OK, so the “debate” with Moon Hoax conspiracist Bart Sibrel has come and gone. Did it go as I expected? Yes and no.
The unexpected was that Michael Shermer was on as well. That was a pleasant surprise, certainly! Michael is a noted skeptic and speaker, and I’ve known him for years. Had I know he was going to be on, I would have called him beforehand and talked it over a bit. It’s a moot point, since the radio producer didn’t tell me.
The expected was Sibrel himself. In many ways, Sibrel hasn’t changed much in the years since I’ve sparred with him. He still uses the same tired arguments, easily shown to be wrong. He claims over and over again that they are valid, even though in many cases it’s trivially easy to show he’s wrong. He harped on non-parallel shadows, saying they couldn’t be produced by sunlight. Really?
Here’s a picture I took in Florida a few years back. The Sun is the only source of light. Note that the tree on the left has its shadow pointing down and to the left, while the tree on the right (just a few feet away) has its shadow pointing to the right. Tadaaa! Of course, the shadows really are parallel, they just appear to diverge. This is simply perspective, the same thing (as I said on the radio) that makes railroad tracks appear to converge in the distance. Note that Sibrel mentioned that objects on the Moon just a few feet apart had shadows going in different directions.
As I’ve pointed out before, a professional photographer should understand perspective. Why doesn’t Sibrel?
The rest of his argument are just as silly. Radiation, the rocket, gravity, history, politics– he gets them all wrong. Go amuse yourself for a while on the Clavius website, which dismantles all of Sibrel’s claims.
The question I ask myself is, was it worth it? Going on the radio and “debating” such ridiculous crap?
Well, the theme for tonight is ambivalence, so the answer is yes and no. Maybe some people in St. Louis might have been swayed without a counterpoint (the DJs said as much). Since Sibrel was invited on first (and I didn’t know Michael was going to be on), it made sense for me to debate him.
However, his arguments are so very, very tiresome. He was more aggressive than usual; though to be honest I went on the attack early on. I usually am more laid back, but knowing Michael I left that to him. Michael is very smart, well-read, and experienced in skeptical thinking (more so in all three categories than I am), but I also knew that I knew Sibrel’s detailed points better. Given time, I could have dismantled every single one, piece by piece. I decided in this case to really pounce on his arguments, and not let him get away with anything. I could tell that really irritated him. Fine by me: he’s caused enough grief that a little coming back is, if I may, karmic retribution. I tried not to attack him, though I had to bite my tongue several times. Debunking bilge like his can be very bad for the blood pressure.
So really, I suppose it was good practice. Being on the radio like this means thinking on your feet (well, I was sitting, so thinking on my butt) and being able to keep track of three different things at once… as well as holding your tongue while the other guy says incredibly wrong things.
So I’ll have to rate this one as a wash: it had both its good and bad points. As I did before, I’ll simply have to weigh each invitation like this one individually, judging it on its own merits. But I think it’ll be a while before I do it again.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Hardly a wash: I bet you and Michael got a lot of people thinking. That makes it worth it, yes?
Now where can I get a copy or transcript?
December 12th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
I missed the debate because I was at work and I really, really wanted to hear it. Is there any possibility of it being rebroadcast, or archived on a website?
December 12th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
I recorded the show but had problems with background noise couple times, should still be good, I’ll put it here http://www.rit.edu/~mlg9612/
December 12th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Serus, you rock!
December 13th, 2005 at 12:05 am
In this month’s Skeptic (US), Brian Pinaire wrote that 14 out of 22 in his class of college students believed in the moon hoax. He says that was several years ago- so maybe the ‘craze’ has died down now. Still, I wonder how prevalent the belief is today.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:07 am
Podcast perchance?
December 13th, 2005 at 12:54 am
I just listened to the whole show.
The BA did a good job in quickly refuting on a point by point basis. Gee, I wouldn’t like to get into a debate with him about anything scientific- I’d lose every time.
Shermer sounded like a media-pro. He’s got a nice soothing voice.
Sibrel gave a good performance which will further convince many. He’s certainly far above the average pseudoscientist in his arguments. The host was right- they do sound half plausible if you’re not thinking.
I would say the most important thing the BA should have done is to publicize his web-pages more- where people can get detailed information. Sibrel’s website got far too much publicity.
Don’t rush to judge this post. I am 100% in agreement with Shermer and the BA- but in the end I fear that Sibrel scored a partial victory by getting his arguments out there. Even now I find it easier to remember his arguments, than the skeptic refutations, which are more complex and less memorable. For instance- I read the BA’s page on the hoax last year, but I can’t remember his argument for the letter, which appeared to be carved in the moon rock. It’s a powerful image. (I’m not sure what can be done about this problem.)
It was definitely easier for Sibrel. The BA’s voice sounded distant (on the recording I listened to). The host also let Sibrel explain his arguments and put the Skeptics on the defensive. It could have been done the other way round. If the host had started off by asking the BA about the moon landings and then after a few minutes had told the listeners that there’s this guy who disbelieves all of the experts – it would have psychologically given the Skeptics the advantage. But that’s another problem with the formatting of these programs, which in all likelihood can’t be changed.
I agree that it was a necessary evil for Shermer and the BA to debate this guy if he was going to appear anyway. There’s possibly no way for one side to “win” in the space of an hour on the radio. The average listener is always left feeling that both sides made some good points (unfortunately).
December 13th, 2005 at 1:27 am
Maybe I sounded too negative in my last post, so- congratulations on a job well done.
Looking at the ‘C’ on the moon-rock – I’m guessing it’s a hair on the negative. I’ll have to look that one up again on the BA page.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:34 am
OK- the ‘C’ is a hair. But looking closer at that moon rock picture- I saw an entire civilization in the surrounding dirt- with skyscrapers and walkways and little moon-people. Extraordinary!
December 13th, 2005 at 2:09 am
I hear vague rumor that somewhere soon down the pike, there will be Round 2.
True? False? Otherwise?
December 13th, 2005 at 2:37 am
Check out my new website,first time, not a lot on it yet but I will get there eventually…
You mean to tell me this guy is still around, even after ole Dr Aldrin gave him a sucker punch that he well deserved?
I say it’s time to either send these guys to the loony bin or if they make money, sue them for Fraud!
Good work Phil, someone has to do this stuff!
December 13th, 2005 at 2:43 am
Sorry, thought it would paste!
Here it is then:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqt9sg/
I haven’t figured out whether I should just post the land on the Moon stuff or start over and have a second website…
Possibly name it:
The Planetary Real Estate & Star Naming Astronomical Association.
Your one stop shop for finding out why you can’t buy real estate on any celestial body or Name a Star.
I’m patiently waiting for the International Star Registry to sue me. I figure the ACLU can come to my defense!:)
December 13th, 2005 at 3:03 am
Just listened to a bit of this:
Lunar Meteorites in Antartica…I never heard that Von Braun actually went to Antartica but I guess he could have anyway…
How can they be known as “Lunar Meteorites” if we don’t have real Lunar Rocks to compare to them?
December 13th, 2005 at 3:15 am
Spectroscopy would establish the validity of a lunar meteorite claim I would imagine.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:41 am
http://www.clavius.org/envrocks.html explains all about lunar rocks and meteorites.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:17 am
If I ever get in serious legal trouble, I would want Bart Sibrel on the jury.
That is, if I were guilty.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:18 am
Christian,
Thanks for the link to Clavius although what I was trying to point out is that “the jerk” talks about Lunar Meteorites and I wonder how he can say Lunar Meteorites if he doesn’t believe we went to the Moon?
December 13th, 2005 at 4:30 am
I do think we are fighting a loosing battle here
The prevailing mood seems to be:
America is the source of all evil
The American government lies
You can not believe anything tthey say
You bring up the soviets only to get “Russia was bought off with wheat”
You mention other nations, but they were either in on it or too stupid to realise they were being hoaxed.
There is no convincing them
As they get more in the majority, we get the “how can you be so naive” comes at us, so the hoax theory survives and thrives on the desire not be be seen as someone who is a simpleton who swallows everything they are told.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:57 am
Sticks: Curiously, it would seem that the current administration is fostering that culture.
December 13th, 2005 at 5:26 am
Serus, thank you so much! I would have missed this great show if it wasn’t for you.
The Bad Astronomer was perfect. He didn’t let anything slip, and I think he made Sibrel look like the moron he is. Good on ya, Phil!
December 13th, 2005 at 5:34 am
I must admit, it is very sad that people nowadays are so lazy to think at least a bit, and thus these BSologists can thrive. Good job, BA, though I think it was a little bit not worth your precious time. But it was definitely better than let that BSologist wash people’s brain alone…
Anyway, there is one thing that I find to be positive in whole this situation. What? That there are still people, who KNOW and may PROVE, that we were on the moon. It gives us some hope…
And too bad, that 5 PM central time is 2 AM where I live…
December 13th, 2005 at 6:42 am
I admire you for going on the airwaves to debunk this guy. Deep in his heart he knows that you’re right, but let’s face it: His “Moon Hoax” story is his bread and butter.
December 13th, 2005 at 7:35 am
I am listening to the thing… I am not even five minutes in and, with BS’s opening statement, I am already slamming my head on my desk. Arrgh!
–Mike
(P.S. thanks for going onto the air and getting some good info out here in St. Louis.)
December 13th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Eh, BA, I didn’t think you sounded very aggressive at all until about halfway through. If that was you going on the attack, then you must have been pretty mild in your previous encounter. I think you need to play it at the level you had it in the second half to get your points across. Maybe my standard of debate is high, I dunno.
Bart doesn’t even make sense in his own terms though, with his “I’m a photographic expert,” and then saying, “Don’t trust the experts!” George Washington rant. What a silly man.
And I’ve never understood the multiple sources of light argument. Surely a photographic expert would have noticed at some point during his career that having multiple sources of light would mean multiple shadows? Yet we never see those in any Apollo photos.
I can’t say who would have gained the most converts in that debate. To a completely neutral mind maybe BS getting the first and last words in might sway things his way a bit, but his arguments not making any sense should count for a lot more.
BTW, I’m not sure I got Mike Shermer’s “clipping the belts” explanation. Surely the only way to do that would be to fly at a high inclination to the equator so you come out the gaps at the poles? Maybe I need to dig out some diagrams….
December 13th, 2005 at 9:36 am
I wish I would have known! Glover is one of my favorite hosts, they do a Paranormal Tuesday most every week. Highlight some of the wackos out there for a good laugh every once in awhile. Must have been a Mooned Monday! Is there a copy somewhere? Kind of funny BS would go on air in the city where quite a bit of the manned spacecraft used by NASA was built. (I’ve worked in both the Mercury and Gemini clean rooms in my career, of course LONG after the programs were over) Many of those folks are still around. Then again the only reason old man MAC didn’t get a Apollo manned module contract was because he wouldn’t go along with the conspiracy while North American and Grumman both would…..
December 13th, 2005 at 9:54 am
The problem with debating people like Sibrel is that they do not follow the same rules as we scientists do. We have as a guiding principle that any claim has to be backed up by evidence, and extraordinary claims have to be backed up by extraordinary evidence. That’s why the scientific community can sometimes be perceived as slow to catch on (e.g., the story of Copernicus, which, incidentally, was completely misrepresented by Sibrel).
Conspiracy theorists (and others, like Intelligent Design proponents) have at heart an anti-scientific mindset. So scientific arguments will not convince them. In addition to debunking their nonsense (well done BA!), their hidden agendas should be challenged. So next time, perhaps the BA should ask Sibrel how much money he is making out of his hoax theory (a good moment for that is when S. goes on again about the BA’s NASA money).
December 13th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Great job, Phil!
I can’t say how many people you may have converted (nobody I know thinks the moon landing was fake) but I think your argument would stick harder than Bart’s. The fact that you continually told the guy he was wrong, and he couldn’t deny it, spoke volumes. Bart was all over the place with his comparisons to OJ Simpson, George Washington, CNN, the media, etc. You totally stuck to the facts and you were calm and polite in the face of lunacy. (pun intended)
By his own admission he’s a professional fake film maker, and his sole purpose of getting on this show is to get publicity to sell his con artist videos. His fictional videos, while mildly entertaining, aren’t going to change the minds of people who are at all interested in scientific fact. Those that do believe him are probably most likely to believe in crop circles, UFO’s, little grey aliens, and bigfoot.
I do wish that you and Michael had been given more time to speak, although everything we need to know about your opinion can be found online. Keep up the Truth!
- Greg
December 13th, 2005 at 11:59 am
BA:
I can certainly understand you feeling as if your involvement in this was a wash. For you, it was probably somewhat taxing to have to face such ridiculous psuedoscience and to know that people may be judging you by your answers. But, had you not accepted the invititation, someone else would have been sitting in your seat, perhaps someone less qualified (though it sounds like you had some backup).
Yes, folks like Sibrel work with a different set of rules in a debate than do “we scientists.” However, this does not mean that we should avoid debating them. It means that we should, in the proper forums, use some of their tactics: memorable sound bites and over-simplified arguments. Many of the scientists I’ve encountered in grad school seem too concerned with qualifying their statements when verbally addressing an audience. Focus on qualification and citation in print, but make bold decisive statements in person. Obviously, arrogance needs to be avoided completely, but sounding unsure (though scientifically reasonable) will not convince an overly-credulous audience.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
I think you both (Phil and Michael) did a good job refuting his yellowish nonsense. I found Sibrel really annoying and at some times even exhasperating (sorry if I mispelled). There’s this part, when talking about other amateurs people following the Apollo mission from earth, when Phil says that he found matches in Google about photos of jetisoned material from earth, Bart says, “what do they look like?” and Phil responds, “Well, like jetisoned material…” (paraphrasing, if mistaken please correct), on which Bart replies:”And couldn’t THAT be faked?” (enphasys by me). So no matter what other evidence is shown… everything that does not support his idea must be faked…
What an irritating character.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Interesting related example. I watch the show “Bones” on Fox. It is a “crime procedural drama”, where a forensic anthropologist working with the FBI investigates dead bodies every week – typically their bones. In a recent story, the main character, a brilliant female scientist, is testifying in court on the stand about her evaluation of the evidence in a case. And she’s going on in dense technicalese “explaining” what happened and how she can tell. To anyone but another doctor, it comes off as jibberish. “Yes, the medial meditarsal endopods were laterally stressed by the compression restraint.”* Er, what? Then the defense expert witness testifies. He’s a PhD anthropologist as well, but he is open, charming, and most importantly, he speaks in layspeak. “The evidence shows stress fractures, but they could have been caused by her brittle bone condition, not being tied up.” One makes your head hurt and comes off cold, the other was open and inviting, and spoken in words the average** person could understand. (Needless to say, that made the episode very interesting to resolve.)
The point is that in technical fora, journals, etc, the technical language is a must; but when dealing with the lay public, you must speak in language they can understand, which means rephrasing, condensing, and eliminating unnecessary ambiguity. If things really are ambiguos, then point them out, but when the evidence is strongly suggestive, point that out, too, and the reasons why.
I’ve faced the same problem as an engineer. I learn all these terms and acronyms related to the hardware I’m building. When I want to explain to my family members (such as my sister) what it is I do, I can’t rely on the acronyms and technical jargon to mean anything, I have to convert the language to layspeak. It’s a skill that takes practice.
*Not an actual quote from the show. Does not necessarily actually mean anything.
**Average person does not necessarily equate to the average jury member. YMMV.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
There’s a misriting in my post above… [when Phil says that he found matches in Google about photos of jetisoned material from earth] It should read [when Phil says that he found matches in Google about photos of jetisoned material from -the Apollo capsule taken- from earth]
December 13th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
People like this Sibrel just infuriate me! One of my co-workers is what i would call an “anti-skeptic” in that he’s willing to beleive pretty much any crazy idea untill its proven wrong.
It drives me nuts. It must be very comforting to them to think that the government is as powerful as the conspiracy theorists believe.
I’ve gotten into the habbit of absoloutly refusing to try and prove a negative. It’s just impossible. If i hear one more loony college kid say “PROVE there were never UFO’S at area 51″…
December 13th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Nice job, Phil. I heard most of it and I think you and Michael managed to get in good rebuttals for most of it. It was unfortunate at the end that the host sort of lost control of Sibrel a bit – allowing him to wriggle out of going first with the “what would convince you” question. He managed to turn it around and basically get you to answer a no-win question – i.e. if one astronaut claimed it was a hoax, would that convince you?
It was a no-win question since when you answered no, at first, Sibrel then just claimed that nothing would convince you, and when you elaborated and said it would at least give you pause for thought, he was then able to rant on about the astronauts refusing to “swear on the Bible” and such nonsense.
It was a pity Sibrel got away with that, but for the most part – the photos and the radiation, you and Michael came across as suitably scathing about the silly comments he made, leaving no doubt that his claims were ridiculous.
December 13th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Let it be known that I, John B. Sandlin, am willing to swear on a bible on national television that Bart Sibrel is an idiot. Would that prove he’s an idiot? Not that we need proof.
Essentially, asking Neil Armstrong to swear on a bible that he walked on the moon is the gravest of insults – no wonder the astronauts are upset with him.
Hmm. I’d even swear on a stack of the Quran, the Torah and the Christian Bible, all at once to say Bart Sibrel is an idiot.
jbs
December 13th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Hey Phil, I understand your point that the arguments are tiresome. I appreciate that you do these debates on occasion. Those of us that discuss this nonsense with co-workers and aquaintances still pick-up pointers and a refresher in logic.
So look at the debate as a continuing education for the rest of us.
Thank You
December 13th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Phil, Phil, I’m so disappointed. Bart literally waved his “smoking gun” footage at you and you didn’t bite him. Could have dealt to that bit of “evidence” too. Unfortunately, though it was sated that there’d be an hour, it boiled down to 30 minutes and really it wasn’t enough time to deal with properly. As a result BS probably got away with seeming more credible than he should have. Still it was a good job and hopefully people might even be willing to check out Clavius and here.
-PW- (alias PhantomWolf)
December 13th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
It took people from the stone age when they first started drawing up until the Renaissance to figure out the whole perspective thing, so no wonder some people just dont get it during their lifetimes.
December 13th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
[...] Yes, Bart Sibrel is a notorious asshat, and his lunacy grows tiresome quickly (if you know who he is, you’ve already heard everything he has to say eleventy-seven times), but hearing Phil and Michael have to hold their tongues and stifle their laughter (not always entirely successfully) while he’s still midsentence making his accusations of conspiracy, and false analogies was delightful. This “debate” is highly recommended by me. Phil’s follow-up post is here. [...]
December 13th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
where’s a transcript?
December 13th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Thanks Serus, I heard it. You do rock.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:22 am
I read what you all had to say and it occurs to me that maybe you (collectively) should listen to these debates from a non-science-oriented point of view (if you can). If you did this, it would become frighteningly clear that Sibrel (confound him!) came off (at least to me) as the more serious of the three. Sometimes, for the general public, that’s all it takes to convince them that the truth is in that person.
People like Sibrel put the fear in me. Our American society seems, these days, to be made up of people who are undertrained in Science, and who will follow, and profess to believe, the person who “looks” the best, even if it is all just tone-of-voice.
My opinion is that Sibrel is very aware that he is wrong. However, he is milking this for his, and everyone else’s, 15 minutes of fame. He knows his audience and what it takes to keep them convinced in what he says. Learn from him. He is NOT an idiot. The more you think of him as one, the less likelihood of your making an impact on his constituency and others who want to believe him but are not yet convinced.
My advice to Phil for the future would be to keep his reactions of humor incredibly low key (to the point of being non-existent) in these debates, and that he act as professionally as possible. Present the arguments void of ridicule. Ignore the jibes as much as possible, but counterattack in a clear, disapproving manner. The rebuttal point PK made, “So next time, perhaps the BA should ask Sibrel how much money he is making out of his hoax theory” is perfect, but state it matter-of-factly (not as a question) with no chuckle or verbal sneer. Don’t let him turn the tables on you through your own tone-of-voice. Turn his tactics against him.
Ask Michael. He knows this already.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:41 am
I just wrote Phil a private note. As I reread it before sending, I realized that the last paragraph of the note more succinctly said what I just poted, so here it is:
“It is interesting how even the most intelligent people can overlook an important point when they get together as a support group. It is easy to label Sibrel as an “idiot,” “asshat,” or other unflattering terms, but he and his kind are winning right now. Just because your arguments are factual does not mean you are convincing people that your perspective is the correct one. It is still just an argument if the audience doesn’t perceive you as being an expert. Remember, Sibrel is also touted as an expert. Just ask his publicist.”
December 14th, 2005 at 9:35 am
That was quite a debate (if that’s the right word for it). I was surprised Bart got away with obliquely accusing Phil of being paid off by NASA to shill the Moon landings. Of course, pointing out the distinction between having grants from NASA and being employed by them would have taken time and might not have been worth it…and I also realize that kind of assault is a tough one to react to on the spur of the moment.
I was glad to hear the Clavius site mentioned a couple times, but I was disappointed that badastronomy.com didn’t get much press–and that not only did Bart’s site get mentioned multiple times, the DJ specifically endorsed it! That, I thought, was one of the wrongest (to coin a phrase) things the host did in this interview.
The Van Allen Belts thing confused me a little. That part of the discussion was kind of complex, so I’m not surprised it didn’t really get explained–plus Bart took the opportunity to attack Phil & Mike for saying Apollo didn’t go through the Belt, they went through it (which is what it sounded like at first glance). I’m just hoping to clarify the issue in my own mind.
As I understand it, Apollo went straight through the Van Allen Belt, rather than plowing through it on multiple orbits. Just like we spend a lot more time going through the atmosphere on a transatlantic flight than they did, even though they had a much longer trip. So if you’re in & out of the belt in an hour, you’re much less exposed than if you’re going through it on orbit after orbit–hence a bigger deal for the Space Shuttle than for a lunar mission. Am I about right here?
December 14th, 2005 at 11:59 am
I live in St. Louis and I listen to Glover’s show regularly. Pretty interesting, especially on Paranormal Tuesday. He has this wacko on who talks about the shadow government, how scientists can guide hurricanes, where you can buy a time machine for $400, and plays audio of a wide variety of so-called ‘ghost talk’. Very interesting, but not worthy of true scientific accredidation. I think this Sibrel guy is just looking to make a buck on sensationalism. This is a good website. We need more of this.
thanks.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
The jargon issue is a real concern, but it is also important to realize that in many cases we need the jargon for whatever field we are talking about. Sure, we can give vague “ordinary language” understandings of whatever, but these will not convey the full import of whatever it is. This is vital, as it emphasizes, for example, one of the differences between science and non-science.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Dear Mr. Plait,
As I know you are a fan (hee,hee) of Richard Hoagland and seem to follow his activities to a certain extent, I was wondering if you have any idea at all as to why Hoagland virtually abandoned his blogsite at Enterprise Mission ? A lot of people were just left hanging in mid-air and well, rather HURT by this turn of events. Can you shed any light on this ? Sorry to be off-topic, but I wasn’t sure how else to contact you.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Keith Douglas, I agree the jargon is important, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be used when necessary. What I am saying is that the language to describe things needs to be aimed at the audience. When engaged in a radio or TV “debate”, certain things are critical to reach the audience. One of them is not boring them to tears, or worse, losing them in the technospeak.
There is a time and place for jargon. Certainly written accounts are a better format for including the technical terms, and (most importantly) explaining them. But radio and especially TV spots just don’t have the time to allow one to say it technically accurate but dense. You have to think in soundbytes – unfortunate, but true. Soundbytes work best when the audience can understand them. With juries, it may be appropriate to state it technically and then reiterate it non-technically. Court testimony isn’t time constrained (that I’m aware of). The technical content proves the technical merit for later technical commentary and review, but the layspeak interpretation ensures that the jury understands so they can evaluate the testimony appropriately.
Leon Said:
>As I understand it, Apollo went straight through the Van Allen Belt, rather than plowing through it on multiple orbits… So if you’re in & out of the belt in an hour, you’re much less exposed than if you’re going through it on orbit after orbit–hence a bigger deal for the Space Shuttle than for a lunar mission. Am I about right here?
You are partially correct. Yes, the Space Shuttle and the Space Station do have some limited exposure to the Van Allen Belts every orbit. That cummulative effect is stronger than what the Apollo astronauts faced in their straight through shots.
The other piece of the puzzle is that the Apollo astronauts did not go straight through the densest part of the Van Allen Belts. The Van Allen Belts are a donut shape around the Earth near the magnetic equator. They get thinner the further away from the equator you go, out to about 20 degrees. The trajectories for Apollo missions were not directly out the equatorial plane, but rather at an inclination to the Earth, about 30 degrees. This sent them through the thinner regions on the ends rather than the thick zone in the middle. That also minimized the astronaut’s exposure to the radiation.
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
Here is a diagram showing the belts. This is from a Nature article on a recent variance in the belt behavior, but you can see the general shape and location.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7019/fig_tab/nature03116_F3.html
December 14th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
thunderbolt Said:
>Sorry to be off-topic, but I wasn’t sure how else to contact you.
You could always join the BAUT forum and post a discussion topic.
http://www.bautforum.com/
December 15th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Is there a recording I can download..?
I missed the show
December 15th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
My boss heard the interview here in St. Louis – I didn’t – and she said that Phil came off much more professionally than Bart. Of course, that may not mean anything to a hoax believer since they’ll say Phil is a professional – propagandist!
But I’m afraid that “Sticker” and others are right – the loonies and theor ideas are getting more and more popular.
December 15th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Irishman. That makes sense.
You know, a second listen was even more infuriating than the first. Bart is allowed to deflect a direct question and make his opponents answer it instead, promising to answer when they’re done. He forces them to give some reasonable circumstances under which they might change their views–then when it’s his turn he says the only thing that would change his mind would be if he went there and saw it himself.
WTH? That’s (effectively) the same as not answering it. And he has the nerve to call Phil untrustworthy for initially giving the same kind of answer he himself eventually gives. I’m not saying this just out of a desire to insult him, but as a reaction to these specific actions: this man is intellectually dishonest.
And I have to add: it was rich, him whining that Mike & Phil had an answer for everything. If that complaint wasn’t self-descriptive, I don’t know what is.
December 15th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Mikal555, try the link in the third comment, up the top there.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that Bart’s answer was effectively that nothing would convince him (like Phil’s initial reaction), not that Bart’s answer was effectively not answering.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Christian Burnham: That’s the problem with skepticism and careful thinking in general. Often the truth is subtle and takes some effort to follow. Bold simple claims are much easier to grab onto. One thing I’ve learned from teaching is that people attach to “always” and “never” very easily; less so to “usually” and “sometimes.”
You see this all the time in the political arena. We just had a local referendum that would require a small increase in local tax to unlock a large pool of state money. Arguments against: big lawn signs that say “Say NO to higher taxes!” Argument for: “We’re already being drained by the state tax and we can get that money back into the community with just a little more local tax.” Doesn’t fit as well on a lawn sign. Involves balancing a pro against a con.
An environment of rational, skeptical discourse involves giving people the evidence and guiding them through an argument to illustrate a conclusion. An environment of baloney-peddling involves beating people over the head with a conclusion. Guess which takes more time? Guess which one grabs the psyche?
December 18th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Just a clarification on my post swearing on a stack of bibles that Bart is an idiot isn’t because I think he is or isn’t an idiot. It’s that swearing on a bible doesn’t actually make anything true or relevant. Using the refusal to do so as evidence is equally useless.
jbs
December 19th, 2005 at 9:08 am
That’s an entirely valid point–one that might be worth making sometime when Bart brings up his swearing-on-a-bible routine.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:45 am
After listening to the recording of this show, I am convinced that Bart Sibrel is not an idiot, rather an amoral con man milking the public to sell crap. I regret that public airwaves get used to assist these snake-oil salesmen dupe the public, but at least there are some like Phil who attempt to inject some truth into the torrent of lies.
I suppose that Bart is hoping to convince the gullible that astronauts who are too offended by him to play his game are admitting a hoax. With evidence like this, he is shamelessly harming society for his personal gain.
Thanks Phil for defending science and history from this evil.
December 25th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Phil, keep at it. Never let up on the phoney baloneys.
If I had a nickel for each time I have heard some ignoramus spout off about the “Moon Hoax” I could fly to your town and buy you dinner. Probably would too, just to prove that there are people out here who care.
All the people I have ever heard propound the moon hoax were uneducated or undereducated, usually at least partially intoxicated and invariably thought “Daddy’s tree-stump philosophy” was the best education anyone could ever have. These are the people who believe going to college makes the student stupid.
They usually start out screaming about it and get louder and shriller as they carry on. Some of them will actually try to grab their listener physically to make intimidation easier. I have been backed into corners by raging drunks and literally had to fight my way out.
Of course, these are the very people who would do well to listen to you and the others who have a clue but never will. They are the portion of the audience who will hear only what they want to hear and totally disregard the rational.
More than applaud your efforts however, I wanted to wish you a happy and sane holiday season. Beware the loonies behind the wheel and at parties.
Best regards,
Randy Holley
December 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Someone should do a Web site called “The World Hoax” and put “moon-hoax” like pictures on there but what are in fact real world examples of the falacies these moon hoaxers use, such as the photo above.
If these falacies “prove” the moon landing is a hoax, then this would “prove” the real world doesn’t exist either.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:42 am
My view on perverse people with perverse views is to deny them the oxygen of discourse. Just don’t encourage them. they know and you know they are being contrary, if you want to discredit them discuse flat earth theory and how in your opinion its entirely creadible that the moon is flat too….. If the earth is, the moon would have to be too… umm just stands to reason…. the converted and irretreivibly lost will light up thier bongs and crack pipes, a glow in thier eyes and a dullness in their brains….. The rest of us will turn the crap off and go and see it its dark enough to see through the telescope yet.. In the end its not that people are stupid, its really just that they are not interested … I mean how many people know how their tv works anyway…… really small people mabe..? lol… having said all that keep up the good work… just dont let em upset ya… they’re not worth it. : )
January 22nd, 2006 at 10:57 am
I think the funniest (and flimsiest, thats right, even flimsier than the flag waving) of *all* of Bart’s claims is that he is a professional photographer/cameraman. Allow me to explain why.
If we are to take his claim seriously, and believe that he is, then there is *absolutely* no way that he could not understand how perspective can make parallel shadows appear non-parallel. I am an amateur photographer, and have been for many years. This was a phenomenon that I noticed when I was around 10years old. Thats right, 10. Apparently, something that became plainly obvious to a child 12years ago, is still not apparent to a fully grown man, who, by his own claim is allegedly a ‘professional’.
Now, we can assume that he is telling the truth, and really doesn’t understand this common phenomenen. Then we could possibly conclude that he must be the sole sufferer of a rare disease that makes all shadows (except those in Apollo photos) appear parallel, regardless of where they are viewed from. I think that would cover him succinctly.
OR!
We can all use our brains, and see this for what is really going on. He is an opportunist, who leapt onto a bunch of flimsy idea’s that people unfortunately believed at face value. Then, when people pointed out the obvious mistakes in his rationale, instead of being the bigger man, and accepting his mistakes, he pigheadedly ignored logic (or at least appears to). After all, he has his investors to think about, and his livelihood as a Apollo-Astronaut-Stalker/Pouncer-Who-Carries-A-Bible-Everywhere-With-A-Camera-In-Tow.
It’s a tough life, what with all these scientists and physicists proving his arguments to be utter bilge. I think everyone should start a Bart Drive(TM), and raise some money for the poor man. Perhaps then he will start distributing his video(s) for free, because obviously, letting people in on the ‘real’ truth is more important than turning a profit, right? Right?….
I’ll have to get back to you on that one.
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I do think that the Van Allen Belts are the remains of what older civilizations on earth attempted to do to avoid ice ages or at least modify the environment of earth from becoming too difficult to tolerate. We have very little evidence of intelligent life before 20,000 years and really do not know if man was around a million years ago and suffered the fate similar to the dinosaurs. I believe that the Vn Allen Belts are not naturally occuring, but were contrived for a purpose. Perhaps there are two as the result of the failure of the first. Or perhaps there are two as one civilization learned the secret of the first’s creation and again used it to modify an environment that threatened reflecive existance.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
I say we offer Bart a trip to the Moon BUT no return to Earth.
That would convince him and shut him up for good.
How deep is his belief?
January 28th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Wow! I just read your sight explaining everything. Im doing a paper persuading that we did or did not go to the moon. I believe we did. I have only a couple of questions from the video i need answered for my paper. It would be great if they could be answered. One is why is the video so grainy and hard to see? Could it be just because there wasnt great recording done? Do you have a better explanation for this? Also, why is it that the craters on area 51 and the moon are almost identical? I searched many websites for that question but never found a clear explanation for it. If these questions could be answered that would be great! Thank you!!!!!!
February 9th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Personally,I think that Bart Sibrel’s initials are entirely appropriate:BS!!!Those are my thoughts.No obscenity offended.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I don’t buy that light source explanation nor do I accept the picture as definitive proof. There is a gaping flaw! How do I know that the effect you are showing is not due to the effect of another additional and common light source such as a street light? Fortunately, this is something that I can and will test. The result of this test will affect the credibility of your other points. (I’ll get back to you.)
And I’m sorry, but I just cannot get past how many years it took NASA to explain the waving flag. I don’t know what happened. Perhaps the first moon landing was staged, perhaps not – but one thing I do know from a lifetime of experience – when someone takes that long to answer a simple question – THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING.
Consider all the grand lies, the propaganda, and the elaborately staged events that (thanks to the internet) we now know for a FACT that our gov’t has carried out over the years (and as a matter of routine).
Consider that we were in a “cold war†and in a race to claim the first moon landing from our declared bitter enemies.
I also don’t like the over-used “tin-foil” hat conspiracy defense. If you dispute someone’s position then make you case without bringing their sanity into question. This “ad hominem†attack needs to stop. Can we all agree on that?
Consider all this and you realize that it very well could have been faked.
BTW: I have a 180IQ, I am perfectly sane, I am a die hard James Randi Fan and a stone cold atheist AND I am not convinced by your argument.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:35 am
I, for one, am glad you went on the radio show. I just happened upon your website, and started reading about Sibrel, et al. I think it’s important for people to present the viewpoint you did, because if not, young people will be more likely to believe his idiotic viewpoint.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:21 am
have to agree prolly a wash.
unless there is strictly fair airtime enforced
(and set debate protocol…Q.->A.)
Perhaps a mute button for his mike that prevented him from gibbering when questions (or answers) wern’t going the way he wanted.
Unfortunatly many people are swayed by the display,
if you are a little weak on thinking or being educated then
The person who is more aggressive is the side to be on right or wrong if you want to be on the side that apears to be winning.
On that level you were not rude enough, but is that really a battle you want to win?
I would argue against accepting venues that tolerate
showmanship over content because the medium is the message
and when you argue with fools it can get hard to tell who is who.
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:15 am
@Stacy: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net explains the reasons for poorer video on Apollo 11. By Apollo 15 Noise reduction and signal filtering resulted in what was known as near broadcast quality. (ie full 525 30 fps video). You can also see at the above website some shots and video made off the high resolution monitors at the tracking station. Indeed, the video was much clearer than the kinescoped 16mm archive which has remained NASA’s official version.
Bart religiously pulls out the thoroughly debunked parallel shaadows argument time and time again. I am a professional videographer, transmission controller and recording engineer who has work in the USA, UK, Germany, Poland and Australia, and I can categorically state that convergence is apparent in every day photos. Much to the chagrin of BS who really ought to know better.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:05 am
I am a Science/Physics teacher at a High School in New Zealand. We get this crap tainting our television too, and every time they show that same ole ‘documentary’ about how it was all fake, I know I don’t have to plan the next couple of days’ lessons; they’re taken up explaining why all the hoaxists’ arguments are demonstrably wrong. And I’ve noticed that the people who are most easily converted by this bollocks are either looking for a fight with me, or they’re 13 years old.
Obviously I didn’t hear your radio segment, but good work, Phil. Love your work and your website. I aspire to be more like you.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
“I don’t buy that light source explanation nor do I accept the picture as definitive proof.”
I suggest walk on the railroad tracks until you catch the converged end on the horizon. If you hear a loud whistling noise, this is normal just ignore it.