Wayneee asked:
Quote:
|
If it was a hoax? What would conscrue as evidence?
|
Do you mean construe?
By the way, good question. This is what's known as falsifiability. It's what makes a theory scientific. There are a number of pieces of evidence, which, if they could be shown to exist, would show that Apollo did not happen as NASA claims.
Quote:
|
Someone coming forward, that was involved?
|
This would be a start. It would give people something to investigate further. But by itself, it's not strong evidence. For example, the person could be lying, or mentally incompetent.
But if we were imagine a scenario in which Apollo was faked, and this person coming forward was the first step in uncovering a hoax, then what would happen next? Well, I'd be asking this person some very specific questions about their role in the hoax, and their wider knowledge of the hoax. I'd be asking them to name other people and direct us to documents and other evidence which would back up their claim.
After all, the hoax would have to explain a range of factors which are currently seen as evidence supporting the reality of Apollo.
Quote:
|
High resolution image of moon by a probe finding no Apollo junk?
|
This would be very convincing if evidence could be produced. After all, there are no plausible mechanisms or reasons for removing the junk. It's possible that natural events have destroyed all the Apollo junk, but no one says it's plausible within 35 years.
Quote:
|
Discovery that Moon rock and Rock core samples are not actualy from moon?
|
That by itself wouldn't be convincing. After all, the rocks could have been faked on Earth, but the missions still performed.