A while back, I recall that someone posted a story about a high school class in Tremont, Illinos, that was debating whether the moon landing's took place. In today's edition of The Pantagraph (a local newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois), a story appeared about the conclusion of the class project.

There is no web-link to the story, so I am posting it here for in it's entirety:


One Small Step or Just Another Tall Tale?
By Steve Arney

Could the Apollo landing on the moon have been a hoax? Several students at Tremont High School, living in an age in which movies realistically depict alien invaders and the world where hobbits live, posed that question.

The question is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. The Internet is loaded with moon-hoax allegations and counterpoints, and the topic occasionally makes television. “Capricorn One,” a 1978 movie, is built upon the idea that the first manned flight to Mars was a hoax.

This school year in Tremont, the question made it to a science lab in a debate directed by high school physics teacher Angie Patzner. The unit showed students a practical application in their study of projectiles. Among the student’s conclusions:

· Arguing that the moonwalk did occur is frustrating, as proponents get pelted with questions. Even when they answer them to their own satisfaction, if often won’t satisfy the opponents. Sometimes, the answers add more material for questions rather than resolving issues. Asking as skeptics was more fun than answering.

· Young people don’t take what the government says at face value. It isn’t just “X-Files” – style fiction TV that has molded their thinking. They say it is the nonfiction political scandals, lies and cover-ups that make them skeptics.

Although the class finished its project at the end of the first semester, the debate lingers. It was recounted for visitors the other day, with 12 students clinging to the belief that the moonwalk occurred and four suggesting it didn’t – or at least might not have.

The textbooks state as fact that in 1969 Neil Armstrong took a giant step for mankind. Subsequent Apollo missions also sent men to the moon. Could the U.S. government – humiliated by Soviet victories in the space race – have resorted to trickery to claim a victory in the space race?

A leading advocate of the official government position on the moon landing is Ashley Cotter, a senior whose career path could take her to NASA. She plans college studies and physical training to become an astronaut. Does she believe everything the government tells her?

“About the moon landing, yeah. There’s other things the government isn’t honest about,” she says. She takes what she feels is a balanced view of her government – wrong in respects, deceitful in instances but also exploring space – much of the time.

Central to the class’ proof for the moon landing is gravity. A computer program provided through a $400 grant from National City Bank assisted in analyzing moon video. Acceleration on the moon is one-sixth that of earth explains Cotter. She states:

· The gravity-produced acceleration rate of an object dropping on the moon surface is 5.4 feet per second squared. The acceleration on earth is –32.3 meters per second squared.

· The computer program calculated the speed of Neil Armstrong’s descent from a ladder as about –5. There is a variable that wasn’t calculated. Armstrong isn’t an unobstructed falling projectile. He is a man clinging to a ladder as he drops. The point, say moon-landing believers, is that he clearly wasn’t doing this on earth.

Antagonists counter that the math proof is nothing that trick photography can’t overcome. What about the radiation to which the astronauts would have been exposed to? What about the lack of stars in the photographs? What about shadows in moon photos that cast in directions that suggest two light sources? Cody McGinnis asks how a lunar craft with 10,000 pounds per square inch of thrust can leave no visible indentation on the moon surface?

These issues were explored during seven class days of work. “It could go either way,” concedes Tyler Halverson, who argued against the moon landing in class. Some good questions are in play, says moonwalk believer Michael Koch. But he also thinks that if the government was crafty enough to dupe the world into thinking it landed men on the moon, it also would have made a video that didn’t pose so many questions.

At one point, the proponents turn the burden to the antagonist’s camp: Where’s the evidence of the hoax and the cover-up? Why hasn’t proof of a cover-up surfaced?

Said Karen Moore, “I haven’t seen evidence that it (landing on the moon) didn’t happen.”

They obviously have very low standards as to what constitutes a realistic depiction on the screen.

Well, obviously.

What some cheap 1978 movie would do is irrelevant.

Fundamental conspiracists will never be convinced. They have some kind of psychological or economic ulterior motive for continuing to promote the Apollohoax.

This is basically saying that HBs have bias against believing in the validity of Apollo. Bias doesn't make for sound investigation.

I don't know if I like their tone. The use of the term 'clinging' gives the impression of fundamentalists who believe in Apollo's validity on principle and not based on the evidence. The use of the term 'suggesting' when applied to the HBs, makes them come across as more reasonable.

And that would have been successful over doing the real thing? How do you design a robot probe to collect 380kg of documented samples, including core tubes, trench samples, gas samples and chippings, build it, launch it, and all in complete secrecy.

I always get annoyed by people who look only at the tabloid knowledge of the space race and not at the more details of how both sides were progressing. The huge leaps that the Americans made during the Gemini program that put them ahead and the catastrophic failiures of the N-1 boosters that caused the Soviets to flounder are all considered far too much detail for the dumb twats who promote the Apollohoax bilk.

That not just what she feels. That's what I'd say too. We don't deny that governments can be seedy at times. But at times, they are also more forthright. The generalise them into one or the other is a pure straw man and anyone who does that will have the spleen ripped out and fed to them.

Indeed.

Would you please explain how? Just saying that it could have been done is an affirmed consequent. "The low gravity must have been simulated somehow because if it wasn't, it proves he was on Luna and I don't believe he was."

What about it? We want some demonstration that the radiation was indeed too dangerous.

Muppets. I'm an amateur astronomer and dabble in a bit of astrophotography. I know there isn't a chance on either side of hell that I'd capture any stars using ISO 64 film set at 1/250 second.

Multiple light sources cast multiple shadows. Only one shadow is seen, therefore there can't be more than one distinct light source.

Pounds per square inch is a measurement of pressure not thrust. He can't even keep he's statement dimensionally correct. He clearly works for Edexcel.

I've heard this conceit in some of my dealing with HBs. They assert with great ferocity that the Apollohoax is true and when you counter, they then retreat to saying, "There is cause for debate" That way, they can try to shield themselves from looking like total muppets. When you've debunked them, they say that they were just "exploring possibilities", or some other bartsibrel like that.

A valid point. All these "anomalies" are extremely contradictory with the notion of having fooled the world's best and brightest. That's why Percy and co. like their whistle-blowers. When conjecture fails, the conspiracists just add more conjecture.

Parsimony. The idea that Apollo happened as advertised in its meticulous documentation is simple to investigate. The idea that it was faked with all its secrets and supposition is very hard to investigate. Parsimony dictates that we accept the validity of Apollo in lack of any contradictory evidence.

Wow, impressivve students. I think someone should give them a award for their cirtical thinking skills. So many kids have not used them in a long time.

Thanks for finding that article. It just brightened my day alot. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

_________________
"Hi!!" - Some person, somewere, at some time.
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-16 12:49 ]</font>

Thanks for posting the article.

I agree with Glom's comments about the tone of certain statements. They seem slanted toward the moon landings as hoax position. Comments like the "clinging to" vs "suggest".

I find it neat that they got some nifty software to do some analysis of the film. However, JayUtah and others have shown some simple (and inexpensive) demonstrations using cameras to duplicate the supposedly impossible effects. These should have been incorporated.

The students did try out their critical thinking and evaluative skills. In that respect, the project was a success. The fact that some remain unconvinced and the debate lingers suggests not enough was done. How much of the evaluation was student led (vs. teacher suggested), and how much time was used are things to consider in that respect.

This is a great observation. It shows the difficulty of trying to answer in a thorough manner vs. asking questions without attempting to understand. It shows why technical debates are hard to win on merit vs. on emotionalism, which is slanted to against the science side. This parallels creationism/evolution debates, where the creationists only need to hint at technical findings that the evolution defender hasn't specifically seen.

I think some of them are clinging to the doubting position because it's more fun.

Glom said:
I'm not sure this is a fair criticism. Yes, it is true. However, unless you are technically trained, you won't understand the difference in terminology.

And clearly they didn't research the technical details that closely. We all know about the 10,000 lb/in² max rating vs. the throttled down thrust.

From the article:
Some problems with this statement. First, it's 32.2 feet per second squared, not meters per second squared. It's 9.8 meters per second squared. Second, there is inconsistency in the use of the negative sign. This could be interpreted correctly how stated - comparing acceleration rate (i.e magnatude) vs. acceleration (i.e. vector quantity). However, by switching back and forth, it gives the impression that the Moon's gravity pulls up. Consistency in usage would be less confusing. Also, technically the acceleration rate would mean the rate of acceleration, which would be jerk (third derivative of position). Semantics.

Still, I'm glad they did the project.