I just found this new site, which claims to be "The Ultimate Conspiracy - Lunar Landing Hoax - The Ultimate Debunking Site"

It is not a bad site, but it is not the best. Clavius is better.

I've often found that websites or products that have to use the word "ultimate", particularly repeated use, tend to not be . . . well, ultimate.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Well, it's about time I got an account here, God knows I've lurked for long enough.

The above site is mine, and frankly, I will take "not a bad site" - so thanks for that (and the influx of traffic!)

Just to explain, I firmly agree that Clavius is better. It's a lot more technical, but that's kind of the problem. I'm not a scientist - I'm a writer - and I found a lot of Clavius and the general debunking stuff on the 'net slightly head-spinning. I had to really force myself to understand it. I know from experience of directing non-believing friends toward web explanations, a lot of people don't have the patience - so the point of LLH is to simplify.

It's also a blog rather than a standalone website, so it's not finished - nor will it ever be. That's the fun of blogging.

And about the strapline, I completely agree, but one needs a strapline y'see. And I don't think: "a website about the moon landing conspiracy which in a few years with several thousands posts will be quite good but in the mean time is a bit empty because the writer is stupidly busy and anyway is never going to be as comprehensive as Clavius" would quite work

Plus a lot of the conspiracy theorists call it "the ultimate conspiracy" and it's worked in terms of people searching Google for "the ultimate conspiracy" and instead ending up on a debunking site. That I like.

Still, thanks for the almost vote of sort of confidence - even though you guys wouldn't be my target audience

You obviously haven't seen my ULTIMATE astronomy quiz over in the Astronomy forum. It's still going after countless years, not that I've been there since starting the damn thing but it's nice to see it still on the first page.

Welcome abord. I do like the style. As a blog, it does look a professional job. I need to figure out how to make my website look professional (I should start by redesigning outside of IE6).

Thanks! It's fun for me to do, a place to go on about my Apollo obsession without having friends roll eyes at me, a place to snark at conspiracy theorists, maybe even a place to pass on information. In that order, mind.

I prefer blogs to websites due to their ease of construction. The blog platform I use (Wordpress, self hosted) for all my blogs can be used to construct a "normal" website too with minimum fuss.

And, isn't IE6 pretty much the root of all evil?

Welcome to BAUT. I like your site...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

I like your site. I think there is room in this webiverse for both Clavius and one like yours.

Nick

__________________
--
Nick Theodorakis

I had not seen that clip of Al Bean. I've always had respect for the man, and that has only increased after I viewed the manner in which he "handled" Sibrel.

Thanks for posting that.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Ah, well in an attempt to make myself look like less of a jerk--and don't get me wrong, I *am* a jerk, I just don't always want to appear to be--my comments about "ultimate" things were not meant to mean that your site is bad. (Honestly, I just quickly viewed the main page, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other, except that it's always nice to see anti-hoax information).

Welcome to BAUT

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

It is becoming increasingly common to do it that way, primarily because it allows commenting with a minimum of fuss.

I wanted to make my website from scratch for my own learning (I used Notepad for writing markup on principle). However, such a static architecture is really quite dated now. It's not like I get a lot of traffic anyway though of course that could be a bit circular.

After watching the video, Al Bean showed remarkable restraint. John Young almost pulled a Buzz Aldrin. Seibrel is an opportunistic fraud.

Was I the only one to find it hilarious that Sibrel started spouting his nonsense after losing his TV cameraman job for trespassing on Neil Armstrong's property?

__________________
Of those who say nothing, few are silent. - Thomas Neil.

It's brilliant, isn't it? So much better than if he'd shouted or punched him.

It does make me sick that someone like Sibrel got to meet so many of the astronauts and have sit down chats with them. I, an Apollo fan, will probably never get the opportunity to actual meet them... but that moron does.

Also, to another poster, I didn't know about Sibrel being fired for harrassing Neil Armstrong... any elaboration on that?

And thanks for the welcomes - I suppose I should have registered here a long time ago!

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Bart%20Sibrel.htm - the first large paragraph at the top :

Buzz Aldrin knocks (out?) Bart Sibrel - Also mentioned here.
(only news-media entries I can find are in "pay-to-view" archives....)

__________________
Of those who say nothing, few are silent. - Thomas Neil.

Actually, I like the website. Every little bit helps, and perhaps a less technical approach is helpful for those who tend to gag on heavier science.

Seems you're concentrating more on the astronauts themselves. A nice touch. I especially like the Al Bean video - he always seems like such an unassuming, down-home kinda guy, and his restraint with Sibrel is amazing. I can understand Buzz Aldrin letting go, but Al's 'That's it ... whatever you like ... take your toys and leave' is just soooo classy.

And good luck with your 'Oddities' series. As good a place to start as any.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

The success of Clavius has never been its singularity. It was neither the first nor will be the last web site to address hoax claims. I quite like Antonia's site.

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

Antonia, you got a recommendation from Jay Utah.

Around here, that's a lot like getting a recommendation from the President. Or God*.








*Okay, not really.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

You have a singularity? Be careful with it.

I collect singularities. I've got some doubles, want to trade?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Double singularities? Good trick!

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I can safely say that I do not have a single singularity.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

There's a clip of Ed Mitchell (It is on Astronauts Gone Wild) where he knees BS in the rear. It's pretty funny. In the background you hear Ed Mitchell's son saying things like it is time to call the CIA.

I can't find a decent version of that on YouTube, so I'm planning to load it myself over the next few days. Mitchell is surprisingly calm throughout, but then he seems to snap - I admit I snickered. The only one who I think is disappointing is Buzz Aldrin, who seems to get painfully wound up over it. Get annoyed, sure, but Aldrin gets emotional and angry and it just fuels Sibrel's nonsense-fire.

I love the editing as well; Sibrel edits a clip of Al Bean saying the eyes-closed experiment (to look for "shooting stars/radiation") wasn't done on his mission into a section of Gene Cernan saying it was done on his mission. You're clearly meant to believe that they flew the same mission Having to resort to stupid editing tactics like that to make your point just makes anything valid you may have seem weak.


Seems you're concentrating more on the astronauts themselves. A nice touch.

As I've said, I'm not a scientist, so for me the truth always started with the astronauts themselves. Who are they? Can I trust them? Do their stories add up? What do they think of the conspiracy theories? The science is great, it's irrefutable, but for a non-scientist the story is in the memories of these men.

First of all, Antonia, let me say thanks for the review you did of Mike Collins' book. Prompted me to head over to Chapters today and get a copy.

Coincidentally, I don't own a copy of Buzz Aldrin's book (yet), but I did skim through it while shopping. There's a brief account of the hotel incident, and clearly, Sibrel's actions, and especially his claims really upset him.

Bear in mind, too, that Buzz had been lured into the situation under false pretenses, he already knew who Sibrel was and what he was up to, and (as is his style) Sibrel just would not get out of his face. The only regret I noted was that the incident got more coverage for Sibrel and his ridiculous claims. This probably accounts for the fact that Sibrel's name doesn't appear in the book -- he's just 'some guy'.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

Antonia, may I make a suggestion? In your section on the "Nine Reasons" and the liftoff of the A16 ascent module, the best way to answer the question "Who moved the camera?" is "Ed Fendell". The details can be filled in afterward.

I think it's a good thing to answer a simple, direct question with a simple, direct answer, especially when it's as easy to do as it is in this case! There are plenty of Apollo questions that take a lot of time to explain, but this might be the one exception.

In case it's not obvious by now, Mr. Fendell is the mission controller who practiced the timing of the tilt command and operated the camera remotely.

Also, I believe the lag (or, in this case, anticipation) was more on the order of 1.5 seconds rather than 6 or 7. Even if you use the round-trip time (which he may have done, if it was based on his hearing the astronaut's countdown rather than some prearranged time) it would only be about 3 seconds.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Firstly - yes, absolutely, suggest away. I do not, and never will, pretend to be an Apollo authority.

The reason I didn't go for that at first is because I got conflicting names from a few places on the 'net. One mentions James someone, and the other name mentioned is - as you say - Ed Fendell. I didn't want to put that in as "THIS IS FACT" and then it not be. I've visited so many websites over the course of trying to answer one specific question; I'm trying to think like a conspiracy theorist and close all the possible gaps. I am, however, going to edit and at least include his name over the next update - thank you!

The way I've done it so far is to try and guide people to the answer rather than telling them the answer. I want people to be able to read it through and come to their own conclusion; i.e. showing them the lunar rover, pointing out the camera control unit, letting them get there.

I am having problems verifying information, and I'm struggling to get hold of primary sources in the UK. I'm currently working on another "Space Oddity" which is about who filmed Armstrong's first step, and I'd like to cross-reference the information I've read about the camera being mentioned in the press pack, but it's proving difficult to obtain the actual press pack. Same for the point about the camera delay, I've seen different things on the claim for the length of the delay - I believe it was In The Shadow of the Moon that I took the seven seconds from (at least, a documentary. I seem to remember seeing it happen rather than just reading it, but I've looked at some much I am getting crossed wires). I will duly edit and update, though - contribution is always a good thing on a blog like this, where no one person can claim to know everything.
You won't regret it. Let me know how you get on, but I'm confident the book will have another raving fan soon

Oh, I didn't mean to attack Aldrin - I completely, 100% agree why he's so upset. I don't mention this on the blog, but I also think that this may be down to his character. From what I've read, if I could have picked one astronaut to be particularly mortified by these accusations, I'd have gone for Aldrin. (For example, in Carrying The Fire Collins says Aldrin has spent more time being upset about not being first on the moon rather than appreciating being second). Having walked on the moon is very important to Aldrin, so his reaction is completely understandable.

For me, the kind of response Bean and Armstrong gave is perfect - just, "you are not worth getting upset over, you deluded idiot". Ed Mitchell's is somewhere in between, and then there's the total ignore strategy of John Young and Michael Collins.

And I did mean to read Aldrin's book - I bought his, Collins' and Armstrong's around the 11 anniversary - but I somehow mis-clicked and ended up with some version meant for kids. I did, however, discover his mother's maiden name was "Moon".

One thing to remember is that Aldrin had been confronted by Sibrel before, according to Aldrin's wife, so that might have been part of the reason he got so angry.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep...ws/lv-aldrin11

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

If I was told that I was a liar, a coward, and a thief, and that people I respected to a large degree were liars and frauds that committed murder and were part of a major conspiracy, I'd be rather angry as well. Especially when the person that angered me has harassed me before, and would not move aside when I asked him to, after ambushing me right outside of the building I was walking out of.

Personally, I think Aldrin held back or reacted far more mildly than I would have.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

I think I'd've gone down the Collins/Young route of just ignoring him.

That article is very interesting, LaurelHS - why has no one sued that man for harassment? What I was actually referring to when I said Aldrin's reaction was somewhat disappointing was not the punch, but more the earlier section during an "interview" where Sibrel shows him his "documentary proof". I think the punch is fully justified.

With the interview section, Aldrin starts making threats that are quite painful to watch. I believe his parting shot is something like "if you show this [the interview] I'll sue you". That makes it sound like Aldrin is saying "if you show this [me reacting badly to being confronted with THE TRUTH], I'll sue you [because I need to protect my name and NASA]".

Let him show it, Buzz, he's got nothing!