My apologies if this question has come up on this forum before.

From what I've read on their web sites and blogs so far I'm probably asking for too much rationality from the HB community, but I was curious if they offer any explanation of the similarity between the pictures taken on the moon by the Apollo astronauts and those taken by the Soviet unmanned lunar probes (Lunokhod, Zond) The main nit picking points of the Hoax Believers seem to exist in both. No stars in the black sky, multiple angled shadows, the high contrast washed-out grainy quality.

Sadly, my guess is it's the pathetic "We and Soviets actually drank vodka Cola toasts to each other during the Cold War theory" and cooperated on the hoax. I know that's their common explanation of why the Soviets never questioned the authenticity of the Apollo landings. But even to the point of faking Soviet unmanned missions?

Most HBs wouldn't know the history of the Soviet space program if you hit them with it.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

James Oberg's already tried that. In most cases he's gotten a dull thud, although in a few instances the result was more like a bell ringing.

Still think the Lunakhod design process was

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

The way I understand it is USA couldn't send people to the moon so they faked it in a movie studio and the USSR couldn't send a remote controlled rover to the moon so they faked it by sending a midget inside a rover and they were both so embarrassed they decided to cover for each other.

If only they had worked together then they could have sent remote controlled midgets to the moon.

Excellent point.

And think how long those midgets would have lasted with virtually unlimited wheat rations!

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

Thanks for the reponses. I think I've finally come to realize no evidence to the contrary cuts much ice with the conspiracy crowd.

Yeah....that sounds about right. HBs must come in two flavors. The really gullible and the men who con them.

I'm going to write up the KGB midget story for Clavius because it illustrates the predisposition driving the reasoning by which many conspiracists dismiss moon rocks and LRRRs. To the Soviet doubt-mongers, the remote-control scenario was the "miracle" that had to be proven over and above the "default" explanation that someone was up there driving the rover. The American doubters believed exactly the opposite! The real answer is that you don't get to have a default explanation that's automatically true if some competing claim can't be proven beyond some arbitrary standard of proof.

I've long noticed that conspiracy theorists come in different flavors. The rank and file seem to believe any conspiracy that's dangled before their faces as long as it contains themes of government, intelligentsia, or big business oppressing the little folk, behaving badly, and maintaining their unjust hegemony. And then there are those who happily sell the rubbish to reinforce those beliefs, make a brief name for themselves, and earn a quick buck. The interesting (largely unanswerable) question is whether the latter believe their own hype. Judging from their behavior, I wouldn't say they do; they just know what they have to say in order to appeal to their designated market segment.

There is a small third category: those who are drawn into the conspiracy theories because they seemed superficially credible, but who later came to realize a deeper understanding of the topic confirmed the common belief. We have some illustrious examples of such people posting here at BAUT.

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

A study of the Apollo and Lunokhod conspiracy theories would be a most interesting exercise in comparative conspiratology. I will look forward to it. But, did anyone actually take the story seriously? Or was it always just a cynical joke at the expense of the Soviet Government?

Jon

Just added a line to my personal Maksutovian thesaurus:

Illustrious...synonym: infamous.

It's great to one's own personal thesaurus. It used to intimidate the kids in grade school, especially during recess.



(appy polly loggies to B. Watterson, who I'm sure would appreciate the twist)

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

HBs and Lunkhead?