Most convincing hoax theory?

[vq]

For non hoax believers, what hoax argument was the most challenging for for you to dispel?

For hoax believers, what argument is the most pivotal to your believing the moon landings were faked?

[Jason]

I haven't ever found any of the hoax arguments to be very convincing.
The most entertaining one was probably the "magic cavern" theory. That is - that NASA found a giant cavern with a natural gravitational anomaly in it that allowed them to film the moon scenes with real reduced gravity.

[vq]

Aug 20, 2008 0:04:36 GMT -4 Jason said:

The most entertaining one was probably the "magic cavern" theory. That is - that NASA found a giant cavern with a natural gravitational anomaly in it that allowed them to film the moon scenes with real reduced gravity.

Hmm. Maybe a cavern below a tremendous mass of native uranium to cancel out the gravity?

[Data Cable]

Aug 20, 2008 0:18:41 GMT -4 vq said:

Hmm. Maybe a cavern below a tremendous mass of native uranium to cancel out the gravity?

Sounds like a searing radiation hell to me.

[vq]

Aug 20, 2008 1:05:51 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Sounds like a searing radiation hell to me.

Hence the spacesuits.

[Czero 101]

And how exactly does Uranium negate gravity....?

[vq]

Aug 20, 2008 2:12:31 GMT -4 Czero 101 said:

And how exactly does Uranium negate gravity....?

It wouldn't negate gravity per se, but if a material much denser than earth's crust was above the cavern, it would reduce the depth at which the cavern would have to be to experience 1/6 * g by accelerating the cavern's occupants in an upward direction. Since otherwise this whole theory would be just plain unlikely. ;D

[PhantomWolf]

I thought the one about the alleged vaccum and how far above the moon's surface that allegded vaccum started was pretty good. Along with questions on how the Earth's atmosphere managed to keep the alleged vaccum out.....

I'd have to say the most tricky bit of footage to determine what was going on was the Apollo 15 flag movement. This is not because it can't be explained, but rather that there simply isn't enough information to determine which explanation is accruate.

[Count Zero]

Aug 20, 2008 2:45:23 GMT -4 vq said:

Aug 20, 2008 2:12:31 GMT -4 Czero 101 said:

And how exactly does Uranium negate gravity....?

It wouldn't negate gravity per se, but if a material much denser than earth's crust was above the cavern, it would reduce the depth at which the cavern would have to be to experience 1/6 * g by accelerating the cavern's occupants in an upward direction. Since otherwise this whole theory would be just plain unlikely. ;D

Neutronium: It's not just for cheela anymore.

[JayUtah]

For me, the most difficult to dispel was the claim that the rover "rooster tail" was evidence of atmosphere. It was difficult because it took me forever to figure out what the conspiracy theorists thought should be the case. See, most conspiracy theories are based on a wrong presumption. But very often that presumptive premise is not stated; it's thought to be obvious. So half the battle, in some cases, is getting the proponent to talk through all his premises (even the ones he thinks are obvious) to find the one that's wrong.

The longest to dispel was the Aldrin boot "hot spot," because it took me about six months to find evidence of the manufacturing process that left the oil on the sole, and documentary evidence that the crew donned brand-new overboots for the lunar surface EVA (not the ones they'd trained with). The light source and location of the hot spot were never really in doubt, but I couldn't figure out for the longest time how silicone rubber could be so darn shiny.

[Jason]

Aug 20, 2008 10:32:59 GMT -4 Count Zero said:

Neutronium: It's not just for cheela anymore.

How about that. An obscure in-joke that I actually understand.

[gillianren]

Aug 20, 2008 1:05:51 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Sounds like a searing radiation hell to me.

My friends are desperately amused by that one.

I have never found an HB argument convincing. I find lots of them hard to argue, because I don't have the relevant education, but convincing? I'd have to be willing to throw out all the rest of the evidence, and it doesn't seem like something I'd do.

[AtomicDog]

Aug 20, 2008 10:32:59 GMT -4 Count Zero said:

Aug 20, 2008 2:45:23 GMT -4 vq said:

It wouldn't negate gravity per se, but if a material much denser than earth's crust was above the cavern, it would reduce the depth at which the cavern would have to be to experience 1/6 * g by accelerating the cavern's occupants in an upward direction. Since otherwise this whole theory would be just plain unlikely. ;D

Neutronium: It's not just for cheela anymore.

I miss Dr. Forward.

[nomuse]

Not convincing, but I find the radiation arguments most annoying. They require just so much work to understand properly I know that most hoax believers will never go there. It just becomes inarguable. For something like the old "no stars in the skies" you can break it down into simple terms, you can suggest experiments, and so forth. For the radiation arguments the only good answer is "Go back to school. Call me in a few years."

[Grand Lunar]

No theory I've seen is convincing at all. All stink of a lack of science.

As for the most challenging, the radiation claims tend to be tough for me.
Most of my knowledge on radiation comes from my experience with naval nuclear reactors (long story) and what I've read about stars in the excellent book "Extreme Stars".

What gets tough is with claims on the moon being irradiated and emitting gamma rays.
No HB can understand how radiation can be detectable, yet still below lethal levels. I believe the Trinity site is one such example.

Neutronium: It's not just for cheela anymore.

How about that. An obscure in-joke that I actually understand.

Only reference to neutronium I know was in "The Doomsday Machine".

Where else is it referenced?