In response to some alleged woo-woo bashing, I discovered a name, Bart Sibrel, and Googled his website.

I've nothing against Sibrel himself. Rather, I would like to point out a few flaws in the "clues" section of his website: http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7

Rather than risk heinous lashings by violating any alleged copyright, I'll instead refer to his "The Top 15 Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon" by number, and in short paraphrase. Please refer to his website for the complete text:

15. Richard Nixon was President. The man in the oval office, while powerful, is powerless to mandate the alleged Lunar Landing hoax. No single man, regardless of how powerful he may have been, could have kept thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians mum about about a hoax in which most of them would have had to been privvy. There were too many cross-checks, including instrumentation, physics, communications, construction, etc., which would have made it plain to most that it was a hoax. Given a top-secret military environment, where people signed their life away, maybe. But given the very public location and operations at Canaveral, absolutely impossible.

14. Vietnam distraction. Plausible, but totally without any evidence. Theories without evidence aren't even truly theories. They're merely conjecture, and in this case, "sheer conjecture."

13. Soviet Superiority. If anything, their being ahead for the most of the 60's provides a great deal of credence as to why we threw so much effort into, and succeeded with our Lunar program. From the Revolutionary War to World War II, America has always been the "comeback kid." We're always rising to the occasion, usually going well above and beyond when necessary. Our historical tendancy to excel (once we're finally goaded into it) is yet more support that we can, and did, actually land on the moon.

12. Neil Armstrong's lack of interview. While some of the earlier astronauts were quite flamboyant, most of the later ones including Neil Armstrong, were quite humble. They weren't into showboating, and truly felt they were just doing their duty. They didn't want the attention. I particularly like how Sibrel says they refused to grant interviews "to anyone." As I recall, I've seen Armstrong on TV several times post-mission talking about his moon-walk. I believe he refused to grant personal interviews, as did most of the astronauts. However, most of them had no trouble speaking at press converences where they were most certainly interviewed!

11. Retouched Photographs. I compared the two photos by normalizing, inverting, layering, then merging, in Photoshop CS. There's a lot more than a C that's different between the two photos, indicating that someone did a good bit more tinkering than just removing the C. Furthermore, the non-C had a cleaner overal presence than did the C photo, indicating that the C photo was a later photo, with more retouching, than the non-C photo.

Here's something you can do at home! The vast majority of digitally retouched photographs are actually larger than their originals. The C rock photo is 14091 bytes, while the non-C rock photo is 9329 bytes. consistant with the C rock photo having been retouched from the original non-C rock photo.

To see this for yourself, in Windows, simply right-click on the photos on Sibrel's website and choose Properties.

10. Flag waving in the wind. If a flag were attached to a vibrating pole in a vaccuum, the lack of air would cause it to flutter rapidly, as depicted in the original footage. An atmosphere would have actually held it back, and it would have quickly dampened the flutter to nothing in a few seconds. If it were in the atmosphere, it would have required a very significant wind, around 40 kts, to cause that rate of flutter. At about 25 knots, there would have been a fine layer of silt blowing past the astronaut's knees. At 30 knots, it would have been blowing sand, with silt up to the astronaut's shoulders, if not higher. At 40 knots, it would have been a sandstorm.

Finally, much of 10 is devoted to how the cooling system could not have worked, a woo-woo's conclusion that's further (and wrongly) described here (subject 25): http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/alt.astronomy.html

Fortunately, the action of the cooling pack is correctly described here: http://www.roger.id.au/sciencestuff/...ding_faked.php (about halfway down the page, or do a find on "the spacesuits where equipped with a cooling system"

As an aside, that last website has a wealth of woo-woo debunking material on it!

9. Undisturbed soil. Unlike here on Earth, the gases exiting from the lander's exhaust were free to expand in every direction, and they largely did, constrained only by their initial exit vector from the rocket nozzle. One thing the woo-woos forget is that in 1/6 G, the lunar lander's mass when it reached the surface was only 2,700 lbs in Lunar gravity, and the surface only had to withstand the blast for a couple of seconds, as clearly shown in the videos of the landing taken from the Lander itself.

I've seen an AV-8B harrier hovering 15 feet above a grassy infield while it weighed 19,800 pounds, and the grass was not uprooted. This proves nothing, actually - but it's the sort of arguement which woo-woos typically use to sway the uninitiated.

The truth of the matter is that the lunar soil was very resistant to verticle penetration. The shovels used by the astronauts were nearly useless when they pushed straight down. When used at a shallow angle, however, they were reasonably effective. The main reason behind this appears to be the physical nature of the soil itself. Regardless, by the time the gases of the lander's rocket exhaust hit the soil's surface, they were far, far less dense than Earth's one atmosphere. Therefore, even at high rates of horizontal velocity (hit's vertically, goes horizontal), the density was so low as to fail to disturbe the soil to any great degree.

Finally, airflow is largely a product of the density of that airflow. Given the very low density, when the rocket exhaust hit the surface, there was little to keep it traveling along the surface - most of it simply rebounded at a trajectory similar to the angle of incidence, although some, to be sure, paralleled the ground.

8. Non-parallel shadows. I have many photographs of single and multiple objects taken right here on Earth in bright sunlight where the shadows aren't parallel for a variety of reason, including uneven ground, parallax (converging perception of parallel lines), etc. This claim is about the most ignorant one a woo-woo could make, as it's very easily duplicated via any amateur photographer with a store-bought disposable camera.

7. 250,000 miles vs 400 miles vs Van Allen belts.

First, once a spacecraft is in low Earth orbit (LOE), it's well over half way to the surface of the Moon with respect to the total energy required to go from LOE to a Lunar landing. Coming back is even easier, as there are two things in the astronaut's favor. First, they don't have to ferry the lower half of the lander, saving thousands of pounds of fuel. Second, they don't need to ferry their Earth landing fuel, as all that's required is a retro burn. The Earth's atmospheric braking and parachutes did the rest.

Second, the Space Shuttle was never designed for higher than 400 miles, as that's all that was required to pre-position satellites. If the satellites need to go higher, to, say, geosynchronous orbit (like the ones 22,000 miles up), they simply carry their own fuel. It would be absurd to waste fuel moving the entire shuttle up to geosynchronous orbit to position a satellite, then wast more fuel to move it back to LOE when the satellite can move itself with a very small fraction of the fuel. The amount of fuel required to move the shuttle that high would likely be larger than the satellite itself! On the other hand, the lunar lander and command module sat atop one of the world's most powerful rockets, with respect to total energy. It was designed to move the lander and command module into a lunar orbit.

And it did!

The astronauts moved through the "dangerous" Van Allen radiation belts in less than 1 hour, received approximately 1 rem of radition. It takes about 100 rem to 200 rem to experience radiation sickeness, and about 300 rem before death becomes a possibility (some have received approximately 500 rem and survived).

6. Top portion of Lander. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of physics (as in someone getting a B during a collegiate year of sophomore Physics) would be able to calculate the mass of the top portion of the lander, the differential gravimetric potential, the acceleration required, the basic fuel requirements and changing mass from liftoff to orbital insertion, and accurately calculate that this particular maneuver was well within the realm of possibility given the rocket systems available then.

To think that there are people out there concluding that it would be "ludicrous" simply by looking at it, and without having calculated it, is to me, absolutely incredulous. While they may sway the uneducated masses, those of us who can do the calculations (hundreds of millions of us around the world, at least!), correctly see those individuals for what they are - willfully ignorant.

5. Vaccuum, heating and cooling for the LM. Although the surface was 250 deg F, it was radiant heat, and only half of the spherical realm around the LM was the moon surface. The other half was empty space, at -273 deg F. Thus, from a radiant heat point of view, it was as if the LM was in a room with an even temperature on all walls of -23 deg F, which is definately a chilling thought!

The main source of LM heat was internal, primarily from the astronauts and the life support systems, and used a device identical in principle, although only similar in design, as the backpack cooling units in the astronaut's space suits. You can read more about the LM's cooling system here: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S6CH4.htm

4. The LM's high CG would cause it to pinwheel and crash. Any kid who's been able to balance a broomstick, but been unable to balance half a broomstick knows the answer to this one intuitively. Furthermore what about those very high CG rockets we see taking off all the time? They don't "pinwheel and crash!" High CG only adds stabilty (actually, it decreases rotational acceleration due to imbalances). Only those who lack even a basic, childhood understanding of the world around them would swallow this woo-woo bait. The only thing "absurd" about Sibrel's claim is that he was bold enough to even use this. I'll bet he's laughing all the way to the bank at everyone who forked over $29 for one of his videos! Furthermore, the LM trainer didn't crash because it was unstable, it crashed because it lost pressure in the helium system used in controlling the reaction jets.

3. Because Sibrel failed to mention who actually said what in the video of the press conference vs the transcript, no one could possibly comment on his claim of deceit without further information. Just another woo-woo bait to buy his video.

2. The deaths of those pioneering astronauts was a tragic mistake. The fact that it took "just two years" to fix the problem(s?) is entirely unremarkable, as the only problem was the use of flammable material inside the oxygen-rich atmosphere of the command module.

1. Previously unreleasable footage now being released to the public.

Hmmm... I've a number of DVD's, each of which includes a number of pre-production outtakes. Rehersal is used by everyone on TV, whether Astronaut, the President, Mr. Rogers, that Australian crocodile show - everyone! Except, of course, and probably just perhaps, by 20-year veteran news anchors such as Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw. In fact, I used to do the news on my college radio station, and I always rehearsed!

By what stretch of the imagination does Mr. Sibrel find it so difficult to believe that before going on live TV, half way to the moon, where you have only one chance to get it right before the entire TV-viewing world, the astronauts wouldn't rehearse a planned skit?

That's just absurd, Mr. Sibrel! Of course they would rehearse it! To think otherwise, much less attempt to use it as the basis of your wild moon landing hoax is utterly bereft of either intellectual merit or integrity.

I leave it to you to decide which!

http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

There's what I wrote on the same subjects.

I do have something against Sibrel. He obviously reads the responses to these and his other arguments, but instead of withdrawing them when refuted, he makes very small changes to them to make them technically correct while preserving their original, misleading intent.

Thanks to Mark Gray and his incomparable knowledge of the existing video and film records, we are able to know exactly what Sibrel's source is for his "secret" "backstage" footage. And we can look at that footage ourselves and know exactly what Sibrel saw when he planned his video. And -- most insidiously -- we can see exactly what Sibrel left out, and note with disappointment that the parts Sibrel doesn't show you assertively contradict his conclusions regarding the parts he decides to allow you to see.

It is my belief that Sibrel knowingly and intentionally misrepresents the evidence and facts surrounding Apollo for his own fame and profit. I am more convinced of this in Sibrel's case than, perhaps, in the case of other conspiracy authors.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sounds like it's time for someone to create a video highlighting portions of Sibrel's video (the public portion of the video only), reviewing Sibrel's claims, then showing the rest of the video refuting Sibrel's claims.

Of course, it'd be a bust, commercially, as there are a lot more people who would like to believe in something than those who're interested in digging for the real truth.

Case in point - The Amazing Randy didn't get rich debunking Uri Geller's claims of bending spoons or other magicians.

He lied about me on national TV. I document that here.

Well while Jay's is likely more comprehensive, here's my short list.

15) Nixon's contribution to Apollo was to cancel it. The planning and building of the program was under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

14) The Apollo was started in 1960, planning was as far a back as 1958. This was well before Vietnam, and a successful program would have achieved a "distraction" anyway.

13) Early on the Soviets were a first at all costs program, risking their men's lives to get there first. This changed with their head of the space program and that dropped them behind. Gemini allowed the US to catch up and surpass the Soviets, and with the Soviet failures in their lander and the N1, the US bet them.

12) Neil himself points a out that he does a lot of interviews, as many as he actually can and that time permits. He does like his privacy though, and doesn't like public speaking, but he still does it. he does agree that he probably only does abut 3% of the request he gets, but that's because he gets so many that he has to say no to most of them because he can't be everywhere at once.

11) A changed argument from Bart because it was pointed out the the "C" didn't exist in the NASA print. The "C" is a hair in the paper of ne print that was published, it's not on the negative.

10) No footage of the flag moving exists outside of that in which a Astronaut is not touching, or has not just let go of the flag pole. Claims of lost footage showing it are pointless becuse it's simply words.

9) The lunar surface is far from "undisturbed." The Images show that the surface has been swept clear of about two inches of dust and that even few larger stones have been moved. The engine was throttled down to abut 3000lb and the force on the surface was insufficent to do more than it did due to the hard packed nature of it. Both Armstrong and Aldrin commented on the ground disturbance and lack of crater.

8) Bart needs to look at non-Apollo photos. Shadows only appear parallel in a photograph when taken from the side or directly above.

7) The shielding from the VA Belts was appropriate to the radiation type. Bart changed his argument to avoid the Soviet Zond 5 flight in 1968 nd besides, its irrelevant that no one has gone futher then 400 miles since Apollo because simply no one has had a mission to do it. Bth the Soviet (now Russian) Agency and NASA have been more interested in Space Stations and LEO for the past 30 years. That doesn't mean that Apollo couldn't have happened.

6) Just like the Space Shuttles main engine, the plume of the ascent module is transparent and thus invisible.

5) The landings were during the Lunar Morning and so the heat was not as severe. Also Bart has no understnding of Heat Transfer in a Vaccum, or air fr that matter. Perhaps it's a hoax that Firefighters can survive in a burning building to.

4) Bart has no understanding ot the LM systems. The height of the CoG has little to do with rocket flight as was learned early on in rocketry, and the systems has a gyroscope that was connected to a gimble so as to allow for the astronauts moving. The LMTV, which wasn't a LM prototype, was used successfully over a hundred times and the two crashes were cause by facters the LM would not suffer from. One got caught in a wind shear, the other had the control hydraulics fail.

3) The Astronauts confused the question. Armstrong and Collins thought he was talking about the corona experiment they did on the way to the moon. Astronauts have repeatedly said that they could see stars when in the shade of the LM or using a scope.

2) Bart has no evidence of his claims which are just dispicable.

1) The smoking gun footage has been edited to remove the part that disproves his claims, and all of it is publically available, including the part he didn't want to be seen. Much of it was televised live at the time.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Also risking their women's lives to get there first. Don't forget Valentina Tereshkova, who became the first woman in space in 1963.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I was watching the Apollo 11 moonwalk last night, and the bit that struck me in relation to this was watching Aldrin move past the flag. Although he passed about a metre from it (while doing the mobility test) the flag didn't stir.

Which is what you'd expect in a vacuum, and all but impossible when there's air to swirl the flag.

Quiet!

Those are things you're NOT SUPPOSED TO NOTICE™ © ®

8)

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

HBs seem to fail to notice these obvious things. It doesn't billow when it is in motion either. If you look at the way a flag moves in the air, the cloth billows out as it encounters increasing air pressure caused by the cloth compressing the air as it moves. Compare this with the movement of the flag from the Apollo footage as the astronauts screw (for want of a better word) the pole into the ground. The flag whips about, but it does so without billowing, it merely flaps directly up and down without any sign of air resistance at all. It actually looks really strange. That and the flag when released continues to move in that type of motion longer than one would expect it to. A flag in the air slows very quickly because the air resistance dampens the flag's motion. Other things to look at are the the flag itself is in the same position in all of the photos of one mission regardless of when they are taken. Try that with a flag on Earth. And the flag is free from rippling. No matter how careful you are, in an atmosphere the flag will just naturally ripple slightly. The ones in the Apollo footage don't.

All that evidence points to one of two things. Either it was filmed in a whopping sound stage that was evacuated (or air, not people) or it was taken on the moon. Either way, Bart's claim of an air conditioning unit blowing the flag is obvious incorrect.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Our own esteemed Mr. Windley, in one of my all-time favorite "Jay quotes," once established a correlation between the amount of energy required to produce movement in a nylon flag, and that of insect flatulence.

__________________
"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby

Bearer of the highly coveted "I found Venus in nine Apollo photos" sweatsocks.

DataCable^2008 A+

Hmmm... Somehow, I believe that a GF would have sufficient energy to violently flagellate the flag of the United States of America!

I'm not sure how many times the BA has called BS a liar. As far as I know, BS has never sued the BA for slander. I'm sure he would happily do so if he thought he had a chance of winning the suit, but it isn't slander if it's true.

__________________
Yo Adrian. The Phillies won the Series.

It could also very well be the BS knows that if he sued the BA for libel, the truth would come out and his income machine would be ruined!

People like that thrive while shrouded in mystery...

It's the same reason sharletons of the day avoided The Amazing Randi like the plague.

Isn't amazing the coincedence between his initials and what we commonly refer to as offal? About 1 chance in 626, I believe...

Even if it was pointed out in court that his claims are baseless I doubt that it would even give his followers pause, after all, as everyone here is a government disinformation agent then the government saying he's wrong won't matter a bit.

__________________

SHHHHHHH! You're not supposed to let that out, GDwarf! Not only is it against "company policy," but it could land you in jail! Stop alluding to the things which we know exist but "don't exist!" Ok!???

Note: The above comment was intended in parody only. No reference was either inferred or implied to the men in black hats. All further

ANOTHER Note, you bad astronomers - your b**** has been taken down, understand? He's not going to be contributing to your stupid board any more! We don

Ahem! Pardon the inturruption and the language. The situation is under control, and the MIBs have been subdued.

As I was saying, All further implications otherwise are the sole responsibility of those with whom the implications arise. This board is strictly for entertainment purposes. Anematehpadmehhum... Oh my Lord... Kumbayayh...

Any of these guys would love to sue me. They know a sad fact: a certain percentage of people will believe anything you tell them, despite of (and perhaps because of) a complete lack of evidence. Therefore more people listening = more people buying.

My evidence? The footage of Bart Sibrel being completely and utterly humiliated by Buzz Aldrin in September 2003 was owned by Sibrel, and taken by him. He sold it to a newspaper. Why would he do that, when it makes him look the complete fool? Why did he agree to go on "The Daily Show", when they only interview people to make them look like fools?

More people = more buyers.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com