts are known, it doesn't make any sense to claim this as "moon hoax proof".
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Obviousman on September 07, 2019, 06:58:24 PM
I think we might find a lot of people have similar 'origin' stories. I never have doubted Apollo but used to be right into UFOs, telepathy, etc when I was growing up. I mean, really - who wouldn't want that stuff to be true? Imagine it! It was only when I started to research, to reference and verify, that I found out how much of it was simple bull. I think for me it started when I read the book 'Alternative 3' and it mentioned an astronaut named 'Bob Grodin'. Now, I had details of NASA astronauts all the way from the Original 7 and had never heard of this guy. Mind you, the book was still very entertaining....

And yeah, of course I am a 'shill'. I have spent the majority of my life in the military and am now a Defence contractor, so I must be 'in on it', right? No way I could be telling the truth....
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Matt D on September 10, 2019, 02:18:38 PM
Great post Matt, and welcome.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had 'Shill' shrieked at me, a bit like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/z1alCAR.png)

as if the source of the facts somehow negates the facts. It wouldn't matter if I was being paid by NASA (I wish!), what matters if whether the facts I present are true or not.

I also see quite regularly people posting stuff like "I looked closely at the photos..." or "when I really looked into it.." before posting some ill-informed claim. My response is increasingly "Well, I also did that and...".

What I've always found interesting about arguing with delusional conspiracy theorists is how they not only use a common "template" for their arguments regardless of which conspiracy they're advocating, but they also have certain groupings of words that they all use in the exact same way, almost as if it's a script. 

Anecdotally, I've found that the words "look into it" is one of those pervasive word groupings.  Flat earth, 9/11, Apollo... doesn't matter which, you will find those YouTube Dunning-Krugerites who have "looked into it" to the point they feel they have successfully unraveled some of history's greatest deceptions. 

More generally, one of the fundamental things that distinguishes typical conspiracy loons from people who actually understand the relevant topics is that the former group must, necessarily, stick to parroting a script because they can't assemble any argument on their own, whereas the latter group is able to leverage an understanding of a topic to craft arguments specifically directed at a given situation.  This is why points always get made by conspiracists and abruptly abandoned (as we're seeing in an ongoing thread right now) - once the soundbite from the script is spent, there's nothing left in the tank to continue the discussion or provide any elaboration.  It's hit-and-run incredulity, basically. 

PS - I absolutely love your website. So much great work you've done there, which I have gleefully thrown in the face of many a conspiritard.  I've spent hours going over CATM and the other analyses you've presented.  Cheers!



   
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: Abaddon on September 10, 2019, 06:54:32 PM
Great post Matt, and welcome.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had 'Shill' shrieked at me, a bit like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/z1alCAR.png)

as if the source of the facts somehow negates the facts. It wouldn't matter if I was being paid by NASA (I wish!), what matters if whether the facts I present are true or not.

I also see quite regularly people posting stuff like "I looked closely at the photos..." or "when I really looked into it.." before posting some ill-informed claim. My response is increasingly "Well, I also did that and...".

What I've always found interesting about arguing with delusional conspiracy theorists is how they not only use a common "template" for their arguments regardless of which conspiracy they're advocating, but they also have certain groupings of words that they all use in the exact same way, almost as if it's a script. 

Anecdotally, I've found that the words "look into it" is one of those pervasive word groupings.  Flat earth, 9/11, Apollo... doesn't matter which, you will find those YouTube Dunning-Krugerites who have "looked into it" to the point they feel they have successfully unraveled some of history's greatest deceptions. 

More generally, one of the fundamental things that distinguishes typical conspiracy loons from people who actually understand the relevant topics is that the former group must, necessarily, stick to parroting a script because they can't assemble any argument on their own, whereas the latter group is able to leverage an understanding of a topic to craft arguments specifically directed at a given situation.  This is why points always get made by conspiracists and abruptly abandoned (as we're seeing in an ongoing thread right now) - once the soundbite from the script is spent, there's nothing left in the tank to continue the discussion or provide any elaboration.  It's hit-and-run incredulity, basically. 

PS - I absolutely love your website. So much great work you've done there, which I have gleefully thrown in the face of many a conspiritard.  I've spent hours going over CATM and the other analyses you've presented.  Cheers!
   
That would be because it is a script. Notice how JR has not in any way acknowledged his previous abject failures. This is a decades old tactic.
Title: Re: My personal experience with Hoax claims vs. Reality
Post by: bobdude11 on October 30, 2019, 03:59:49 PM
Hi ApolloEnthusiast, and welcome.

You said something which I always tried to include when debunking hoax claims, especially the photographic claims: don't trust me. Yep, listen to what I have to say but don't just believe me unless you are personally convinced it is backed up by science. Repeat photographic claims yourself (e.g. non-parallel shadows), go find some experts in the field regarding a question and listen to what they say. Do research yourself: find articles in papers, check dates and sources, etc (e.g. Una Ronald's "coke bottle" claims regarding when the broadcast was show and what the newspapers reported; virtually none of it was true).

Cheers!

Edited to add: I'm not a scientist (though I have an interest) and I am not a musician (I can't be bothered to learn)... but it takes all types, doesn't it? 8-)
 

Bolded statement reminds me of the quote from Reagan: "Trust but verify"