People who Say the Moon Landing was Faked

[GeddyClaypoolBurton]

Consider the following scenario. A man who believes that the 1969 moon landing was faked tries to contact NASA and other space-related organizations and challenges them to debate with him on the issue. NASA and most of the other organizations don't respond, but one sends him a letter saying - in a nutshell - "We don't have time for such nonsense". Annoyed, the moon-hoaxer says that the space agencies ignored him because they know that the moon landing was faked and they're just too frightened of being exposed. He goes around telling people this, and when people point to pictures and video footage, the man says that they all could have been faked and asks them, "If NASA was telling the truth, they'd have nothing to fear and they wouldn't have refused to debate me!"
Now, I know that most people would also ignore this man, but if you HAD to respond to this scenario - like, say, for a college course - how would you refute this man's claims? :dubious:

[dontbesojumpy]

the internet has bred a lot of people who feel so important they think just because they challenge something you gotta debate them (a lot of them are on this forum. 'I ASKED YOU A QUESTION.")

My stance on the moon landing is that if you really want to get down to it, it can be hoaxed. mythbusters did a sort of counter productive ep where they recreated all the hoaxer's debates to reverse prove that yup it could be how nasa said it was. only in the process they totally recreated the moon landing pix and whatnot. so in essence they proved you COULD fake it were you so inclined.

the point's not if you CAN do it, it's if we DID do it. it makes me think of faking a murder. just because i have video of a guy being shot and you can recreate the video with various special effects--that doesn't make the dude any less dead.

i think there are failproof ways to prove we've been to the moon, one of which are reflectors left there that you can hit with a laser. i know there is other proof as well.

[Czarcasm]

I would tell him that, since he is predisposed to dismissing all evidence as faked, he can take a long walk off a short pier.

[Czarcasm]

My stance on the moon landing is that if you really want to get down to it, it can be hoaxed. mythbusters did a sort of counter productive ep where they recreated all the hoaxer's debates to reverse prove that yup it could be how nasa said it was. only in the process they totally recreated the moon landing pix and whatnot. so in essence they proved you COULD fake it were you so inclined.That's not how I remembered it going down on that Mythbusters episode.

[Musicat]

My stance on the moon landing is that if you really want to get down to it, it can be hoaxed. mythbusters did a sort of counter productive ep where they recreated all the hoaxer's debates to reverse prove that yup it could be how nasa said it was. only in the process they totally recreated the moon landing pix and whatnot. so in essence they proved you COULD fake it were you so inclined. Yes, you could fake a video or film of the event; Hollywood does that sort of spoofing regularly.

But the official footage isn't the only thing. Don't forget the people who worked on the project, reported on it, observed it around the world, tracked the space vehicles, received the signals, listened to the conversations, including enemies who would have liked nothing better than to reveal a hoax. Yet all of those tens of thousands have kept silent. The only ones screaming "fake!" are those who never had any involvement at all and came onto the subject decades later. Doesn't that tell you something about human nature?

[Indistinguishable]

i think there are failproof ways to prove we've been to the moon, one of which are reflectors left there that you can hit with a laser. i know there is other proof as well.
Do moon hoaxers generally believe there were never even unmanned missions to the moon? Because otherwise, I would imagine that would be their out on that one. (Not that they're terribly logical in general...)

[dontbesojumpy]

Do moon hoaxers generally believe there were never even unmanned missions to the moon? Because otherwise, I would imagine that would be their out on that one. (Not that they're terribly logical in general...)

i found it in my blood pressure's best interest to avoid talking with many kooks, but i did talk to a few before i learned my lesson.

there's two camps: one group thinks we're capable and have since probably gone to the moon but that the first landing was a hoax because we wanted to beat russia and weren't quite ready.

the other camp is just out and out crazies who span the gammut of thinking everything the gubrment says is a lie to believing the earth is actually flat (serious, go visit the flat earth society's page. there's a bit on the moon landing and how it was actually a studio in NM. i rolled my eyes so hard i nearly fainted).

[dontbesojumpy]

That's not how I remembered it going down on that Mythbusters episode.

i mean, yeah--they set out to prove the hoaxers are wrong and i think conclusively did so. but in the process they re-created the photos and film. all i'm saying is they replicated stuff (like the rock shadows) to disprove the hoax theory but the byproduct was proving they just recreated it in a studio setting.

that's my point: it's not if we CAN replicate it, it's if we faked it to begin with. which i think clearly we didn't.

[Bryan Ekers]

Now, I know that most people would also ignore this man, but if you HAD to respond to this scenario - like, say, for a college course - how would you refute this man's claims? :dubious:

It would be with a NASA style nutshell letter, as described.


Now, if I was free to respond in any manner I liked, I'm sure I'd guffaw at some point and would not be stingy with my mockery.

[Alley Dweller]

If you shoot a laser at one of these reflectors, can you see a flash on the surface of the moon with the naked eye? (I really don't know.) If not, then suppose you take a hoaxer to the laser beam shooting station and what happens? Probably something like you shoot the laser at the moon and then a little while later some equipment says "reflection received." The hoaxer says "Prove that beam went all the way to the moon. You probably shot it at some satellite" or even "Aw come on, you expect me to believe you didn't set up some fake equipment that says 'reflection received' every time you push the button?"

Probably the only thing that would work would be to set up a huge array of red, white, and blue sun reflectors covering the entire visible surface of the moon with the letters "USA." Even then, I'm sure someone would claim that it was being faked by using an array of satellites.

[Valteron]

I think you would have to demand that before you agree to the debate, the scoffer specify what he or she would consider convincing evidence. If said evidence is impossible or unlikely to be available (for example, that we spend billions to personally take him to the Moon and visit the landing site and lunar vehicles) then we simply tell him to forget it, since there is no point in debating. If the level of evidence required by the scoffer can reasonably be produced, then present it to him.

[dontbesojumpy]

lunar laser range project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)

[Valteron]

lunar laser range project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)

The article states soooo naïvely:

"The presence of reflectors on the Moon has been used to rebut claims that the Apollo landings were faked. For example, the APOLLO Collaboration photon pulse return graph, shown here, has a pattern consistent with a retroreflector array near a known landing site."

Poor scientists! Do they really believe a faked-landing believer would be at all impressed by the graph or the other pictures in that Wikipedia article?

He would say that the graph proves nothing but while he is here, he would like to see those alien corpses that were autopsied and that the "gummint" is keeping in deep-freeze.:D

[dontbesojumpy]

i was on a paranormalist forum for a while until it started chunking away at my life expectancy. those people are just so impossible. totally immune to logic.

first of all, one guy thought he was god. i cannot over emphasize how abysmal god's grammar was--and that's coming from a dude who won't stretch his little finger over to capitalize shit.

second, the smartest guy there defaulted to any paranormal explanation before, you know, a logical one. they found this pic on the nasa site of the sun with these "large black objects that must be tens to hundreds of times larger than a planet" in front of it.

then the pic goes down off the site, and holy shit. CONSPIRACY. these must be giant crafts and LOOK! PROOF! nasa has taken the pics down.

i'm not exaggerating here, it took me 11 seconds to find another photo of the sun and pointed out the black blobs are in every sun photo. it took another 3 minutes to learn that most sun photos are infrared, so they record heat, not images. so the black spots are just cooler areas, and the blobs of black are known phenomenon--plasma bursts that are cooler than the sun's surface. it took another 9 seconds to hit up the nasa site to read at the top that "this portion contains photos that will cycle through every few days. photos will be logged into the archive for further viewing." so there's why the pic came down.

in less than 4 minutes, i logic'd the whole thing.
so i asked them why they defaulted to the extraordinary before even bothering to look into it.
no foolin, they said "because. it's more interesting."

that's when i gracefully bowed out of that world...

[AClockworkMelon]

Maybe in the future we'll put something on the Moon that can be seen from Earth via telescope and that'll finally force Moon-hoax nutjobs to move onto different conspiracy theories.

[GIGObuster]

More interesting?!?!

:sigh:

Glad to see you left that world, but those who are left behind really have my pity. With all that time they waste pondering on endeavors that have produced nothing after more than 50 years, why it is that many pseudo scientists out there ignore what they can do with their time helping the really interesting citizen science efforts out there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science
The longest-running citizen science project currently active is probably the Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count, which started in 1900. Other examples of citizen science programs include World Water Monitoring Day,[14] NASA's Stardust@home and Clickworkers, a variety of projects run by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology,[15] such as eBird, NestWatch, Project FeederWatch, the Whale Shark Photo-identification Library, and Celebrate Urban Birds, Zooniverse including the Galaxy Zoo project, Foldit and the Phylo video game. Another example of an effective citizen science project in the United States is the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow Network (CoCoRaHS), run by the Colorado Climate Center at the Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. Data from this project is used for weather forecasting and monitoring, severe weather alerts, and climate studies. National Geographic has an archeology project, Field Expedition: Mongolia, in which users tag potential archeological dig sites on GeoEye satellite images, to assist explorers on the ground in Mongolia.

Citizen science networks are extensively involved in phenology, the observation of cyclic events of nature, in order to investigate how global warming affects plant and animal life in different geographic areas.[16] Distributed computing ventures such as SETI@home may also be considered citizen science, even though the primary task of computation is performed by volunteers' computers.

Heck, one can even go look for a whole new world from one's computer!
http://www.planethunters.org/science

Sad really to see all that time wasted in useless conspiracies and not on very useful science endeavors that they can be part of.

[Rhythmdvl]

It would be with a NASA style nutshell letter, as described.Ah, I see you have a a NASA-style "nutshell letter" at your disposal.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yes. It annoys nutcases. It is written in 1920s style stress raise.

[ralph124c]

Of course the moon "landings" were faked-the James Bond movie ("Diamonds Are Forever") tells you how!

[Terr]

If you shoot a laser at one of these reflectors, can you see a flash on the surface of the moon with the naked eye? (I really don't know.) If not, then suppose you take a hoaxer to the laser beam shooting station and what happens? Probably something like you shoot the laser at the moon and then a little while later some equipment says "reflection received." The hoaxer says "Prove that beam went all the way to the moon. You probably shot it at some satellite" or even "Aw come on, you expect me to believe you didn't set up some fake equipment that says 'reflection received' every time you push the button?"What you do is tell the conspiracy theorist to build his own laser reflector detector. Explain to him how to do it or direct him to some web site that describes it. If he's honest (not likely) and capable, he will do it and get the reflection. If he's not - not. In either case, who cares?

[FinnAgain]

if you HAD to respond to this scenario - like, say, for a college course - how would you refute this man's claims? :dubious:

Am I allowed to use mothhballed Space Race era type stuff, stuff him in and launch him into the moon and leave him there?

Because that'd totally be my choice.

[Trinopus]

A really good resource is www.clavius.org (http://www.clavius.org), where the issue is analyzed in great detail.

[YogSosoth]

Simple, I'd ask him to prove it was faked. Since it wasn't, he won't be able to prove it and all his "evidence" will be stupid

[TriPolar]

Simple, I'd ask him to prove it was faked. Since it wasn't, he won't be able to prove it and all his "evidence" will be stupid

This is usually the best way. Get him to provide a little of his evidence, and it will be readily disproven. Then start the mockery. He'll go away.

[theR]

If you were NASA, instead of agreeing to each debate request you could do something crazy like put up a website (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/) that explains why it couldn't have been faked. That website could even link to an external (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) website that debunks the conspiracy theories in greater detail.

[FluffyBob]

This is usually the best way. Get him to provide a little of his evidence, and it will be readily disproven. Then start the mockery. He'll go away.

Have you actually tried this? I believe you are sadly mistaken.

[GeddyClaypoolBurton]

to believing the earth is actually flat (serious, go visit the flat earth society's page. there's a bit on the moon landing and how it was actually a studio in NM. i rolled my eyes so hard i nearly fainted).

I came across that website while researching pseudoscience some time ago and for some reason I just couldn't get over the stupidity and time the members there put into these conspiracy theories. There was one guy on there that partially inspired this thread who kept calling "globularism" a religion. Since most people ignored him and he came up with excuses that caused responders to leave in disgust, he kept claiming victory. Can anyone explain why these people are so arrogant? :smack:

[chappachula]

here's a method that nobody else has tried:
Ask the idiot who believes it was all a hoax: Whe did Nasa repeat the hoax 6 times, with each landing was more complicated than the previous one?
If it was a hoax, they would only have done it once. That's enough to claim the glory.

But no, Apollo kept going back to the moon, over and over again, and each time for longer stays, even taking a car with them. That's pretty darn complicated, and makes it much more likely that the hoax would be discovered.


You can't argue the technical side to a fanatic--no matter how much evidence you show him, he'll just say it's all faked.
But you can argue based on his personal experiences. Ask him , say, how many times in school he faked his parent's signature , or changed a grade on his report card.Or ask him how often at work he sneaks out before his shift is over, hoping the boss won't notice.

Then ask him if it makes sense to keep doing that over and over-- because the more you do it, the more likely you are to get caught.

If the moon landing was a hoax, they wouldn't have taken the risk of doing it more than once.

[Voyager]

here's a method that nobody else has tried:
Ask the idiot who believes it was all a hoax: Whe did Nasa repeat the hoax 6 times, with each landing was more complicated than the previous one?
If it was a hoax, they would only have done it once. That's enough to claim the glory.

But no, Apollo kept going back to the moon, over and over again, and each time for longer stays, even taking a car with them. That's pretty darn complicated, and makes it much more likely that the hoax would be discovered.


And I personally saw Apollo XVII lift off - which would be a hell of a lot of money to spend on the 9th edition of a fake. I think these clowns say we can't get out of orbit, so that rules out Apollos XIII and X also.

And if that doesn't work, the right response is

Boot to the head

[Alley Dweller]

here's a method that nobody else has tried:
Ask the idiot who believes it was all a hoax: Whe did Nasa repeat the hoax 6 times, with each landing was more complicated than the previous one?
If it was a hoax, they would only have done it once. That's enough to claim the glory.

But no, Apollo kept going back to the moon, over and over again, and each time for longer stays, even taking a car with them. That's pretty darn complicated, and makes it much more likely that the hoax would be discovered.

Once you've built the fake moon stage and got the technical side of the production worked out, it's simple to just do it again. And the designers are going to need to do something between fake moon shots (since the stage is already set up), is it really so hard to design a fake car and put it on the stage? Longer stays? You mean leaving the camera at the fake moon stage turned on a little longer each time?

Why do it again? So that the millions (billions?) of dollars that were allegedly spent on returning to the moon could go to fund anti-Castro forces, to fight the Sandanistas, to line the pockets of politically connected contractors, or into the secret bank accounts of the world-wide evil banking cabal. Or just to send a message to the Russians that if they tried to put nukes on the moon that we were ready to go blow them up at a moment's notice.


Then ask him if it makes sense to keep doing that over and over-- because the more you do it, the more likely you are to get caught.

If the moon landing was a hoax, they wouldn't have taken the risk of doing it more than once. After Bernie Madoff ripped off one investor with fake investments, why did he keep doing it? There was more money to be made and there was the thrill of living dangerously.

[GIGObuster]

And I personally saw Apollo XVII lift off - which would be a hell of a lot of money to spend on the 9th edition of a fake. I think these clowns say we can't get out of orbit, so that rules out Apollos XIII and X also.

And if that doesn't work, the right response is

Boot to the head
Known also as the Double Buzz maneuver. :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon_n_241664.html

[dropzone]

I may make fun of fighter jocks, but only in the quiet anonymity of an internet message board. Never to their faces.

[dropzone]

Known also as the Double Buzz maneuver. :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon_n_241664.html"Fighting Words," I believe it's called. I used to think that was a creation of Bugs Bunny. Didn't know it was a license to clock an asshole.

Er, I mean, um, it supported the position that the local constabulary, citing a breach of the peace, could arrest the asshole. And look the other way while you kicked him in the balls, in a "He fell down the stairs," manner.

[Chronos]

A colleague was explaining to me a while back that his lab had to comply with all sorts of government red tape, because they worked with an experiment that flew on a rocket, and by ITAR regulations, anything that flew on a rocket was considered a "munition", and hence had to be kept away from foreign nationals.

We both agreed that, by that standard, Buzz Aldrin is indeed a munition.

[SCSimmons]

Known also as the Double Buzz maneuver. :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon_n_241664.html
You know, I really am a peaceful person who abhors violence for anything but the last extreme of self-defense.

And yet, whenever I see the video of Buzz punching that moron in the face, I laugh until I can't breathe. I wonder why that is?

[dontbesojumpy]

...

:dubious:

can't tell if trolling or for real.

going to have to ask you how the laser reflectors got there. did we throw them from earth...?

[scratch llll]

Because every time you reply to someone who is too mentaly lazy to honestly research things for themselves is a moment of your life wasted in a lost cause and to shut them up so succinctly is a joyous life affirming and lengthening time saver SCSimmons?

[dontbesojumpy]

another pretty conclusive bit of data is:

our list of debris we left on the moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon)

coupled with...you know. photos (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html).

in the comments on the Buzz "Doctor Punchmaster" Aldrin video, a hoaxer conceded he's "now unsure if the moon landings were hoaxed" and cited this.

[dontbesojumpy]

also: we brought back 841lbs of moon rocks.

but i'm sure they'll just say the aliens brung 'em when they came.

[elbows]

Here's something to remember, when addressing this very popular conspiracy theory.

At the time, just prior to the moon landing, the news programs and NASA all participated, in a 'here's what we might expect to see scenario', 'here's what they'll be doing when', 'here's a mock up of events as we expect will occur', and then they would cut to, a complete freaking mock up with sky, lunar module, moon surface, guy in spacesuit, etc.

Think about all the hype you see on tv today about, say a royal wedding. They tell you, and attempt to show you, well in advance, what they expect to see. Only this was a long time ago, so it wasn't nearly so sophisticated. It was terribly ham handed. And they played through the scenarios on their sets, for days, in advance.

People watched with their own eyes, things they thought were the real deal, but were clearly ham fisted mock ups. Or they saw it, and then were later told, 'No, they haven't actually done it yet, that was just show!' Now layer, over that, all the passing years. I am not the least surprised that people are convinced, that what they saw, was faked.

Not that it isn't a silly thing to believe in the face of hard evidence, it is, don't misunderstand me. But the news outlets of the day, and NASA have some complicity in how it was presented, and over presented, etc, at the time these events were current. Opening wide the door for this.

[Claptree]

Excepting all the people that worked on the project, why didn't the Soviet Union claim it was a lie? They would have had an interest in making the US look stupid, surely.

[XT]

Now, I know that most people would also ignore this man, but if you HAD to respond to this scenario - like, say, for a college course - how would you refute this man's claims?

Why bother? Basically, if someone is still that far in denial about such and event at this late date then there is nothing, including Finn's suggestion of blasting said skeptic to the moon and letting them look around themselves, that would convince them. People who are that far into the fantasy realm of their individual conspiracy theory just can't be reasoned with, and you can't prove anything to them...they are beyond proofs and convincing, otherwise they wouldn't have bought into such a silly and hokey thing in the first place.

There are mountains of evidence from all sorts of different sources (it's not just some claim by NASA that they went there). Against that there is...well, the uninformed speculations of folks who are, to put it gently, nuts and crackpots.

-XT

[Euphonious Polemic]

Once you've built the fake moon stage and got the technical side of the production worked out, it's simple to just do it again. And the designers are going to need to do something between fake moon shots (since the stage is already set up), is it really so hard to design a fake car and put it on the stage? Longer stays? You mean leaving the camera at the fake moon stage turned on a little longer each time?

Why do it again? So that the millions (billions?) of dollars that were allegedly spent on returning to the moon could go to fund anti-Castro forces, to fight the Sandanistas, to line the pockets of politically connected contractors, or into the secret bank accounts of the world-wide evil banking cabal. Or just to send a message to the Russians that if they tried to put nukes on the moon that we were ready to go blow them up at a moment's notice.


After Bernie Madoff ripped off one investor with fake investments, why did he keep doing it? There was more money to be made and there was the thrill of living dangerously.

Thank you for showing us that you can never, NEVER convince a conspiracy theorist of anything. Once they have built up the massive conspiracy, it is a trivial thing for them to simply throw on another layer of insane crap to the enormous tottering pile of feces that substitutes for logical reasoning in their strange world.

[XT]

There was a show on one of the satellite quasi-educational channels (History, Discovery, TLC, Science, etc) where they took a bunch of skeptics and asked them to explain why they thought the moon landings were a hoax. Mostly it was a bunch of old geezer types with crazy looks in their eyes. Then they had folks explain why the moon landings weren't hoaxes. I remember one of the crazy old men explaining how the moon landings had to be fakes because the lander would have stirred up a crater when it landed. He demonstrated this by using a large sand pile and a leaf blower, and putting the leaf blower down right into the sand. Sure enough...large crater. I remember the scientist type watching the video of this so that he could explain why it was stupid (like no air on the moon perhaps? And the fact that in, indeed, the landers DID stir up quite a bit of debris when they landed, and you could even see evidence of this in the pictures, maybe?), and just the look on his face alone was just priceless. That and the glove in the vacuum chamber thingy had to be my favorite parts of the show.

It was like the 9/11 Truthers show where they had the skeptic types explaining their theories or reviewing engineers and scientists explanation about what happened. They ALWAYS have a denial or back peddle position. See, it's easy when you are in their position...you don't have to prove anything, don't have to be accurate or logical. You are just 'asking questions', after all. :p

-XT

[Saint Cad]

There was a show on one of the satellite quasi-educational channels (History, Discovery, TLC, Science, etc) where they took a bunch of skeptics and asked them to explain why they thought the moon landings were a hoax. Mostly it was a bunch of old geezer types with crazy looks in their eyes. Then they had folks explain why the moon landings weren't hoaxes. I remember one of the crazy old men explaining how the moon landings had to be fakes because the lander would have stirred up a crater when it landed. He demonstrated this by using a large sand pile and a leaf blower, and putting the leaf blower down right into the sand. Sure enough...large crater. I remember the scientist type watching the video of this so that he could explain why it was stupid (like no air on the moon perhaps? And the fact that in, indeed, the landers DID stir up quite a bit of debris when they landed, and you could even see evidence of this in the pictures, maybe?), and just the look on his face alone was just priceless. That and the glove in the vacuum chamber thingy had to be my favorite parts of the show.

It was like the 9/11 Truthers show where they had the skeptic types explaining their theories or reviewing engineers and scientists explanation about what happened. They ALWAYS have a denial or back peddle position. See, it's easy when you are in their position...you don't have to prove anything, don't have to be accurate or logical. You are just 'asking questions', after all. :p

-XT

I think I saw that show. My favorite was the geezer that proved we didn't go to the moon because his rubber gloves couldn't bend in a vaccuum. I guess he never heard of constant volume joints.

[XT]

Yep, that's the same guy with the leaf blower. :p I loved the glove in the vacuum chamber...it totally reminded me of the OJ trial where OJ was trying really really hard to get the glove on.

-XT

[Steve MB]

"Fighting Words," I believe it's called. I used to think that was a creation of Bugs Bunny. Didn't know it was a license to clock an asshole.

Er, I mean, um, it supported the position that the local constabulary, citing a breach of the peace, could arrest the asshole. And look the other way while you kicked him in the balls, in a "He fell down the stairs," manner.

It wasn't just the words, it was the idiot continuing to harass Aldrin even after being blown off.

[Voyager]

There was a show on one of the satellite quasi-educational channels (History, Discovery, TLC, Science, etc) where they took a bunch of skeptics and asked them to explain why they thought the moon landings were a hoax. Mostly it was a bunch of old geezer types with crazy looks in their eyes. Then they had folks explain why the moon landings weren't hoaxes. I remember one of the crazy old men explaining how the moon landings had to be fakes because the lander would have stirred up a crater when it landed. He demonstrated this by using a large sand pile and a leaf blower, and putting the leaf blower down right into the sand. Sure enough...large crater. I remember the scientist type watching the video of this so that he could explain why it was stupid (like no air on the moon perhaps? And the fact that in, indeed, the landers DID stir up quite a bit of debris when they landed, and you could even see evidence of this in the pictures, maybe?), and just the look on his face alone was just priceless. That and the glove in the vacuum chamber thingy had to be my favorite parts of the show.

-XT
In the 1950s there was some concern that moondust was so thick that a lander would sink in, which was tested by first crashing probes on the moon and then landing them.

[Voyager]

Once you've built the fake moon stage and got the technical side of the production worked out, it's simple to just do it again. And the designers are going to need to do something between fake moon shots (since the stage is already set up), is it really so hard to design a fake car and put it on the stage? Longer stays? You mean leaving the camera at the fake moon stage turned on a little longer each time?

Why do it again? So that the millions (billions?) of dollars that were allegedly spent on returning to the moon could go to fund anti-Castro forces, to fight the Sandanistas, to line the pockets of politically connected contractors, or into the secret bank accounts of the world-wide evil banking cabal. Or just to send a message to the Russians that if they tried to put nukes on the moon that we were ready to go blow them up at a moment's notice.

Which wouldn't explain the need to spend a lot of money on launching a very large rocket many time. As for saving money, it got spent on a lot of people who worked for the space program, so faking the landing while employing all those people was not going to save a ton of money. In any case, this was well before the time of huge deficits and austerity. If they wanted to hide some money, the funding of the Vietnam War would be a much easier place.

No, anyway you look at it deniers are dumb.

[Nars Glinley]

Now, I know that most people would also ignore this man, but if you HAD to respond to this scenario - like, say, for a college course - how would you refute this man's claims? :dubious:

Show him this clip, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw) point and laugh.

[Miller]

Did we really need secret funding for anti-Castro stuff in the '60s? It was a bit before my time, but my impression was that the president could pretty much go to Congress and say, "Fidel Castro," and people would start pelting him with blank checks.

[FixMyIgnorance]

It's not worth debating these kind of people. It's like trying to get through to an Obama-birther. No matter how much evidence you present, it doesn't matter. To a nutjob, all evidence is fake. Everyone involved is "in on it." No matter how many silly claims get refuted, they just move the goalposts.

If you're going to be the type of person to reject all evidence that refutes your stance, you can't be reasoned with. What's funny is that these people will reject mounds of evidence that show that we landed on the moon, but scream "valid-counterproof!" at any shaky (usually faked) evidence that might remotely suggest otherwise, without applying the same level of scrutiny.

If evidence isn't good enough, then what is? Yes, anything can be faked given an elaborate enough conspiracy. But past a certain point, you come across as insane.

Large-scale secrets almost never remain stable. Everyone's story has to match up and remain consistent, all circumstantial evidence needs to fall into place, etc. It almost seems like it'd be infinitely harder to construct such a hoax from the getgo than it would be to actually do the science to land on the damn moon to begin with.

Even if you took these anti-moon cranks to the moon so they could see it all with their own eyes, they'd probably still insist it was an elaborate simulation.

The only way to deal with those guys is to illustrate their ignorance for all to see, then move on without looking back.

[Gagundathar]

This has always seemed to me to be a secret of the human mind more than that of the moon.
You have to ask yourself, WHY would these folks care or want to refute this?
It is as if some people wanted to counter the claim that Hiroshima was devastated by an atomic bomb dropped by a US bomber named 'Enola Gay'.

Do we have video of this? No? Shoot, it didn't happen. It is all a ploy.

Heck no!

So, all of that wreckage and carnage was ORCHESTRATED by the gummint.

....

Having worked for NASA, this is one of my bugaboos.
Crud. Don't we still have a lunar orbiter?
One that shows pictures of the landing sites?

Are these folks just insane? There is no money to be made by these claims.
I can only attribute their motives to 'that there crap can't have happened' while holding a can of <fill in the blank beer brand>.

This is one of the the weirdest 'conspiracies' that is out there.
Y'all know that very close to the launch of Apollo 11, the Soviets tried a launch that failed, right?
At least according to this artcile: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/russian-moon-mission/

So, given that, the Russians/Soviets would have had at least more motive to have faked a moon landing and yet they didn't. We never saw their huge first-stage booster in flames, but that is what happened. Apparently, according to reports, it was a close thing between "us" and "them".
The USA won, in this one way, to stuff Sputnik down the collective throat of our Cold War enemy.

Does anyone remember Sputnik?

Do any of you remember what it was to realize that a Russian (that is how we characterized them) artificial satellite had been launched that passed over the USA? Do any of you remember the total fear that caused? My parents, who were quite sane at the time, were totally panicked. My little brother and I were packed in the station wagon and taken away from Atlanta to the countryside of Covington to live with my Mom's brother and family.

Really.

Weird, eh?

Got to know my cousins way better.
To this day, my younger brother remembers this as a GOOD thing because he considered our cousins as his other siblings. We we quite close together in age, so it is understandable.
And he was about 4 at the time.

All because of the Space Age.

heh heh heh

And people wonder if we 'really' went to the moon.
Gosh, of course we did. It would have cost WAY more money to have faked it, and the Soviets would have challenged our assertions. Don't you think that EVERY telescope would have been watching? Not just the CCCP/USSR but also France, England and Australia.

You could see our third stage ignition from a doggone back-yard telescope!

Urrrrrrrrrrgh.

But there are no depths to human ignorance.

Thank you reading my rant.

[XT]

In the 1950s there was some concern that moondust was so thick that a lander would sink in, which was tested by first crashing probes on the moon and then landing them.

Yep. And there was all sorts of other speculations pre-moon landing of all sorts of disasters or dangers. One of the things mentioned in the show was the assertion that the background radiation in space is too deadly (all the time) for anyone to survive for even a few hours in space, let alone a few days, and that this was why NASA faked the moon landings. 'Everyone knows' that this is the case, according to glove man. I figure that these guys (most of who were probably in the teens or early 20's in the ramp up to the first moon landing...FWIW, I was 9 when the first moon landing happened) heard a lot of this stuff, took it to heart, and that this formed the core of their later belief that the whole thing was a fake.

-XT

[Gagundathar]

Yeah, cosmic (gamma ray) radiation is a problem.
That is one of the reasons that WHEN (not if, dangit) we build a lunar base, it will be underground.
It is also a concern when we go to Mars and we will (by we, I mean humans... given what is happening now might be China, but probably not USA). Some sort of shielding will be needed. A few feet of water would do it, and in a rotating craft that would give us a very nice spinweight. And water is, after all, quite useful on a virtually waterless planet.

Honestly, the 'plan' (if you can call an unfunded idea a 'plan') is to send one or more robotic landers to set up a base of operations, and then to send about 12 humans there to settle in and then explore.

But we weren't talking about that were we?

MODS: Do you want to move this somewhere else?

[ch4rl3s]

My stance on the moon landing is that if you really want to get down to it, it can be hoaxed. mythbusters did a sort of counter productive ep where they recreated all the hoaxer's debates to reverse prove that yup it could be how nasa said it was. only in the process they totally recreated the moon landing pix and whatnot. so in essence they proved you COULD fake it were you so inclined.That's not how I remembered it going down on that Mythbusters episode.

The pictures Mythbusters recreated were the ones hoaxers claim could not have been taken on the moon. Claims such as "There had to be more than one light source because you can see the astronaut while he's standing in the shadow of the lander..." "There had to be more than one light source because the shadows go various directions..." or, "The light source was closer than the sun because the shadows go various directions..." etc.

And then Mythbusters took those pictures with one distant light source. Showing that there is more than enough light scatter to see objects in shadow, and that shadows follow the terrain and don't all go the same direction unless the land is perfectly flat. (You can verify that last one by going outside and looking at shadows on various surfaces.) The pictures they recreated were ones that hoaxers said were impossible to take the way the Mythbusters took them. (Their videos trying to hoax a moonlanding didn't look as good. IIRC)


Show him this clip, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw) point and laugh.

I've always loved that sketch.

[aruvqan]

Yes, you could fake a video or film of the event; Hollywood does that sort of spoofing regularly.

But the official footage isn't the only thing. Don't forget the people who worked on the project, reported on it, observed it around the world, tracked the space vehicles, received the signals, listened to the conversations, including enemies who would have liked nothing better than to reveal a hoax. Yet all of those tens of thousands have kept silent. The only ones screaming "fake!" are those who never had any involvement at all and came onto the subject decades later. Doesn't that tell you something about human nature?
Agreed. USSR would be screaming the truth to the high heavens if we had faked it. There really is no way to keep something of that magnitude secret other than killing off everybody involved. People talk, even when sworn to secrecy. Supplies need to be obtained and used to make the space craft, space suits, rocket fuel, earth side support systems. Money changes hands in massive amounts. The accounting and logistics are more or less on record somewhere and could be audited.

But mainly, USSR would have a screaming shit fit about it being faked if there was the remotest chance any of it was faked. I would assume that he would grant that thanks to the cold war, USSR was not involved with us in some sort of cover up?

[Nightfall1]

The moon landings were real, what the government won't tell you is that the spaceships were piloted by Big Foots.

[robinson]

came onto the subject decades later
In the 50s and 60s there was a "Flat Earth Society", which I think was mostly tongue-in-cheek with a loony fringe. For obvious reasons, they were the first ones to raise the charge that the moon landings were faked.

[Euphonious Polemic]

The moon landings were real, what the government won't tell you is that the spaceships were piloted by Big Foots.

You've been taken in by the shadowy conspiracy. Anyone should know that a group of them are referred to as "Big Feet"

[GIGObuster]

The moon landings were real, what the government won't tell you is that the spaceships were piloted by Big Foots.

"Chewie is my co-pilot"

[robinson]

Does anyone remember Sputnik?You are almost as old as me! I lived in Miami, and didn't notice any immediate panic there. We were incredulous, and there were foolish debates as to how they couldn't have done it (even more incredulous and foolish after the second one, something like 1000kg). The master stroke was putting a transmitter aboard that anyone with a FM radio could hear. The best thing that happened was the neat HS Physics course that MIT put together.

[robinson]

Next time we go, lets leave a webcam that shows (among other things) earth's weather. A person would have be truly obstinate to disregard that.

[Fiendish Astronaut]

Just watched this video about how the Moon Landings could not have been faked using the video/film technology of the day. I think it's very good, I know a little bit about some of this stuff and he's spot on although parts of it were above my technical knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

[BrainGlutton]

Consider the following scenario. A man who believes that the 1969 moon landing was faked tries to contact NASA and other space-related organizations and challenges them to debate with him on the issue. NASA and most of the other organizations don't respond, but one sends him a letter saying - in a nutshell - "We don't have time for such nonsense". Annoyed, the moon-hoaxer says that the space agencies ignored him because they know that the moon landing was faked and they're just too frightened of being exposed. He goes around telling people this, and when people point to pictures and video footage, the man says that they all could have been faked and asks them, "If NASA was telling the truth, they'd have nothing to fear and they wouldn't have refused to debate me!"
Now, I know that most people would also ignore this man, but if you HAD to respond to this scenario - like, say, for a college course - how would you refute this man's claims? :dubious:

I'd sent John Glenn over to kick his ass.

[GIGObuster]

Before anyone replies, notice that this thread is brought you today by the moon zombies. And the OP smelled like "doing homework." :)


Fiendish Astronaut on old treads I made notice of how the technology of the past regarding cameras demonstrated how dumb this conspiracy was, nice to see someone focusing on that; of course, my experience on digital imaging and research on cameras of the day was mostly ignored by the conspiracy theorists.

[Jackmannii]

It is largely worthless to debate proponents of woo and conspiracy theories.

You can know your subject backward and forward, yet be unskilled in debate and get taken for a ride by an opponent who is prepared and uses tactics that are difficult to counter. (example - the Gish Gallop, where you bury your opponent in a deluge of references, which cannot all be immediately countered, and which if skilfully done leaves the impression that your opponent is ignorant of important work or trying to hide something. The person best known for the Gish Gallop, Duane Gish, was a creationist who liked debating evolution proponents).

In the end, giving a loon a debate platform gives them credence, lends the impression there are two equivalent sides to an issue and wastes time. If you win the debate, there's not much credit gained in overcoming lunacy.

[jtgain]

In the end, giving a loon a debate platform gives them credence, lends the impression there are two equivalent sides to an issue and wastes time. If you win the debate, there's not much credit gained in overcoming lunacy.

Agreed. Generally I hate to dismiss a position outright because a slippery slope might happen in the future (e.g. You think taxing the rich balances the budget? That's so preposterous that I'll just ignore you) but some fringe positions need to be treated this way.

There is absolutely no real evidence to make a good faith case that we didn't go to the moon. A person should have to have a plausible set of facts before he is entitled to be heard, even in a classroom discussion. It's a waste of time.

Hell, some of these assholes are saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax perpetrated by the government to pass more gun control. They are saying that the neighbor who helped a bunch of kids is a character actor employed by the feds, and he is getting harassing phone calls.

People with these easily disprovable beliefs need to be ostracized at every available opportunity.

[brazil84]

It is largely worthless to debate proponents of woo and conspiracy theories.

You can know your subject backward and forward, yet be unskilled in debate and get taken for a ride by an opponent who is prepared and uses tactics that are difficult to counter. (example - the Gish Gallop, where you bury your opponent in a deluge of references, which cannot all be immediately countered, and which if skilfully done leaves the impression that your opponent is ignorant of important work or trying to hide something. The person best known for the Gish Gallop, Duane Gish, was a creationist who liked debating evolution proponents).

In the end, giving a loon a debate platform gives them credence, lends the impression there are two equivalent sides to an issue and wastes time. If you win the debate, there's not much credit gained in overcoming lunacy.

I disagree. My impression is that most people who believe the moon landing actually took place have the correct belief for the wrong reason. i.e. they believe the moon landing was real because it's the socially acceptable belief to have and not because the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the moon landing really took place.

So I think there is value in thinking critically -- or at least attempting to think critically -- about whether the moon landing was faked or not.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Is there also "value in thinking critically" about whether a race of mole-men live in the hollow Earth, whether Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian alien, or whether engine knock is caused by invisible gremlins? If we doubt these to be true, is it because it's "socially acceptable" or because they're ludicrous notions that anyone who thinks rationally would immediately discount until convincing and extraordinary evidence were presented?

(N.B. to any new members or visitors: I am on the addressed poster's make-believe "ignore" list, and thus ineligible for a direct response. No, it doesn't make sense--- much like the moon landing hoax theories, fittingly enough.)

[RickJay]

I disagree. My impression is that most people who believe the moon landing actually took place have the correct belief for the wrong reason. i.e. they believe the moon landing was real because it's the socially acceptable belief to have and not because the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the moon landing really took place.

So I think there is value in thinking critically -- or at least attempting to think critically -- about whether the moon landing was faked or not.
No, there isn't, because it wasn't faked. You derive no benefit at all from questioning a plain fact.

It is of course correct to state that much of what we believe we believe to be true because experts have stated it to be so. A person does not have time to investigate and construct an evidence-based argument around EVERYTHING. I cannot personally attest to the existence of South America, for instance; I've never seen it, and have never seen "proof" it is not an elaborate conspiracy, but I assume it exists because that seems to just be the prevailing assumption. I similarly cannot say that I have done research into the existence of DNA, the germ theory of disease, that the Chiefs won Super Bowl IV, or that Tom Hanks is the guy who played the lead in "Philadelphia," as opposed to a twin brother. I could list stuff like that all day.

At some point you do have to accept things based on the fact that there is no sensible reason at all not to accept them. You don't have enough time in the day to do otherwise. No sensible argument has ever been advanced that the moon landings were a hoax. Not one. I am no scientist, but even I, before reading the refutations by experts, heard and saw the arguments and found them amazingly stupid. I can't understand how an educated adult can believe some of those things.

Once in a great while a fundamental belief can be altered through evidence, but it's reasonable to, you know, wait for the evidence.

[Bryan Ekers]

Can we at least all agree that most people are fuckin' idiots?

[BrainGlutton]

Look, I think we should just come clean and tell them the whole truth: The Moon landing was real, but the footage was faked at a sound studio in Burbank. This was done only to cover up the real purpose of the Apollo program (a diplomatic/trade mission to sell Tang to the Selenites in exchange for Velcro and digital-watch technology).

[brazil84]

No, there isn't, because it wasn't faked.
You derive no benefit at all from questioning a plain fact.

So there is no point in questioning anything RickJay asserts to be a "plain fact."?

Let me ask you this: Are you completely confident that every last thing you believe right now is correct? And the same question for everything you ever believed.

It is of course correct to state that much of what we believe we believe to be true because experts have stated it to be so. A person does not have time to investigate and construct an evidence-based argument around EVERYTHING.

Seems to me you are assuming there are two choices: (1) Nobody anywhere ever debates about "plain facts."; and (2) Everyone questions and investigates EVERYTHING.

Isn't there some middle ground?

Once in a great while a fundamental belief can be altered through evidence, but it's reasonable to, you know, wait for the evidence.

I agree. But if "plain facts" can never be debated or investigated, such evidence will never be considered.

[Musicat]

So there is no point in questioning anything RickJay asserts to be a "plain fact."?

<snip>

I agree. But if "plain facts" can never be debated or investigated, such evidence will never be considered."A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

[RickJay]

So there is no point in questioning anything RickJay asserts to be a "plain fact."?
There is a point if you have a reason to be doubtful or evidence is presented to you.

Tell me; have you ever been to India?

No? Okay. Does it exist?

Let me ask you this: Are you completely confident that every last thing you believe right now is correct? And the same question for everything you ever believed.
Nope, when presented with evidence I have changed my mind many times.

But I do not have time to question everything ahead of time. I'm sorry, maybe there are more hours in a day in the universe you live in, but on the planet I'm from we only get 24. I cannot spend my time proactively questioning every fact I hold. I am not going to bother investigating whether or not the existence of India is a fact or an elaborate hoax. I'm going to go with what appears to be the plain facts until I have a reason to believe otherwise.

The Apollo program is the same thing. I have never in my life been presented with any sane reason to think it did not happen in the manner commonly described, so why should I bother questioning it? I've got stuff to do, pal. When someone has real evidence it was a hoax, I'll listen.

Seems to me you are assuming there are two choices: (1) Nobody anywhere ever debates about "plain facts."; and (2) Everyone questions and investigates EVERYTHING.

Isn't there some middle ground?
I have described the middle ground; where these exists a reasonable area of doubt, ask questions. I am highly dubious of the claim that Saddam Hussein conspipred to have the first George Bush assassinated because that story has always been based on extremely flimsy, questionable evidence. I am very dubious that science truly understands what dark matter and dark energy are, since scientists themselves say they don't understand it. I am automatically skeptical of the stated intentions of any politician, since I have decades of experience and observation that show that politicians lie very routinely.

But some things just don't have enough doubt in them for a smart person to bother questioning them until the doubt is produced. The moon landings are in that category.

[brazil84]

There is a point if you have a reason to be doubtful or evidence is presented to you.

Ok, and moon landing hoaxers have presented evidence that the moon landing was hoaxed. To be sure, the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny but there is still value in scrutinizing it.

Tell me; have you ever been to India?

No.

No? Okay. Does it exist?

Yes. So what?

Nope, when presented with evidence I have changed my mind many times.

Ok, so something which you currently believe to be a "plain fact" might still be worthy of debate.

I cannot spend my time proactively questioning every fact I hold.

Same with me. So what?

I have described the middle ground; where these exists a reasonable area of doubt, ask questions.

How can you know if there is a reasonable area of doubt unless you or somebody else out there considers the evidence on both sides?

[Little Nemo]

It's been over fifty years since we landed on the Moon. If NASA was making things up, they'd have faked a manned mission to Mars by now.

[Little Nemo]

Getting back to the OP, NASA has presented its evidence. There were TV broadcasts and movies have been made and books have been written and the astronauts have done public tours and all kinds of other stuff. There's been ample documentation that we sent manned missions to the moon.

So if somebody wants to dispute this claim, the ball's in their court. They need to present evidence that NASA has been lying before anyone needs to answer them.

Otherwise these nuts are just whining that NASA has presented fifty years' worth of evidence - but they didn't present it personally to the nuts.

[Bryan Ekers]

It's been over fifty years since we landed on the Moon. If NASA was making things up, they'd have faked a manned mission to Mars by now.

Cancelled. Budget cuts.

[dropzone]

first of all, one guy thought he was god. i cannot over emphasize how abysmal god's grammar was--and that's coming from a dude who won't stretch his little finger over to capitalize shit.Y'see, that's the difference between you and the "u cant make me spel rite" people--you have a sense of humor about your glaring inadequacy. :cool:

[Monty]

Ok, and moon landing hoaxers have presented evidence that the moon landing was hoaxed.

No, they haven't. That's where your "argument" falls apart.

[Bryan Ekers]

I figure for a "claim" to mature into "evidence", it can't be shown wrong in 30 seconds or less.

Of course, that's only the beginning. Evidence has to stand up to whole minutes of scrutiny.

[Ethilrist]

Excepting all the people that worked on the project, why didn't the Soviet Union claim it was a lie? They would have had an interest in making the US look stupid, surely.

Maybe they faked their landings, too?

The moon landings were real, what the government won't tell you is that the spaceships were piloted by Big Foots.
Big FEET!

[RickJay]

Yes. So what?
But how do you know India exists? Have you questioned that claim?

No? Why not?

How can you know if there is a reasonable area of doubt unless you or somebody else out there considers the evidence on both sides?
You can't, but the evidence "for both sides" does not always require scrutiny. In many cases the evidence for Case A is simply so overwhelming that looking into Case B is not a productive expenditure of time. The sky is blue. Lake Ontario is wet. It will probably hurt if I jump out my bedroom window (I live on the 15th floor.) How much time should I dedicate to challenging those claims? None. I am not going to spend my time "questioning" whether Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian alien, because that is so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration. It is generally very easy to know the silly shit from genuine controversy. I have an IQ above that of a hamster, as do most adults. Most people can, not perfectly but with a fairly high degree of accuracy, filter out claims that are simple facts from claims that are controversial from claims that are dubious from claims that are probably bullshit.

If someone says to me "The capital of France is Paris," that is a fact. It is possible in theory that a gigantic conspiracy has been perpetrated and that Paris is not the capital of France, but I am not going to "question" that unless shocking evidence comes up.

But some things are controversial ("Cutting Social Security benefits will hurt old people") and some things are dubious/bullshit - for instance, a few years ago there were ads running in Canada asking for donations because, according to the ads, "one in three kids can't play organized sports because they can't afford it." That immediately set off my bullshit detector. Why? Well, a lot of reasons:

- It's a suspiciously convenient fraction
- It is difficult to believe it's true, given the low cost of many sports and wealth of Canadians
- It directly contradicts my personal experience
- The ads were run by a company that sells sporting equipment and so stood to directly make money from an effort to buy more sporting equipment for children

So I questioned it. I looked into the facts. As it turns out it was bullshit, but who knows, maybe next time I'll find out a dubiouos claim was true.

Moon hoax claims, frankly, belong in the same pile as Holocaust deniers and people who say Barack Obama was born in Kenya; it's just such colossal bullshit that it's not worth my time to investigate until something pretty big comes up that proves it isn't colossal bullshit.

[rogerbox]

I suspect that the real motive here isn't about the moon landing, but that a certain poster's favorite pet subject of scientific racialism. If we only opened our eyes to the possibility that certain races are superior to others instead of taking common sense facts for granted...

[brazil84]

No, they haven't. That's where your "argument" falls apart.

Yes they have. You need to learn the difference between "evidence" and "proof."

[brazil84]

But how do you know India exists? Have you questioned that claim?

Yes, of course I have. Many times I have wondered if the entire universe -- including India -- is a simulation. Anyway, please just state your point about India and I will tell you if I agree with it or not. TIA.

You can't,

Well there you go.

but the evidence "for both sides" does not always require scrutiny. In many cases the evidence for Case A is simply so overwhelming that looking into Case B is not a productive expenditure of time.

That may very well be. It depends on a lot of factors -- the evidence, the amount of time, the individuals involved, etc.

[brazil84]

I suspect that the real motive here isn't about the moon landing, but that a certain poster's favorite pet subject of scientific racialism. If we only opened our eyes to the possibility that certain races are superior to others instead of taking common sense facts for granted...

Lol, nice attempt at well-poisoning. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am a complete skinhead. It doesn't affect the merit of my argument one bit.

[GIGObuster]

Moon hoax claims, frankly, belong in the same pile as Holocaust deniers and people who say Barack Obama was born in Kenya; it's just such colossal bullshit that it's not worth my time to investigate until something pretty big comes up that proves it isn't colossal bullshit.
Indeed, and there is something else that brasil84 misses. when he says that

"I think there is value in thinking critically -- or at least attempting to think critically -- about whether the moon landing was faked or not. "

There is the problem that that line of thinking is just an invitation to ignore history, not just the historical record of the moon landings and technical evidence, but to ignore the history and the mess of critical discussions that took place all over the world and even here in the dope, regarding the common mistakes and lack of corrections made by the moon hoax conspiracy theorists.

[runner pat]

Yes they have. You need to learn the difference between "evidence" and "proof."
Both from Dictionary.com.
Evidence:The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof:Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
So do you.

[JohnT]

As previously mentioned on this thread, it's not like the US didn't have enemies during this era.

I would ask him for official Soviet documents and pronouncements stating the moon landing was faked (other than statements made for mass consumption.)

For example, an article in Pravda wouldn't work, but KGB communiques that state that the Soviet State is (er, was) certain that the landings were faked, their reasons for this belief, and how they think the Americans faked it.

I'm sure people in the USSR have made that argument, but if so, how did they fail to convince Brezhnev? What were the arguments used that convinced him the US succeeded?

(I didn't realize this thread was 90+ posts in, so if somebody else made the same point, my apologies.)

[GIGObuster]

I suspect that the real motive here isn't about the moon landing, but that a certain poster's favorite pet subject of scientific racialism. If we only opened our eyes to the possibility that certain races are superior to others instead of taking common sense facts for granted...

Well, if you think about it, he sounds a lot like a postmodernist with a side of "not checking what was discussed before". But what I'm saying here is that there is no need to point at him about not knowing much about history, not knowing much biology, not much about a science book..

But I do know that I would love... :) to see you stick to the moon landings. :p

[rogerbox]

Lol, nice attempt at well-poisoning. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am a complete skinhead. It doesn't affect the merit of my argument one bit.

The only use of examining the claims of moon hoax deniers is for entertainment value, or for knowing some of the fallacies they use so that when you encounter a hoaxer "in the wild" you might have the tools to debunk them on hand. But I know exactly what you are doing and I just find it highly amusing how transparent you are about it.


But I do know that I would love... :) to see you stick to the moon landings. :p

He isn't, I'm just pointing it out.

[GIGObuster]

He isn't, I'm just pointing it out.

A little whoosh there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderful_World_(Sam_Cooke_song)), :) (Although I have to say it is uncanny how Sam Cooke got brasil's number before he was born. ;) )

But I mostly agree with you, I just wanted to investigate the latest crazy moon hoax ideas, I was getting bored of the same old from him.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Before Truthers, Birthers, and now the Sandy Hook truthers, I used to consider the Moon Hoax crew to be the slimiest conspiracy nutjobs around. Other conpsiracies I could see some emotional need for, but the Moon hoaxers were just vandals. The bored kids of the CT crowd who slash tires and spray paint on walls just because they are bored and want to break something more capable people made.

Their evidence is pathetic. It depends on the target not being familiar with some basics of science. Their method is classic not seeing the forest for the trees. These nuts would scan the footage for 'anomalies' while ignoring how impossible it would be to have a 14 hour non-stop 1 take scene with rigging set up for 1/6th g.

Oh, and they lie about their own credentials. There isn't a prominent Moon hoaxer who hasn't done some serious resume padding. It fun when they get caught, too. when Jay Windley (clavius.org) tells the tale of how one of the hoaxer begged and pleaded with him not to reveal how his engineering credentials were purely the product of his imagination I get a warm fuzzy almost as good as when I see Buzz deck Bert Sibrel.

[Monty]

Yes they have. You need to learn the difference between "evidence" and "proof."

No, they haven't. And you need to learn the difference between reality and ramblings of utter lunatics. The latter is what that supposed proof/evidence offered up by the Moon landing deniers happens to be.

[brazil84]

Both from Dictionary.com.

So do you.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Let me ask you this: Suppose John asserts that the moon-landing was faked and the way he knows it is that his uncle who worked for NASA told him so.

Would you say John's statement counts as evidence that the moon landing was faked?

[brazil84]

The only use of examining the claims of moon hoax deniers is for entertainment value,

I disagree . . . I think it's useful to scrutinize their evidence and arguments.

But I know exactly what you are doing and I just find it highly amusing how transparent you are about it.

Nonsense, but please feel free to assume for the sake of argument that I have an agenda whether carefully hidden or blatantly transparent.

[brazil84]

No, they haven't. And you need to learn the difference between reality and ramblings of utter lunatics. The latter is what that supposed proof/evidence offered up by the Moon landing deniers happens to be.

Well let me ask you this so I can attempt to understand what you are saying: Suppose John asserts that the moon-landing was faked and the way he knows it is that his uncle who worked for NASA told him so.

Would you say John's statement counts as evidence that the moon landing was faked?

[rogerbox]

I disagree . . . I think it's useful to scrutinize their evidence and arguments.

You keep saying this, but it's unclear to everyone except you why this is so. I think it's less than useless to scrutinize mentally ill people's delusions.

[Bryan Ekers]

I found the usefulness had diminishing returns - after evaluating five or six hoax claims and finding them useless, it is logical to decline further claims by default, unless they start with something particularly novel or interesting. "My uncle who worked for NASA said so," doesn't qualify, in my book, even if it's completely true that the claimant's uncle said such a thing. Let the uncle present the claim directly, starting with his NASA credentials. That might get him 30 seconds of my time.

[brazil84]

You keep saying this, but it's unclear to everyone except you why this is so.

Nice to know that you are the spokesman for the board. Anyway, I provided an explanation in my first post in this thread. What about it did you not understand?

[Vinyl Turnip]

Would you say John's statement counts as evidence that the moon landing was faked?

If I present a photograph of Obama standing aside Adolf Hitler and giving a Nazi salute, does that count as evidence that Obama is a fascist?

How about a world map with a dotted line around the border of India, and the word "India" replaced by a question mark? Evidence of the non-existence of India?

Let's say Vinyl Turnip knows a friend of a friend who camped out in the bushes outside brazil84's house with binoculars and saw him wearing a Tigger costume. Does VT's statement count as evidence that brazil84 is a furry?

If the definition of "evidence" includes "any claim made by anyone," I would like to add these three pieces of evidence to the record for further investigation.

[42fish]

Well let me ask you this so I can attempt to understand what you are saying: Suppose John asserts that the moon-landing was faked and the way he knows it is that his uncle who worked for NASA told him so.

Would you say John's statement counts as evidence that the moon landing was faked?

Lionel Hutz: "We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence"

[brazil84]

Lionel Hutz: "We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence"

Hearsay does potentially count as evidence as that word is normally used in courtrooms. Sometimes it's admissible and sometimes not. Sometimes it's strong and sometimes it's weak.

[Bryan Ekers]

Would hearsay be enough evidence in court to, say, convict NASA of a massive decades-long fraud?

[Boyo Jim]

Yes, you could fake a video or film of the event; Hollywood does that sort of spoofing regularly.

But the official footage isn't the only thing. Don't forget the people who worked on the project, reported on it, observed it around the world, tracked the space vehicles, received the signals, listened to the conversations, including enemies who would have liked nothing better than to reveal a hoax. ...

Nah, all those people were faked too.

[Wheelz]

I've been fortunate enough not to have encountered any Moon Hoaxers in my real life, but I would tell them the same thing I tell the handful of 9/11 Truthers I've run across:

In 1972, a couple guys broke into an office in a Washington hotel. The handful of people who knew about it couldn't manage to keep it a secret, and it brought down a presidential administration.

As conspiracies go, Watergate was pretty small potatoes, yet the conspiracy failed. What makes anybody think that a hoax on the scale of faking the moon landing or 9/11 could possibly remain covered up after all these years?

[Bryan Ekers]

Watergate was leaked on purpose just to make the idea of a lasting conspiracy unlikely in the minds of the sheeple, allowing the real conspiracies to continue unchecked.

[JohnT]

Even smaller, Bill Clinton couldn't get a blowjob without it becoming a national scandal.

[CurtC]

This thread has devolved into an argument about epistemology?

I'll agree with brazil84 that it's useful to, at some point in your life, consider questions such as, how do I know India is real? How do I know that the Moon landings happened? Since there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist, does it therefore warrant my belief in God?

Then you use that and move on.

[Robot Arm]

I've been fortunate enough not to have encountered any Moon Hoaxers in my real life, but I would tell them the same thing I tell the handful of 9/11 Truthers I've run across:

In 1972, a couple guys broke into an office in a Washington hotel. The handful of people who knew about it couldn't manage to keep it a secret, and it brought down a presidential administration.

As conspiracies go, Watergate was pretty small potatoes, yet the conspiracy failed. What makes anybody think that a hoax on the scale of faking the moon landing or 9/11 could possibly remain covered up after all these years?To be fair, that's not really an iron-clad argument that conspiracies inevitably come to light. We don't know about the secrets that are successfully kept, only the ones which aren't.

[hotflungwok]

To be fair, that's not really an iron-clad argument that conspiracies inevitably come to light. We don't know about the secrets that are successfully kept, only the ones which aren't.
It's not iron clad, but it's a big indicator for how hard it is to keep a secret like that. If something only a few people knew about couldnt be kept secret, how can hundreds or thousands of people do it?

The head of the CIA couldnt keep an affair quiet. That's how hard it is.

[Czarcasm]

To be fair, that's not really an iron-clad argument that conspiracies inevitably come to light. We don't know about the secrets that are successfully kept, only the ones which aren't.That argument is useless:
"There is evidence showing that there is a conspiracy!"
"There is no evidence, which is evidence that there is a conspiracy"

[Human Action]

Their evidence is pathetic. It depends on the target not being familiar with some basics of science.

It also depends on the hoax proponent not being familiar with some basics of science. Most of these conspiracy theories are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), in which "unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."

This is why the proponents are bumpkins with leaf blowers and not MIT alums. They don't know how much they don't know; they have no basis for how outlandish their claims are because they have no grounding in the field of study (engineering, physics, etc) they're addressing.