I just did a google search for "moon hoax", and found this, in the "Hare Krishna News Network":

http://www.krishna.org/Articles/2000/12/00227.html

"Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? The greater lunar lie In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

"How can the flag be fluttering," the 47 year old American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?" That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

(...)

The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing.
There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. McGrath
They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to end their fingers.
Award winning British photographer David passer is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.
Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

(...)


And now NASA is planning another giant step - project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth." Space oddities *Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air. * A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander liftingoff the Moon. Who did the filming? * One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? (...) "



Geeez...can't they at least get some new arguments? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaji on 2002-07-05 17:23 ]</font>

If this is an example of the language skills of the typical Hare Krishna type, it goes a long way toward explaining how they got involved with the cult to begin with. But at least it gives us the chance for a little fun:

"View ponders"... that's nice. I have this image of a thoughtful, philosophical photographer...

And to think they had to go all the way to the Moon to achieve their feet.

Hey, if intense peaks are so bad for film, how did Hillary get that photo of Tensing Norgay on Everest?

OK, I guess I'm done... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

(Edit: Doh! Hare Krishnas are not TMers...)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-07-05 17:11 ]</font>

Kaji, you're not supposed to post complete articles here. I suggest cutting it down to a few highlights and leaving the link for us to follow for the rest. If you don't, the BA will be coming around to do it for you.

The Krishnas have been mentioned before. They have a religious bias against the Apollo landings. Man cannnot have gone to the Moon because their teachings say it's impossible, or something like that.

(edit)

Yes, here it is, linked from the article you posted. The Moon is too far away, according to them.

http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00082.html
_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-07-05 17:14 ]</font>

Ha ha ha ha...ummm...you mean they're serious? Opps. My bad.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-07-05 18:35 ]</font>

They're serious. And they have a different way of looking at the world. And fair play to them, I say.

They have a different way of looking at the world, to be sure, but they also have a very snooty way of disdaining anyone else's view of the world. They'll go on at length about how you're trampling on their religious beliefs by pointing out the flaws in the Milne article. But they don't seem to get the picture that they're insulting the life's work of a lot of people by looking down their Vedic noses at mainstream science.

This is not too different from the Creationism arguments. What people believe as a matter of religion ought to be greatly respected. The problem is when they take the extra step and argue that their religious beliefs are also scientifically justified.

See my rebuttal to the Milne article: http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html

Agreed. But if they are happy in their 'ignorance', let them alone to be happy.

A (sort of) connected example. We've got a kid at school who's autistic. If you tell him to go somewhere, he'll go off ahead of you and you can bet he'll be where you told him to go when you get there. The trouble is, his way of coping with the world in this situation is to run off ahead in a sort of lollopy way, giggling as he goes. Fine by me. Trouble is, this is deemed to be inappropriate behaviour and the rest of the world is trying to get him to walk sensibly. He hates this. It really upsets him. And it will get to the point where he won't go by himself. To me, that's a backwards step. Instead of compromise, we have conflict, all because we have different ways of dealing with the world.

(Sorry to go off on one. This situation is really bugging me at the moment.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-07-05 19:54 ]</font>

Sorry to hear that, John. I thought the days of teachers smacking left-handers with a ruler to make them right-handed were over and done with.

The ('inhumanity': what people do to other people) Curtmudgeon

Yeah, right. Trouble is, the field of study is so varied and there is so much contradictory info that it's hard to come up with any kind of theory or 'therapy' that holds true for more than about five minutes. Part of autism (in my experience) is that there is no consistency at all in responses from the kids, minute by minute, so the best bet is to just 'wing it' and go with the 'feel' of the situation.

Moon Hoax. John [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

David Hall wrote:Out of morbid curiousity I took a look at this one page, and it is amazing. More untruths per paragraph than Bart, Rene, or Bill (either one) could hope to achieve. It makes Looter sound like Carl Sagan. It makes Duane Gish sound almost mainstream.

Wow. Let's keep the sharp objects out of their hands.

BTW, I liked the part of how fish can't live on land. In the greater DC area, we are now dealing with a species (from China) which eats all the other fish in a pond, then walks cross-country to a new aquatic buffet. I read that it can live up to four days out of the water. (Cue theme from "Jaws".)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-07-09 12:23 ]</font>