has been plenty of time to create a mock-science techno-babble of theories to explain away the anomalies and inconsistencies.

What "techno-babble" are you talking about? What "mock science" are you talking about? Do you think the principles of, say, optics were fabricated solely for the purpose of lying to the public about the Apollo landings?

For instance, where is there the empirical evidence that light behaves differently on the moon than anywhere else.

First, it is not our contention that light behaves differently on the moon than it does anywhere else. Ours is, rather, that scenes on the lunar surface lit by the sun are different in some respects than similar scenes on earth, chiefly due to the difference made by the atmosphere. You're tearing down a straw man.

Second, why does it have to be empirical evidence? Do you understand what collecting such empirical evidence would entail? And since the conspiracy theorists also advance assertions on how light behaves, or should behave, on the lunar surface, do you plan to ask them for their empirical evidence?

Third, while we're talking about that, the conspiracy theorists say the Apollo photos reveal evidence of having been created in studios, some of that evidence relating to lighting. If this is true, why has no conspiracy theorist been able to actually recreate an allegedly false Apollo photo in the studio, using the techniques they're so sure were used? Who cares whether it's an accurate depiction of the lunar surface -- can they simply produce the effects we see in the photos with studio techniques?

Fourth, certain effects such as the optical behavior of the lunar surface at a zero phase angle have been understood and quantified for generations.

This could be a very convenient excuse to explain away many photo anomalies.

Or it could be the right answer. Except that you've misrepresented the anti-hoax argument, so that's moot.

If, however, light actually functions the same throughout the universe, then everything said over the years based on this false assumption is a lie

Light does function the same way throughout the universe. It is my contention that conspiracy theorists don't understand how light behaves on the moon, on earth, or anywhere else for that matter. They don't understand light, period. They don't understand how and why it reflects. They don't understand how and why it scatters. They don't understand what happens to it when it is projected through lenses onto film. They don't understand how the world we perceive projectively relates to the world that exists in affinity.

You seem to want to measure us with a fairly stiff yardstick. Are you willing to apply that same yardstick to the conspiracy theorists?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-18 00:58 ]</font>