The Moonlandings were faked and other nonsense

The Flat Earth Society

2008-05-13T09:42:00.006-07:00

Yes, the Flat Earth Society still exists. And they have a web site which says amazing things like:

"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong."

Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaa!

Sorry, I'm back from about 5 solid minutes of laughter. I almost spit my water out across my monitor and keyboard when I read that! Are these guys that stupid? I'm hesitant to call someone stupid in public, but this competes with the ignorance of Intelligent Design for the stupidest thing to still be believed by more than one person.

Apparently, these guys don't believe in Gravity. Gravity apparently pulls at you from the center of the Universe, I suppose. Otherwise, you'd go sliding off the planet if you lived anywhere but at the north pole - wherever that is. Please ignore all the evidence and the understanding of the workings of the world that science has figured out over time - ignore the way a roughly spherical Earth (they keep using the term "round Earth" on this web page as if it were a 2D object) explains, along with gravity and all the other forces of nature, things like: the weather; magnetic field orientations; photographs of a roughly spherical Earth from space; they way satellites orbit the planet; the way Earth orbits the sun along with the other planets, comets, asteroids and so forth; the geological processes currently active on the planet like plate techtonics, volcanism, etc.; and the entire Universe we can observe going overhead around us.

I guess that all of you folks who live anywhere outside of a few miles from me must be falling off the Earth right now - oh, not because the Earth is flat. Because you're laughing so hard that you've bounced off the planet with a velocity of about 11.3 km/s.

A few other things that this particular flat earther believes is that space is filled with an ether (light has to have a medium to propogate through afterall) which would slow the orbital motion of a "round Earth" in much less than the billions of years we all claim it has been orbiting the sun so that it would stop and fall into the sun. Objects, according to "Efimovich's theory" (Efimovich is our leader, apparently, and is none other than Christopher Columbus!), posess a "gravitational charge" which presumably takes a long time to realign if moved. And then there's the problem of having "different downs."

Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!

Simply amazing.

Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.

Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.

Wow. This website goes on and on with this type of nonsense. It's amazing how many things that would seem obvious to folks like me and (hopefully) you that this guy has to bury his head in the sand to ignore that provide counter examples to his claims.

This is really the definitive line in this entire website: "Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth." They know the truth! Regardless of any facts or evidence that might get in the way, they know the truth.

Are we short 10 million victims today?

2006-05-26T09:28:00.000-07:00

Eric Julien has been making "psychic" claims about a piece of comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 slamming into Earth on May 25. It was supposed to hit in the Atlantic and cause huge tsunami that was to kill millions. Surprise of all surprises. It didn't happen. Another screwball frightens millions with pseudoscientific claims of disaster. Another end of the world event came and went without happening. Mr. Julien should be held accountable at some level for spreading this idiot nonsense - his gobbledegook prediction caused widespread panic in Morroco with folks abandoning their coastal homes in fear of the tsunami.

There's no shortage of wacko claims in this world, be it the the Zetas and Nancy Lieder's fictional Twelfth Planet, or Eric Julien's nonsense, the public should demand accountability. When a legitimate danger appears, many folks do not have the skills in critical thinking to distinguish it from the background buzz of pseudoscientific nonsense.

Once again, doomsday has come and gone.....

Numb3rs and Psychics

2006-03-11T17:17:00.000-07:00

Numb3rs is a TV program on CBS which I've come to enjoy as a breath of fresh air amongst all the TV shows that advocate pseudoscientific claptrap (like Medium, for example). The main character is a mathematician named Charlie Eppes whose brother is an FBI agent. Dr. Eppes uses science, math, and reason to help his brother solve crimes of all types. Certainly quite a refreshing change. Until last night. Last night's episode starred John Glover as a psychic trying to help the FBI solve a murder case. Understandably, Charlie logically attacks the nonsense the psychic spews despite the credulous FBI agents all being taken in by the charletan. When the psychic "fails" a card test in which he names the color of the card, but gets every card wrong (black instead of red) which is just as unlikely as getting every one right, Dr. Eppes correctly identifies the psychics trick - looking at the reflection of the card to ID its color. This show had the ability, and given its record of using science and reason, it had the obligation really, to show exactly how these psychics work, using cold and warm reading, throwing out dozens of leads and watching their victims responses to latch onto the occasional hit; relying on the victim to selectively remember the hits while ignoring all the misses. While Charlie actually does go into these techniques briefly, the program left the door open to the possibility that this particular psychic might actually have some powers. It was a missed opportunity to show psychics for the charlatans they are. Too bad.

Hoax nonsense....

2006-03-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

I had the "pleasure" of talking on Irish radio about the Apollo Moonlanding Hoax Hoax earlier today. Besides the host of the show, who had clearly been convinced that the landings were faked by the evidence on someones hoax webpage, they also had Marcus Allen, of Nexus Magazine on. I was expecting, from e-mails before the show, to be given equal and fair time, however, the host let Mr. Allen say all he wanted while only letting me speak briefly and after Mr. Allen had put out many points - each of which would have taken a few moments to address.

In short time, Mr. Allen mentioned these problems: "Radiation in space which includes the Van Allen belts that start at about 250 miles"; "Temperature in space - it's too hot or too cold" (which is it - too hot or too cold?); "No pressure in space - the spacesuits would be inflated to 5 psi." (and they were designed to be used with 5psi pressure difference...)

Rather than stopping and letting me address any of these, the host allowed Mr. Allen to continue on. Soon he made claims about radiation damage to film, claimed that the live broadcasts weren't "live", that "All of the photographs taken by the astronauts on the moon were perfect". Then the host added that there were no stars in the pictures and that the items on the moon have supposedly vanished. Finally I was allowed to say a thing or two, addressing the so called "Perfect" pictures and radiation damage to film. Then it was back to Mr. Allen who continued making claims like John Edward makes his cold reading psychic predictions, throwing out unsubstantiated claims left and right without my having a chance to say a thing. To top it all off, the host allowed Mr. Allen to have "The final word" by having him come with with a "Killer Fact". I did get a few words in after his final word - I couldn't stay silent to his accusations.... This is one experience I don't want to repeat without a host that is entirely skeptical about the hoax claims. I was led to believe that it would be an objective discussion, but clearly the host was not objective and had been convinced. His agenda was to have his new favorite conspiracy promoted on his show.

I am disappointed in how things turned out.

Does the new planet affect your Astrological forecast?

2006-01-15T19:18:00.000-07:00

A group of astronomers lead by Mike Brown at CalTech discovered a large object beyond Pluto called 2003 UB313 last summer. They nicknamed it "Xena" after the Warrior Princecess who battled evil for several years on TV. It was later found to have a satellite and turned out to be larger than the 9th planet, Pluto. It has since started an argument amongst Astronomers about whether it should be considered a planet or not or in fact, if Pluto should be called a planet. The jury is still out and it really is just a matter of nomenclature anyway. There are certainly thousands of objects out in the depths of the solar system that are within a factor of 10 of the diameter of Pluto. As we have discovered, the solar system is a very busy place.

Today, as I was reading our local Sunday paper, I read through the "USA Weekend" magazine and discovered under the title "Science" an article titled "Newly Charted Territory" by one Rose Darby. At first glance, it appeared to be a legitimate article about the new planet Xena. Unfortunately, under the guise of science, the article quickly deteriorated into an article about Astrology and how the new planet affects astrological predictions. The astrological mumbojumbo that was attempting to masquerade as science was mind numbing. Astrology is a science like Intelligent Design is science - in short, it isn't, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. Publishing pseudoscientific claptrap of this kind and disguising it as science certainly damages the credibility of a magazine like USA Weekend.

Interestingly, on the same date, Parade Magazine published an article by David Levy discussing not only the new planet, but also the upcoming mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt called New Horizons - a legitimate science article while their competitor published its trivial article on the non-science of Astrology.

The results of superstition....

2006-01-05T21:09:00.000-07:00

Religion promotes superstitious thinking with the believer linking anything bad that might happen either with the victims lack of or misguided faith or as the vengeance of his deity. Anything bad that happens to himself is simply a test of his faith. The good is a sign of his wonderful god, the bad a test of his faith. The bad that happens to someone else is punishment.... Circular reasoning abounds and the real reasons for things are irrelevant. Take this story for example. Pat Robertson demonstrates his ignorance by blaming Ariel Sharon's current health problems as divine punishment for "dividing God's land." If Robertsons god is so trivial that he would stoop to revenge, It's no wonder that I don't want anything to do with his religion. It's too bad most of Robertson's followers are so blind to his ignorance and hypocrisy.

Not so Intelligent Design.

2005-09-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

Creationists are trying once again to shoe-horn religion into science classrooms. This time, they call it "Intelligent Design", but its just another mask for the same kinds of attempts to discredit the Theory of Evolution that have been made ever since Darwin originally published his theories. Theists are trying to use the methods of science against science. By pointing out that it is the "Theory of" Evolution, they imply that theories are somehow wrong. But think of this - we still call our knowledge about gravity the "Theory of Gravity". Yet when I drop my pen, it falls to the floor despite it only being a theory. The theory of Evolution describes to the best of our scientific knowledge and ability, the facts of what we call Evolution just like the theory of Gravity describes how gravity behaves. We may not have the details perfectly exact, but the theory matches our observations and knowledge of how each field works. We see evolution in action today. To me, natural selection is such an obvious observation. Imagine seeing a row of 10 bicycles in a bike rack. 9 of them have locks and the 10th does not - which bike is the bike thief going to take - the unlocked one of course. The unlocked bikes are preferentially stolen. Now imagine a herd of zebra which is being stalked by a pride of lions. Which zebras are going to survive? The fastest and healthiest survive. The survivors go on to mate and produce new zebra which inherit the genetics of the survivors - the herd gets stronger over time because of that - evolution in action. It's so obvious that it's hard to see how the creationists/fundementalists/intelligent design advocates cannot see just how logical evolution is and how it also applies to our own species. Intelligent design is an attempt to spray religious graffiti all over science. If I were forced to teach "Intelligent Design" in the classroom, I would teach it for what it is and I would blow it out of the water by showing students how it is refuted by proper scence.

Wade Wurthen in an article in The State says:

There is no debate [about the fact of evolution] within the scientific community; that’s why intelligent design proponents seek to legislate their truth in the political arena.

They frame the issue as a choice between godless, “random” evolution and purposeful creation by God.

This misrepresents evolution and the relationship between science and religion. Evolution can occur randomly (genetic drift), but it can also proceed by the non-random process of natural selection. Also, like all scientific theories, evolution is not atheistic; it neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.

So, again, this argument is a false dichotomy. Couldn’t God make a new species through the natural process of evolution? (Well, of course She could.) In fact, many of the 500,000 scientists who accept evolution today are believers. Intelligent design proponents frame this false dichotomy so they can claim that science and evolution oppose religion.

They confuse evolutionary theory with origin-of-life hypotheses. They claim that “evolution can’t explain how life arose, so this theory is based on faith.”

Here are some websites relevant to this discussion:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/ - The Bad Astronomy Blog

The Onion's "Intelligent Falling" parody.

CNN's coverage of the Dover Area School District trial on Intelligent Design

The Panda's Thumb website

Note added later in the day:

This blog entry from the Evolutionblog hits the nail on the head. I couldn't say it any better myself:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/post-shows-way.html

Critical thinking 101....

2005-09-03T11:45:00.000-07:00

I had to laugh at a recent Ameritrade commercial airing these days on TV. A family is going over what a recently deceased father has left them, with the lawyer mentioning that he had left them a substantual portfolio. At just that instant, an update involving a trade happens on the computer screen and the fellow says something like "I guess he's still updating!" in surprise. Now, if this were to happen, there are two approaches to looking at such an event. The first, taken by the elderly lady who is obviously the mans widow, is to think of the supernatural explanation, that the man is controlling and causing this phenomenon from "the other side". And of course, when the lights start flashing, that is just re-enforcement of the hypothesis, that is, until one of the young men in the room realizes he's leaning against the light switch. Which brings us to the more logical interpretation of the events - looking for a simple explanation, which of course, is that he left them an Ameritrade account with their automatic trades still active & of course, the fellow leaning on the light switch.

The trouble with most humans, is that they only look at the supernatural explanation without trying to understand the phenomenon they are witnessing and examining other simpler, more mundane explanations. Here's an example that I personally experienced a few years ago. I was observing on Kitt Peak when I saw a row of bright yellow-orange lights low in the northwest sky. I recognized them immediately as military flares from jet airplanes over the Goldwater Gunnery Range. I've seen them many times before and since. The image included here is an example taken just the other night showing a single military flare during a 20 second exposure (along with one of our domes on Kitt Peak). Interestingly, there are 5 other "UFO's" besides the bright military flare that appears in the lower left part of the frame - there are trails of airplanes and satellites - the satellite even glinted briefly on the far right part of the frame (but at the resolution uploaded to this blog, it will be difficult to see them all).

Back to the night in question back in March of 1997, I recognized the flares and went back to my business for the night. Several days later after returning to town at the end of my observing run, I heard stories about a UFO sighting from Phoenix. They had seen rows of yellow lights southwest of Phoenix which have become known as the "Phoenix Lights". The folks in Phoenix probably also saw a second mundane phenomenon later in the evening which was confused with the first. But using some simple triangulation, using my sighting to the NW and the sighting from Phoenix to the SW converges - not surprisingly - over the Goldwater Range. Fast forward a few years and after lots of efforts mostly by the UFO crowd, a government investigation was made which concluded - surprise - that they had witnessed military flares over the gunnery range and a flight of planes later in the night close to Phoenix. As usual, the UFO "true believers" discount the report as a coverup of what "really happened" that night.

So, 8 years after the events, we can choose to believe in an elaborate coverup of extraterrestrials causing the phenomenon, or we can recognize that some folks mininterpretted what they saw and that they were more mundane phenomena such as flares and airplanes. I know the UFO/ET explanation is a lot more fun, but the facts don't care what is fun or not.

Psychic gobbledegook

2005-01-05T16:39:00.000-07:00

A new TV program is being pushed on the credulous American public. The program is called "Medium" and suggests that psychics (or at least the main character of the series) actually provide useful information in criminal investigations. Despite it being a fictional series, the public lacks any amount of critical thinking that would keep it from believing such nonsense. It has been shown that psychics do not aid criminal investigations, instead, they at best divert resources from credulous investigators who follow many false leads created by such psychic charlatans while providing unsupported hope or worry to the relatives of crime victims.

A recent example in Arizona followed the mysterious disappearance of a woman from Mesa Arizona before x-mas. The missing woman was supposed to have been met at a Tucson Arizona shopping mall, but failed to show. Days later, news stories on local TV and media suggested she never made it to that mall and had last been seen at a mall near Casa Grande. A day or two later, the 10PM news made a big deal about some psychics prediction that the search should concentrate on that location. I could have made the same prediction with the same level of credibility. The woman remains missing and one potential suspect committed suicide, which does not bode well for her (nor does the time since her disappearance now....).

I think the next psychic convention ought to be advertized simply by having a "reputable" psychic concentrate firmly on the time and location so that only the real psychics will be able to attend the convention. Of course, it will be a very empty convention.

Jim.

Creation Science

2004-11-07T17:30:00.000-07:00

The term "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. There is no science in Creationism. Genesis offers no answers to the problems scientists address in studying nature and the origin of Earth and the Universe. Calling creationism a science is a blatant attempt to decieve the credulous believers and school boards into including religion in science classes. The advocates of Creation Science have made another education system look silly by allowing creationism to be taught in the Wisconsin school systems in Grantsburg Wisconsin. Hopefully reason and knowledge will triumph and this travisty will be reversed.

Jim.

Triskaidekaphobia

2004-08-13T16:47:00.000-07:00

Today is Friday, August 13. It's fun to watch people suffering bouts of Triskaidekaphobia on this "Friday the 13th" The 13th day of the month lands on Friday almost twice a year (really once every 7 months) afterall. 13 isn't such a bad number and bad luck is a state of mind. So watch out today for those black cats that are walking on the broken mirror under that ladder! And if you're one of those who fear this day, don't worry, tomorrow is Saturday the 14th.

Jim.

The new Tunguska UFO claims

2004-08-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

A Russian expedition to the Tunguska explosion site has made a claim that they have found a "technical device" supposedely from a UFO that they believe crashed there in 1908. Before their expedition, they said: "We intend to uncover evidences that will prove the fact that it was not a meteorite that rammed the Earth, but a UFO" - clearly stating their intention and showing that the search was not an unbiased one. Soon after making that declaration, sure enough, they claim to have found something! What a surprise. The facts of the case clearly point to a small comet or asteroid entering the atmosphere over Siberia on June 30, 1908 and catastrophically disrupting about 8-10 kilometers above the surface of the Earth, releasing about 15 Megatons equivalent of TNT worth of energy into the atmosphere. The body was pulverized to dust in the explosion and likely blew away in the wind while the energy released knocked trees down and ignited forrest fires under the explosion site. Observations by witnesses saw the fireball during its entry and saw the explosion, which looked a great deal like a nuclear explosion. Recent modeling of the event has confirmed the basic ideas and the biggest debate is over whether the object was a stoney asteroid or a comet. There is no need to invoke magic or UFOs or micro black holes or swamp gas to try and explain the event. We know Earth gets hit by meteors all the time and we can estimate the frequency that an object of the size that generated the Tunguska event hits Earth and that is probably once every few hundred years, plus or minus a factor of a few. If these folks actually found some real evidence, then that will be a first and we will certainly be happy to change our opinion, but if, as in previous cases, their claims are unsupported by real evidence, then science has no reason to change its consensus on this event that it was anything but natural.

Jim.

July 20, 1969

2004-07-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

The day started much as any other day in the life of an 8 year old would start. Get up, brush your teeth, comb your hair, go outside and play some. But this 8 year old knew it was a different day than any other day in his life. It wasn't about what was going on in his life, but what was happening 240,000 miles away. For this day was the day that Man would first land on the Moon! I suppose I was already an "Apollo Geek", though not quite as much of one as I am today. 4 days earlier, I had watched, transfixed, as the mighty Saturn V rocket roared off the launchpad at Kennedy Space Center. I watched the news, waiting for every kernel of information about the flight of Apollo 11. Finally, it was time for the landing itself. We sat in front of the TV. But alas, there was no video feed from the Moon - there were no live broadcast cameras to record what was happening so far away, but there was the staticky radio and the reporters trying to fill in the details of what was going on with their models of the LM and the diagrams of how things were supposed to work. We listened in, sitting on the edge of our seats, hanging on every word from the men of Apollo 11. There seemed to be problems, but was that normal? Landing on the Moon had never been done before on live TV & there were no lives at stake when the few unmanned probes had landed on the moon a few years earlier. Finally, the words from the moon: "Houston, Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has landed!" Wow! They did it.

I remember looking up at the moon a number of times over the next two and a half years while one of the 6 crews were in the LM on the Moon and thinking to myself: "Wow, there are actually people up there on that moon!" The evening of July 20 was one of those times. The moonwalk was going to be shown live on TV and luckily, my folks had no problem letting this 8 year old stay up late to watch it. Preparation by the astronauts took longer than expected, so the TV news people had to fill the air time as we listened to the banter between the astronauts preparing to open the hatch and the ground controllers. They showed a demonstration of what Neil Armstrong would be doing shortly with a suited actor climbing down the ladder of a mockup. They had interviews with scientists and astronauts and others. Finally, we could hear that they had the hatch open and that Armstrong was about to climb out of the Lunar Module. Still, there were no TV images from the Moon. Finally, there appeared a fuzzy image that looked to be upside down. Was it fuzzy because it was a live transmission from the Moon or was it fuzzy because we were watching it on an old black and white Zenith TV? The image flipped rightside up now and there appeared to be some boots in the upper part of the screen along with a crooked horizen and what must be the ladder on the left side of the screen. Slowly and deliberately, there was the fuzzy image of Neil Armstrong working his way down the ladder. It was almost surreal. Armstrong jumps down off the ladder and moments later we hear his imortal words: "That's one small step for (a) Man.... One giant leap for Mankind." I was elated. But at 8 years old, perspective is not among ones strengths. How could I understand the importance of the moment? I certainly did not understand all the challenges and difficulties involved in flying to the moon. It was all like magic and it was happening in front of my eyes. Little did I realise the influence that one day in my life would have on the rest of my days. As I watched the astronauts walking around on the moon, I could only imagine what I might be doing in the future. At that moment, I wanted with all my heart to be an astronaut someday myself. Walking around on other worlds was cool and I wanted to do it too! Well, that has not changed. But as an 8 year old, I fully expected our space program to continue to do exciting things and flying to the Moon and Mars were talked about as expectations for the coming years. Going to the planets was no longer science fiction or fantasy -we were doing it, right there on TV! Looking back on that time, it is disappointing indeed to see just how little we have done in space. There was so much potential then and so many things yet to do in space.

It is with some of the same childlike fascination that I look back on Apollo and what was done 35 years ago today. It is awe inspiring that we were able to build spacecraft and rockets to send humans to the Moon & not just once - 6 times. Today I have the advantage of knowledge. I have not only studied science and how one might explore a place like the Moon, but I have studied the details of Apollo. The procedures and equipment used while walking on the Moon. The details of the spacecraft that took people to the Moon. The science returned by experiments placed on the Moon. The thousands of photographs taken by astronauts on the Moon. The video from the TV cameras carried to the Moon. The study of the moonrocks returned from the Moon. Taken as a whole, they tell a complex and detailed story of how 12 men landed and walked on the Moon. All this information is incredibly self consistent. Studying the scientific return of Apollo has led to many interesting discoveries about the origin and evolution of the Earth and the solar system as a whole. Theories about the origin of the Earth-Moon system and the solar system are based on the evidence returned by Apollo. I have no doubt that Apollo flew to the Moon and landed 12 men there because the extraordinary evidence tells us the details. Scientific investigation of that evidence and using that evidence would quickly show any inconsistencies. There are none. I am as certain that we went to the Moon as described as I am that gravity exists. That the Earth I live on orbits the Sun. That the sun orbits the Galaxy. The evidence is truely extraordinary.

It is amazing to me that there are those who believe with all their hearts that it was all a fake. I pity those who are unable or unwilling to look at what we did with Apollo with the same kind of awe that I am able to enjoy when looking at the details of Apollo.

Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." The claim that Apollo sent Men to the Moon is indeed extraordinary, but the evidence to support the claim is up to the challenge and is extraordinary. The claims by a few that we did not land on the moon and that there was some huge conspiracy is also extraordinary, however, their evidence does not stand up to simple scrutiny and is trivial to debunk. Apollo went to the Moon and if you refuse to believe it, that is your own problem. Get over it. We went to the Moon and we will go back eventually.

Jim.

The short sighted...

2004-06-29T10:54:00.000-07:00

It's too bad most Humans have constrained their view of the Universe within the confines of a religion.

Pseudoscientific claptrap...

2004-06-27T21:25:00.000-07:00

...Also called hogwash, hooey, BS....

...Also called astrology, UFOlogy, conspiracy theories, ESP, talking to the dead....

You've heard the claims:

Strange unexplained lights over the Capital - they must be caused by aliens from Zeta Reticula.

or:

I'm sensing the letter "J"... Is there a Joe or John? He died of some trauma to the chest area....

or:

The Moonlandings were faked because there are no stars visible in the photographs and no blast crater under the lunar module....

These are just a few, but there are plenty where those came from. Without a critical investigation into each, it is easy to see how many of these claims actually seem reasonable. Afterall, who has the time to look into every claim and figure out what those lights in the sky really were, or why there are no stars in the sky above Neil Armstrong or a blast crater under the LM he landed at Tranquillity Base. These experts seem reasonable and afterall, the government is big and we believe they have covered up lots of top secret events in the past. We've been inundated by these claims for so long that we now accept them as fact. But it doesn't matter how many times you say the moon is made of green cheese. It isn't, it is a geological body made of rocks and Neil Armstrong and 11 other Americans landed on the Moon and walked on its surface, no matter how many times you hear that NASA faked it all.

Here are a couple links to webpages defending the Moonlandings and critical thinking:

The Moonlandings were NOT faked
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy website
James Randi Educational Foundation

Jim.