There has been heated discussion on these message boards
about whether or not the moon landings were faked. I have
the following questions:
Why does it matter to you personally if the moon landings
were faked or not? What possible affect would it have on
your life if they were or weren’t?
Why do you care if someone believes one way and you believe
the other? Do you think people believing the opposite of
what you do is going to have any repercussions on you?
You should move to Northern Ireland.
Some of us just happen to prefer the truth over lies. It may be an axiomatic thing–a first principle which can’t be proven but must be assumed. I could argue that Big Lies (some people are witches and have made pacts with the Devil; the Jews are evil subhumans; members of some “races” are inferior and are better off as slaves) have historically led to very bad things happening to large numbers of people (mass murder and persecution and enslavement). (Not wanting bad things to happen to people may in itself be an axiomatic first principle.) You could counter that we should only care about Big Lies which either do or are actually likely to lead to bad things happening to people–it’s not like some evil regime is hunting down and killing everyone who worked for NASA or Boeing or McDonnell Douglas in the '60’s in order to promote its twisted, Apollo-less version of history. I think that tolerating some Big Lies makes it harder to counter the others–I’m not confident that the habits of thought which will accept really blatant distortions of reality can be so easily compartmentalized. If someone will believe that the Moon landing was a hoax, how difficult is it for them to be persuaded that the hoax was perpetrated by the Jews? And that the Holocaust was also a hoax?
Besides that, I’m a good patriotic red-blooded American, and I’m proud of my country’s role in the exploration of space.
Ignorance is contiagious, stupidity is catching and a lie can travel around the world before the truth gets out the front door. Moron ideas like “The Moon Hoax” grow if not squashed, and squashed hard.
It’s not even interesting conspiracy theory. Lyndon LaRouche: That was good conspiracy. The Illuminati, that was fascinating. “The gummit faked sending us to the moon to fool the Soviets because um…fooling the Soviets was important…um…and…um…” C’mon. The modern “Moon Hoaxers” have removed the only interesting thing from the earlier version of the theory, that we stopped going to the Moon because the Grey Aliens told us to. The theory is dull and tawdry.
In addition, it’s a slap in the face to the courage and heroism of the astronauts who risked their lives in the persuit of one of the few unabashedly, unqualifiably good things our nation has done recently. Landing on the moon was a stunning achievement, technologically and socially. For some dunderhead to dismiss it as an evil gummint conspiracy is pathetic, diminishing and wrong.
Fenris
Unlike most of the people you addressed with the OP, to me, the moon landings are not just a historical event of no practical importance. I’m an astronomer. My colleagues and I depend on data provided by the space program every day.
If the moon landings were fake, there are two possibilities:
- Astronomers are all morons who were completely taken in by a some film from an Arizona sound stage (Anybody can tell it’s fake! Der, look! The flag is wavin’!), and some fake “moon” rocks, and tons and tons of data (most of whick the General Public hasn’t the faintest inkling about) that I guess must have been made up out of whole cloth. Most of what we think we know about the Moon, and by extension, much of our understanding of the rest of the solar system, is simply a fantasy based on false data that we were too dumb to figure out was faked. Everyone point and laugh at the stooopid astronomers who can’t tell an earth-rock from a moon-rock. Bet they don’t know a meteorite from a pile of manure. Better not give those idiots any money.
or - Astronomers are stinking liars who deliberately deceive the public, the same public we are supposed to be serving by discovering the truth about the Universe.
I don’t like either option. Therefore I do not appreciate the notion that the moon landings were fake, or young-earth creationism, or any other pseudoscience that makes scientists out to be either idiots or liars.
Plus, what everybody else said.
Well, I was going to post my reason here, but through some sort of cosmic mind meld, or something, Fenris already said it, and much better that I ever could have:
**
**
Not to mention the astronauts who died in the earlier missions. To say that the who thing was faked is infuriating. You might as well claim that the vets of WWII were actors in the biggest hoax of all time.
A less emotional argument: check the tag line here. We’re here to help fight ignorance. The most cursory examination of the moon hoax “evidence” shows it to be wishful thinking.
Doesn’t it matter to you what the truth about something is? If not, then why are you reading this message board?
Let me start with a disclaimer: I find fringe science, conspiracy theories, etc. very interesting, but I’m not a “believer.” I’m very skeptical and enjoy debunking tremendously. But I also know our government lies to us regularly about countless topics, and I know traditional scientists can be very close-minded and resistant to new ideas, often in spite of significant evidence. And I’m definitely one of those aforementioned people who cares about the difference between truth and lies.
Fenris: Relax, eh? 
It’s never wrong to question what any authority tells us and expects us to take on faith.
I watched a video of the moon-landing-was-faked show just the other day. Coming into it, my attitude was, “Oh, Christ, people actually buy this shit?” After watching the show, though, I did end up with a feeling that there were some significant unanswered questions. Even if these questions have mundane answers, I’d still like them answered.
Another conspiracy theory I’ve heard with regards to the moon landings, and which wasn’t presented on the show, is that we did indeed go to the moon, but we found or did something there that needed to be kept secret, so we faked the footage that was shown to the public. This would account for the fact that countless geologists and other scientists have examined what are clearly genuine moon rocks.
Yesterday I attended a lecture by a man named Robert Hastings dealing with the government’s knowledge of UFO’s. At first this sounds kooky, yes, but he’s not dealing in wild speculation and fantasy. The focus of his presentation is a collection of documents obtained by FOIA request that clearly show that the government believes that the UFO phenomenon is real, that it originates from beyond this world, and that they have a long-standing policy of denial with regards to this in order to prevent public panic of the sort seen when War of the Worlds was originally aired on radio. He makes no claims that aliens visit this world - only that the government believes that they do. That, to me, is extremely interesting, and well worth further investigation. Maybe the government is just being paranoid and ignorant and there’s nothing to any of this, but regardless of what the answer is, I definitely want to know the answer.
>Doesn’t it matter to you what the truth about something is?
>If not, then why are you reading this message board?
I am concerned about what the truth about a lot of things
is, sometimes just out of curiosity. But if it is a
thing which has so little practical application to me (I
can see no practical application for me knowing whether
or not the moon landings were faked), and the only
evidence I can personally examine is some film footage which
I would have to sit down with a stop watch and ruler and
track dust particles on the tv screen for hours on end
(which I wouldn’t enjoy at all) to evaluate, then I move on
to other more fun, interesting, or practical things to
explore.
I have no personal stake in the credibility of any
organization connected to the alleged moon landings, and
even if the landings were faked, I could still watch some
moon landing recreation movies and be just as inspired by
fiction as fact.
I didn’t realize what we believe about the solar system is
so dependent on analysis of the moon rocks! Perhaps I will
(later) ask a general question about how much it depends.
Just Curious,
Ever read 1984 by George Orwell?
It probably doesn’t
matter to George.
1984 was, like, a
long time ago. It
happened back in
the Eighties. The
Eighties are over.
OK, this is flat-out false. It is, to put it bluntly, a LIE. Lies make Baby Jesus cry. You don’t want to make Baby Jesus cry, do you? Then stop lying.
If they were fake then it would show that NASA was trying to milk us for more of our money. Assuming it was fake, they would have made alot of extra money cause it cost a lot less to do some special effects than to really put something in orbit like that.
If we forget that, then we may repeat it.
I take serious issue with this assertion as well. Science is, due to its very nature, self-correcting. All sorts of ideas float around out there. The ones with no evidence are disregarded. Once enough evidence has accrued, they are “provisionally accepted as true” (a phrase I got off Skeptic.com, and which I like a lot).
Case in point: continental drift.
Alfred Wegener, towards the end of the 1800’s, gathered some geological evidence to suggest tectonic shifting and the movement of land masses. His evidence was not sufficient to overturn accepted beliefs; he was, after all, proposing an rather radical and revolutionary notion. He died without seeing his theory accepted.
It languished for decades. As late as 1950, it was still pretty much in the “not a chance” column. Then, in rapid fashion, a lot of deep-core-drilling work, satellite photography, geomagnetic studies, and other disciplines happened to come together, and in the space of ten years, geology was turned upside down. Continental drift went from “ha ha, try again” to “accepted mainstream dogma” in under a decade, a virtual eyeblink given the revolutionary nature of the idea.
Responsible scientists, given enough evidence, have no problem changing their beliefs. I take issue with your assertion.