You’ve been taken in by the shadowy conspiracy. Anyone should know that a group of them are referred to as “Big Feet”
“Chewie is my co-pilot”
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.
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.
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.
I’d sent John Glenn over to kick his ass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Can we at least all agree that most people are fuckin’ idiots?
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).
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.
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 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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
No.
Yes. So what?
Ok, so something which you currently believe to be a “plain fact” might still be worthy of debate.
Same with me. So what?
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?
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.
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.