This guy makes cosmicdave look like a Nobel Laureate.

Did Man Land on the Moon or Not?

The best section is called "Big Blue.....Egg?". This "scientist" doesn't realize the earth is not a perfect circle, and uses that as proof of a hoax! And the man has absolutely NO clue as to how a camera works, comparing a picture inside the LM (poorly exposed so the lunar surface is very bright) to a picture taken outside (with a proper outside exposure), and asking, why isn't the second picture as bright?

Some of his other arguments are equally as weak. So weak I don't think Percy or Sibrel would touch them.


I can honestly say that for the first time ever, I was embarrased for the person doing the site.

At least he's not asking for money.

Check out his comments recieved at the bottom of the page. He's recieved none yet. Anybody want to start the ball rolling?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-06-05 20:37 ]</font>

That site has been discussed in this thread: Another new Moon hoax website.

And when you think about it, that site is fairly mild compared to the monstrosity of this site.

__________________
~AstroMike

I've seen this site and I remember writing a detailed review of it somewhere.

The "egg" section suffers from two major flaws: (1) the failure to consider the spatial distortion in the JSC scans, and (2) the total ignorance of what a terminator is.

The rest of it is just ignorance about optics, photography, the design of the spacecraft, etc.

John, do you remember my comments on this site?

I went to the Apollo Image Atlas, and found the "egg-shaped" Earth image.


AS15-91-12343

As you can see, the image has no spatial distortion.

__________________
~AstroMike

John, do you remember my comments on this site?

My recollection software in my brain is such that I only know that I know things, not where that info came from. That's why it is difficult for me to write 'proper' dissertations, with all the references, quotes and everything. I am surrounded at work by people who can quote this book and that person all day long over theories and facts, yet when I'm asked how I know something, I just reply 'I read it someplace, I think'. Yet I'm the one who can suss out what's going on. I'm currently about to start writing a thingy on Early Communication (CD should take note: I can tell what level of development he is functioning at!), and I'm supposed to supply references. I could write the whole thing from memory, and from actually doing the job, but I've got to wade through various publications to support my facts. In my view, as long as the facts are correct, I don't see the point of proving which books I have and have not read. That's probably why I've never done well at higher education, even though the principles I'm supposed to be learning are a statement of the seemingly obvious to me.

Short answer, no. I can't remember specifically discussing this site, but I do remember that we have discussed (somewhere) the specific arguments. I even remember a post at Apollohoax, now deleted, which showed the fallacy of the 'Jim and Dave' photos on 15, both the angles of the mountains, and the seemingly perfect composition.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-06-05 21:19 ]</font>

Interesting Jay, it seems the author of the website took some of the criticisms to heart and dropped many of his allegations. But that still hasn't stopped him.

Strangely enough, he seemed to have kept some of the more easily explained anomalies

Hopefully, I have given him some new information on why some of the photos are genuine. I couldn't talk about all of them intelligently. (I lack the knowledge.) But I did try to point out some really basic problems.

He seems to be genuinely questioning the Hoax side as well.

__________________
Valiant Dancer