We've often had threads about what evidence might de-convert a hard core HB to accepting the reality of the Moon Landings. However, I'd be interested in the hypothetical question [donning tinfoil hat now]:

What evidence would make you really doubt Apollo took place?

We also have to address the question of what is necessary evidence and what is sufficient evidence. For example, if some HB scientist found a way to manufacture absolutely convincing, fake moon rocks, in a way that could have been done in 1969, then one strand of evidence for Apollo is weakened. But the sum total of evidence is still standing.

The first 4 options in the Poll would be enough to turn me into a HB.

Rob.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Leak of a signed "fake it!" order from Richard Nixon
Dick came too late into power to stage the whole thing.

A sequestered confession from an Apollo astronaut
Depends on who makes the confession and under which circumstances.

Convincing Moon-rocks made in an Earth lab
That something can be faked is no evidence that something was faked

High res photos show nothing at the landing sites
Can be faked

I'd never doubt the reality of Apollo. Ever.
The pro-moonlanding evidence is so overwhelming and coherent, that I can't imagine that it was faked.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

The amount of evidence is so diverse that challenging a single piece, such as being able to produce moon-rocks in a lab, does not dismiss all of the evidence (and just because such rocks could be produced now it doesn't mean they could have then). The same goes for the photos, especially in this day and age where photo-manipulation is widespread.

A detailed confession by a major player in the landings, such as Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin, would have a lot more weight. We'd definately have to reexamine the evidence and analyze the details of the confession.

To me the first three items are not convincing evidence that it "was" faked. For instance, the discovery of one fake rock doesn’t disprove the authenticity of the others. An order from Nixon saying fake it doesn't automatically invalidate all the evidence saying it was real. And how do we know that a confession from an astronaut is not the result of a vendetta or mental problem. The only thing I see on your list that would be real direct evidence of a fake is the absence of the Apollo hardware on the Moon, and then only if the images were or sufficient resolution and precision that all alternative explanations could be eliminated.

On the other hand, if a combination of the first three items occurred or if several reliable witnesses came forward and confessed, then I'd might be forced to change my mind. But the evidence would have to be pretty overwhelming and a convincing explanation of how it was faked would have to be offered.

If Neil Armstrong would suddenly hold a press conference and say, that he never went to the Moon, there would be some possible explanations that are more likely than a moon-hoax:

-Neil went silly
-Terrorists have taken his grandchild as a hostage and pressed him to make the statement
-Neil wins a bet
-Neil showing more humour than ever someone imagined
-...

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

That's an important point. The provenance of the photos would have to be convincing. I would want to know the source of the data, which agency or individual, and how it was come by. I'd also want an independent photo by a different agency, even by a different probe.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I'd put my money on that being the likely explanation.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I think the moon rock faking would be one too. If we have the capability to create fake moon rocks, it would show that our government has technology that's probably centuries ahead of our current technology. Of course if that were true then we probably could go to the moon.

Leak of a signed "fake it!" order from Richard Nixon

Nixon was not president during the developmental procedures, and even if he did give such an order, I would still want evidence that that order was adhered to, and that someone at NASA didn't say 'excuse me, Mr President, but we can actually do this for real, so why bother faking it?' and then go ahead with the real deal.

This scenario would also still require evidence to be found of how it was faked.

A sequestered confession from an Apollo astronaut

The truth of Apollo does not hinge upon the testimony of one man. I would want to know the circumstances of that confession before I put any stock in it, and then I would still want the evidence for how it was faked. I'd also want verification by the other members of that crew. Even then, there are other missions that are still not touched by the confession of one astronaut. If Neil Armstrong confesses that Apollo 11 was faked, that has no bearing on the subsequent missions.

Convincing Moon-rocks made in an Earth lab

Would prove nothing. The announcement that moonrocks could be faked now in no way directly undermines the authenticity of the Apollo samples.

High res photos show nothing at the landing sites

These would still need verification. This is probably the item most likely to cause real concern, but there would still need to be exhaustive investigation to rule out any other alternatives.

I'd never doubt the reality of Apollo. Ever.

There is so much evidence in favour of the reality of Apollo that it seems unlikely that there could ever be enough evidence of fraud to undermine it all.
[/b]

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

As has been said by others, no single thing would do it for me. There is just too much out there that we can check against our own expertise to determine the validity of Apollo. I would need to see how the entirety of how it was done and corroborating documentation on the deception plan speaking of it as such.

Yes, I'd practically want a book entitled How We Faked the Moon Landings, along with corroborating evidence.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'd be vary wary of ticking the "Nothing would convince me, ever!" box. That's basically a faith statement, if you are saying that no amount of evidence, whatever it is, would make you doubt Apollo.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Yeah, I could be convinced that the Apollo missions were faked...IF I woke up tomorrow and discovered that the last 35+ years of my life were all a dream. You know...kinda like what happened on the TV show Dallas.

Seriously, the problem is the documented evidence demonstrating that the Moon landings actually took place ...somehow it would ALL have to "go away".

I just don't see that happening...

You'd have to pry ALSJ from my cold dead hands!

(I love that phrase )

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

That's my vote too. But as Yorkshireman said, you can't pick the last point either, because it is unscientific to say no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise. Still, I'd happily bet $100 that no one will ever come up with a preponderance of such evidence so as to convince me that we didn't land.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Yorkshireman,

I ticked the "nothing would convince me" box because you left no other reasonable option, only 4 ways to agree with you and one easily derideable way to disagree.

You should have just given us a "none of the above" option.

I think I would need evidence of similar weight to that which I see in favour of us actually having gone to the moon.

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

I realise I could have set up a 'None of the above' option. And 100% of people then could have picked it - what I tried to do here was put in a 'grade' of counter-evidence from the stuff like (1). which, if it convinces anybody on it's own, they are probably half-believing it anyway - to (3) which would make most of us sit up and go what??? if it were actually to occur. And hopefully see what other items people might have picked in their stead, or in addition.

I don't see picking any of the option 1) to 3) as agreeing with me, as I hoped it was clear from the opening post that I'm definitely not a HB. But often enough on this board, people ask a HB for what threshold of evidence would convince them that we did go to the Moon, and the HB always skirts the point. I decided to play the reverse argument for a 'what-if' scenario. That's why I am a bit startled by the number of votes for 'I'll never be moved. My faith is a rock.'

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I chose the confession scenario, though it would balance the scale of evidence as opposed to tipping it in favor of a hoax. You'd have to be able to examine the confession forensically. Where did they actually go during the mission? What was the motive for a hoax? Where's the paper trail? The astronauts would have had to be so heavily entrenched in the hoax that they should also be able to provide some pretty compelling coraborative evidence. Lacking such coraboration, you would have to look at "state of mind" or other factors that might tend to impeach the claim.

[ Edit: I cast my vote before the previous post, in case anyone is wondering :wink: ]

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

I picked Hi-Rez photos of the site, but understanding that they are from some probe or obervation that is verifiable and repeatable, and public. Not Weekly World News standard. I am not losing sleep worrying about this possiblity however. More photos can only help our cause! \/

All the photos I have seen of the landing site, including hi-res pics, have Apollo hardware in them!


Any "evidence" would also have to explain away the enormous historical record that already exists. One picture can't do that.

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test