Contributions needed for the AH main page

[LunarOrbit]

Hey everyone,

I'm seeking contributions for the ApolloHoax.net homepage. As much as I enjoy writing, it's too big a project for me to take on alone. You will get credit for anything you write, of course.

I'd like to start with a "Top 10" (or more) proofs that Apollo landed on the moon. Things like the rocks brought back, the photographs, the film, the radio transmissions etc.

After that, I'd like to begin working on a "Frequently Asked Questions" page.

I've been keeping an eye on Twitter where there seems to be a lot of moon hoax comments. It would be nice to be able to link to a page here rather than try to respond with a 140 character limit.

[Bob B.]

I'm presently in the middle of working on this page, which I want to finish before I take on something new. However, I'd be happy to help out when I've got time with whatever parts I feel I have sufficient expertise.

Perhaps we should first, as a community, decide what items belong in the "Top 10" list and what questions to address in the FAQ. Once we have a list of items, we can probably then get volunteers to write the detailed responses. It just seems to me that we need a master outline to work from or else the process will be too disorganized.

(EDIT)
From my own perspective, the things I feel comfortable writing about are anything having to do with the trajectories or propulsive capabilities of the vehicles. There may be some other technology issues that I feel qualified to write about. In regard to the other topics, such as the moon rocks or photography/TV, I take a backseat to others and would rather leave that to somebody else to write about.

[lukepemberton]

Jan 24, 2011 9:55:48 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

I'm presently in the middle of working on this page, which I want to finish before I take on something new. However, I'd be happy to help out when I've got time with whatever parts I feel I have sufficient expertise.

Perhaps we should first, as a community, decide what items belong in the "Top 10" list and what questions to address in the FAQ. Once we have a list of items, we can probably then get volunteers to write the detailed responses. It just seems to me that we need a master outline to work from or else the process will be too disorganized.

(EDIT)
From my own perspective, the things I feel comfortable writing about are anything having to do with the trajectories or propulsive capabilities of the vehicles. There may be some other technology issues that I feel qualified to write about. In regard to the other topics, such as the moon rocks or photography/TV, I take a backseat to others and would rather leave that to somebody else to write about.

A top ten and some sort of plan would be good. In fact I doubt we could do it without.

Are we focussing on the the reality rather than the hoax. That is to say, can we write about radiation without referring to the hoax? Radiation par se does not prove the reality of Apollo, but if we leave it out, then we get accused of omitting one of the main 'pwoofs'. I guess the art is to write about it in a way that says it was a problem and here is how NASA got over it.

I'd be quite happy to work on the moon rocks if that came up. More than happy, but I have to start it soon as my time is no longer mine from September. I'd also like to dip in with the radiation aspects, and would be more than happy to help there.

[Bob B.]

If I understand LO’s intent, the Top 10 would be the main points substantiating the authenticity of the landings. I think these points would all be items of Apollo fact, but the person who writes the narrative explaining each point could sprinkle in a little hoax debunking if it were appropriate. For instance, one of the Top 10 would be the existence of the lunar samples. The main narrative would be about the characteristics of these samples and how they could only be from the Moon. But the writer could also take some time to debunk the ludicrous alternate claims proposed by the hoax theorists.

The FAQ part I think would be a combination of facts and debunking. I think we could come up with enough questions that we might need to combine like items under a group heading. For instance, there could be a group of questions related strictly to radiation. Some of the questions could be about radiation in general and some could be about specific myths and hoax claims. When put together, the FAQ could provide a complete picture of the radiation issue as it relates to Apollo. A series of radiation questions might look something like this:

What is radiation and why is it dangerous?
Is there radiation in space and where does it come from?
How does radiation affect manned spaceflight?
How did the Apollo missions mitigate the radiation hazard?
What if a dangerous solar flare occurred, how could the astronauts protect themselves?
I’ve heard radiation is a big problem for future Mars explorers, why wasn’t this a problem for Apollo?
I’ve heard six feet of lead would be needed to protect the astronauts, is this true?

I think we could assign one writer to the radiation issue and that person could come up with the questions needed to complete that theme. Likewise, someone else could be assigned to write about lunar samples, etc.

I think we need to first come up with an outline that we can agree on and then we can have people begin working on different sections.

It might be good to have one section completed first and then put up for review and comment by others. Once everyone is happy with it, that could then serve as a template for others to follow so there is some consistency in the format and style.

[lukepemberton]

OK. That seems like a plan. I'm happy to help out and would be more than happy to be assigned rocks for a main narrative, and radiation for FAQs. However, I am sure there are many others here who may be more qualified. My writing style can vary between clunky and flowery. If I can help then I'll be more than happy to.

[gillianren]

I might be able to work up a piece about historical conspiracies and how they fail. I realize it isn't science, but I can't help with the science.

[LunarOrbit]

Jan 24, 2011 9:55:48 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

I'm presently in the middle of working on this page, which I want to finish before I take on something new. However, I'd be happy to help out when I've got time with whatever parts I feel I have sufficient expertise.

Thanks, Bob, your help would be very much appreciated. There's no rush, I've just reached the conclusion that I'm never going to do much with the website if I do it all by myself, so whenever you're free to help is fine with me.

Perhaps we should first, as a community, decide what items belong in the "Top 10" list and what questions to address in the FAQ. Once we have a list of items, we can probably then get volunteers to write the detailed responses.

Yes, that is exactly what I had in mind. I would like this to be a collaborative effort. We can work out the details in the forum and then put the final result on the main page.

It just seems to me that we need a master outline to work from or else the process will be too disorganized.

You're absolutely right. I try to plan what I want to do with the website but I just don't know where to begin. It's hard to write an article about one topic without certain other articles already there to refer to.

[LunarOrbit]

Jan 24, 2011 14:30:00 GMT -4 lukepemberton said:

Are we focussing on the the reality rather than the hoax.

For the Top 10 we will probably focus entirely on the reality of the moon landings, but referring to hoax claims isn't prohibited. There way I'm planning it, the main page of the Top 10 will be a short list, but each item on the list can link to a page that goes into more detail.

I do believe that the radiation can be used as proof that the moon landings really happened because it's something NASA can't lie about or control. If the radiation really did prevent travel to the moon then there is no way for NASA to successfully lie about it. Logically, this tells me that they are either telling the truth or they are incredibly stupid. But we can decide later whether or not to include it on the list.

The FAQ can go into more detail about the hoax claims. I don't want to blatantly copy Clavius, but I do like how Jay has organized his pages into categories so I will probably do something similar.

I have to start it soon as my time is no longer mine from September.

That's good to know. I think once we get an outline together like Bob suggested we will be able to pick which articles we want to work on. The Top 10 will be done in no time, but the FAQ will probably take longer (and really, it may never truly be finished).

[LunarOrbit]

Jan 24, 2011 16:21:24 GMT -4 gillianren said:

I might be able to work up a piece about historical conspiracies and how they fail. I realize it isn't science, but I can't help with the science.

That sounds great, Gillianren.

It has me thinking that some articles might not fit into a FAQ style. What you described sounds more like an opinion piece, which is perfectly acceptable. So if anyone would like to write an article like that then let me know.

[theteacher]

Jan 24, 2011 16:59:14 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

I do believe that the radiation can be used as proof that the moon landings really happened because it's something NASA can't lie about or control. If the radiation really did prevent travel to the moon then there is no way for NASA to successfully lie about it. Logically, this tells me that they are either telling the truth or they are incredibly stupid. But we can decide later whether or not to include it on the list.

I see a tendency for HBs to cling to the radiation issue as the last straw to grasp, as it is rather "immaterial" and hard to understand to the layperson. So maybe it is a rather important issue to deal with in detail?

[LunarOrbit]

Jan 24, 2011 17:15:59 GMT -4 theteacher said:

I see a tendency for HBs to cling to the radiation issue as the last straw to grasp, as it is rather "immaterial" and hard to understand to the layperson. So maybe it is a rather important issue to deal with in detail?

I agree, definitely. I think the question was whether it fit into the Top 10 list.

We can write one really detailed article about the radiation, or multiple small articles. And other articles can link to it as well.

Once we have an outline we will have a better idea of what direction to take.

[theteacher]

Jan 24, 2011 17:33:39 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

Jan 24, 2011 17:15:59 GMT -4 theteacher said:

I see a tendency for HBs to cling to the radiation issue as the last straw to grasp, as it is rather "immaterial" and hard to understand to the layperson. So maybe it is a rather important issue to deal with in detail?

I agree, definitely. I think the question was whether it fit into the Top 10 list.

Sorry. I missed that.

[LunarOrbit]

Here is what I was working on way back in August...

www.apollohoax.net/thetheory/

It'll give you an idea of what I'm thinking and could be the start of our outline.

The section titled "The Evidence For Apollo" could be considered the Top 10, and the section "Common Hoax Claims" could be the FAQ. As you can see, there can be multiple levels to each chapter if more depth is required.

Most of those pages are blank, and I'm not too attached to the pages I have written so if someone wants to rewrite them that is fine with me.

[gillianren]

Jan 24, 2011 17:08:01 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

It has me thinking that some articles might not fit into a FAQ style. What you described sounds more like an opinion piece, which is perfectly acceptable. So if anyone would like to write an article like that then let me know.

I'll jot some ideas down for myself, but I think that gets to wait until my computer is back for me to flesh it out.

[LunarOrbit]

No rush, Gillianren. This is completely voluntary (oh, and did I mention unpaid?) after all. And I've neglected the main site for years, so I can't really complain about anyone taking too long, can I?