Ok, so all the HB's points can be debunked, which means there is no proof that we didn't land on the moon.
So now I'm after a list of points that prove we did.

eg. the lack of dust clouds billowing up from the rover because of the lack of air

Once I have a good list I'll add them to my site.

thanks guys!

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

The dust wouldn't billow at all BECAUSE of the lack of air. The dust would move in an arc away from where it was hit by the exhaust and not form a cloud of particles as seen on Earth.

Anyway, the evidence that we did land on the moon is in abundance. Check out all the photos and video taken on the surface of the moon, the 800lbs or so of moon rock brought back, the evidence from tracking stations all over the world and the sworn testimony of all the lunar astronauts.

What more proof do you need!

Indigo, I dont think you read my post properly.

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

no I read it properly, I just don't think it made sense :-?

It makes perfect sense. Read it again.

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

You've asked for a list of points that proved we went to the moon. I supplied a list in the sentence (rocks, photos, tracking, testimony) etc.

What I suspect you actually want is a list of hoax believer points with short snappy answers, but that's a different thing altogether. I'm not being deliberately pedantic, but "proof we went" is a different thing from "de-bunking alleged proof we didn't go".

I admit I may have mis-read your comment about dust clouds though.

What I'm after is "proof we went"

I want to be able to say a little more than "photos and video taken" as a point of proof.

For example, on my site I want a list of points with explanations such as:
1. lack of dust clouds from lunar rover. On earth, due to air, clouds of dust would be kicked up and would billow around in the air before eventually settling back to the ground. In this video clip [instert link] it clearly shows no such clouds, hence proof that there was no air and thus was not filmed on earth

Thanks to anyone who has the time to write one in here.

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

Lack of dust on the LM footpads, for the same reason. That's the first one that comes to mind for me, and I've long got a laugh out of hoax promoters claiming that it's proof of a hoax. Quite the contrary.

It's hardly "proof", but another strong indicator is the clarity of distant mountains, particularly Mount Hadley.

Then at Taurus-Littrow we have photos taken on the surface that show features that are also visible in photos taken from orbit, sometimes from more than one angle. I could whip up some examples if they're of any use.

Regarding rocks, in many cases from Apollo 15 to 17 there are stereo pair still photos (sometimes before and after), photos taken by the other astronaut of the first one at the rock, plus live TV images of the astonaut(s) at the rock taken by Ed Fendall. Then there are the rocks themselves which match all those images and are definitely not from earth.

I'm really not picking fault for the sake of it, but ultimately every point will boil down to the videos and photos etc.

For example, you state for the lunar rover example that no billowing dustclouds were seen in video (insert link here ergo it was not filmed on earth.

You're still using the primary evidence (i.e. videos) as ultimate proof.

What the Hoaxers would have us think was that the video was filmed in a massive vacuum chamber, but since they offer no evidence for that other than the statement itself, it lends weight to the "we did go" argument.

It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that what you should be doing is saying to non-believers... "Look, here is all the evidence that we went. Take this evidence and use it to carefully and scientifically prove that it is invalid, THEN present your own evidence showing how it was faked or we didn't go".

Give the footage to hoax believers. If they then say "Why doesn't the dust billow - it must be fake" you can then provide them with an answer.

Right,

So the fact that the dust didnt billow isn't proof, because it could have been faked.

I'll scrap that one. I'm starting to think that it cannot be proven that we went; just highly probable based on the collateral from the event.

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

I suppose "proof that we went" boils down to the evidence.

For me, the most important evidence is the "testimony" of the astronauts, technicians, everyone else involved in Apollo, all of whom state categorically that we went to the moon. Let's face it, these are the only people who actually know that because they were all involved in making it happen. They assert it happened, and to support their assertion they have tens of thousands of photographs, hundreds of hours of TV pictures, video and audio and over 800 pounds of rocks from various locations on the lunar surface.

Is there any evidence that any of the many thousands of involved persons are lying, and their "testimony" and supporting evidence should be disregarded?

[Stupid Analogy] I have to work late one evening, and I tell my wife that is why I won't be home until 8 rather than 5. She believes me and doesn't ask me to take a photo of me at my desk, with the clock behind me showing 7:45 (which is dead easy to fake of course) to prove that I was there and not with another woman.

Why? Because she trusts me. [/Stupid Analogy]

From my (admittedly limited) sight of the HBs arguments, it strikes me that their fundamental issue is that they just don't trust NASA, or anyone who actually knows about the space programme, to tell them the truth. Hence the prevalence of "it's fake because it looks fake to me" arguments, their unwillingness to acknowledge the accuracy of the scientific de-bunkings of their "theories" and their frequent recourse to stuff like "well, you would say that because you're just another NASA stooge".

The proof that we went is all right there without getting too much into the technicalities of why it proves that we went.

In 1969 Apollo was accused of landing men on the moon, and they have been found guilty well beyond a reasonable doubt.



Erm ... and I'll shut up now, after easily the longest first post I have made on any bulletin board ever.

Cheers,

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

You are going to need to have some sort of cut off level for your proofs, becuase the HBs will always have some sort of ridiculous response. For example, I could say that Australia doesn't exist. I never been there, all I've ever seen is photos and maps and that not proof enough.

Personally, the moon rocks are good enough for me. No geologist has ever said that they were fakes and tens of thousands of people have looked at them. Expert opinion from thousands of people works for me.

It doesn't, it's just a hoax made up by us Kiwis to make Americans and Brits look foolish.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

make Americans and Brits look foolish

I bite my tounge

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

Hush you, you don't exist, you are part of the Hoax.

By the way, welcome to the board.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

ohhhhhhh yeh!

heh
Thanks mate!

__________________
Faith: Not wanting to know what is true

What!!?? You mean the 3 weeks I spent travelling around seeing places such as Melbourne, Sydney and Cairns was all a figment of my imaginaton. Oh wait you said the hoax is for Americans and Brits, I guess for Canadians it's all real. Hmm, maybe I should plan a trip to NZ to see how you Kiwis pulled this off. :wink:

__________________
" The universe is running away
I heard it on the news just the other day
There's this new stuff called dark energy
We can't measure and we can't see..." - from Jimmy Buffett's What if the hokey pokey is all it really is about?

Evidence we went:

- Rocks
- Tracking of spacecraft by independent sources
- Receipt of data by independent sources
- Lengthy videos and movies with no continuity errors
- Evidence of 1/6 gravity in videos and movies
- Evidence of vacuum in videos and movies (dust arcing, not billowing)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

As JayUtah is fond of saying it is impossible to 100% prove any historical event. (Or I might be putting words in his mouth, but I hope not.) All we can do is find evidence to make us pretty certain that we know what did happen.

Roger, it's also important remember that the dissenting opinion has the burden of proof. A classic HB tactic is to try and move the work over to you and it really shows that deep down they don't want their beliefs to be challenged by something as menial as actual research. I think the info you have on your site is good stuff. If you want to add a little more then instead of saying "here are X things that prove we went" maybe say "prove we didn't go inspite of these X things" that places the burden firmly on the shoulders that should bear it.

Personally my favorite value for X is several hundred pounds of moon rock.

So the fact that the dust didnt billow isn't proof, because it could have been faked.

No, that's not a valid line of reasoning. In order to affirmatively refute, you need proof of actuality. Stated another way, the possibility of something's having been faked is not evidence that it was faked. Affirmative rebuttals have a burden of proof, even in a court.

To refresh your memory, an affirmative rebuttal seeks to refute a hypothesis explaining a certain observation by showing that another explanation accounts for it. This is actually widely used in court as well as in more balanced logical pursuits.

I.e., if the prosecutor alleges that Joe broke into Tom's apartment and cites as evidence Joe's fingerprints on Tom's window frames, Joe might defend himself by claiming he was repairing Tom's window. That is an affirmative rebuttal. It claims a different action -- not breaking and entering -- accounts for the observation of Joe's fingerprints in a suspicious place on Tom's property. But Joe has the burden of proof here -- even in court, even though he is the defendant. He cannot merely suggest that he was repairing the window. He must supply proof of it, such as written permission from the landlord to do the work, receipts for materials, etc.

So when the conspiracists claim that this or that isn't proof "because it could have been faked," that's insufficient. They need to provide proof that it was faked, and that proof must exclude the observation that is to be accounted for. And of course this is what they cannot do. It is a rhetorical attempt to place an unmanageable burden of proof upon their opponents, asserting they must prove their scenario is not merely the most likely explanation, but the only possible explanation. That's simply a much higher standard of proof than can ever be met in historical research.

I'll scrap that one. I'm starting to think that it cannot be proven that we went; just highly probable based on the collateral from the event.

That is a sufficient standard of proof for historical research. You can't ever prove beyond any doubt that something happened. You can only show that a certain scenario is the most likely explanation of all those that have been studied. And certainly the "official" story for Apollo is much more likely than any conspiracy theory that has been claimed.

The conspiracists offer little evidence of their own. Their case is based almost exclusively on trying to explain away or distract from evidence that shows we did go. Hence the reliance on "inconsistency" and "anomaly", or by wrong-headed reasoning like, "Well, that could have been faked, so it's not proof." They're trying to get you not to believe in the mounds of evidence available, or better yet -- not even to look at it.

Then they set up simplistic arguments to "show" that the "anomalies" can "only" be explained by their pet theory, even though they fall short of showing anything of the sort. Here's my essay on indirect proof:

http://www.clavius.org/holmes.html

I say simplistic because they try to establish a very oversimplified expectation -- e.g., "shadows must always be parallel" -- against which to measure the evidence. Most of these are attractive arguments because they appeal to the uneducated common sense. But in falling over themselves to show why the Apollo evidence can't be used to support the official story, they forget to provide any actual proof for their theories. They want you to believe that fakery is the "default" explanation, and if the official story can't be 100% vindicated, you "must" believe in their theory.

And so to that end they try to boil down the whole issue to one black-and-white question which they believe they can answer definitively -- e.g., "there simply was too much radiation". This too is a rhetorical tactic designed to ke