I personally don't know anybody who believes in this moon hoax theory (maybe cause I live in canada), but just look at this bulletin board - a whole section has to be devoted to the lunar conspiracy. Crazy...

It would be nice if this BB would be the only place where this crap is discussed, but it is discussed nearly everywhere where some space related stuff is discussed...
Could be interesting if there would be intelligent arguments, but when always the same crap is coming up (missing stars, van Allen belt, crater under LM) one gets pretty tense...
But one has to give first a nice reply. Only when it gets clear that the other just wants to provoke you, i.e. he's a troll... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]

harald

There is a small group of people who latch onto almost any conspiracy "theory", I guess because it fills some emotional need. These people cannot be blasted loose from their belief with dynamite. They are basically impervious to facts and logic.

Note that I quote "theory" because real theories can be falsified if appropriate data is found. But a true HB (hoax believer) will always have as a last resort the claim that it's all part of the conspiracy, or some as yet unrevealed technology permitted A or B to happen, etc. In other words, true HBs will never allow their pet ideas to be falsified, and thus these ideas do not qualify as theories.

There is a larger group which may be drawn to such conspiracy "theories" for one reason or another, but can often be reached through patient dialog which exposes the gaping holes in the hoax idea. It is for these people that such exchanges as on this BB are useful.

It's also good for us, the regular denizens of this forum. Having to explain in often-excruciating detail and layman's terms is good exercise for the brain, and we often learn things we didn't know from the various people who are experts on this or that.

I also sort of enjoy trying to get people like cosmicdave to actually stand and deliver on a specific point. It almost never happens, but it's an interesting exercise, and one which demonstrates to the undecided just who is really willing to examine their own beliefs.

All that said, I firmly believe in being polite at all times to even the most obnoxious poster. I also freely confess to having failed in this on various occasions...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-07-03 11:50 ]</font>

Note that I quote "theory" because real theories can be falsified if appropriate data is found.

This can't be emphasized enough. It is the cornerstone concept of the entire epistemological process. "Falsified" in this context means "shown to be false" and not "fabricated", just in case anyone is confused. Any person who wants this theory to be accepted as true must demonstrate he has legitimately stuck his neck out and provided a genuine possibility for it to be proven false.

Affirmed consequents don't count. Circularities don't count. Tautologies don't count. Excluded middles don't count.

But a true HB (hoax believer) will always have as a last resort the claim that it's all part of the conspiracy

Argumentum ad hominem, basically saying, "Why should I listen to you? You're just a girl (Jew, Muslim, government agent, engineer, etc.)." Sound logic is sound logic, whether it comes from a logician, the Pope, a CIA assassin, or a beggar in the street. And poor logic is poor logic, whether it comes from any of the aforementioned.

or some as yet unrevealed technology permitted A or B to happen

Formally,

"X implies A. I observe A, therefore X."

"Affirmed consequent -- if X implies A it does not follow that A implies X. Further, X also implies C and we do not observe C. If X implies C, then not-C implies not-X."

"Okay, (X and Y) implies A, and (X and Y) implies not-C."

"Sigh, but (X and Y) implies D, and D is not observed."

"Easy enough, (X and Y and Z) implies A, and (X and Y) implies not-C, and (X and Y and Z) implies not-D."

... and so forth ad nauseam. X, Y, and Z never appear on the right hand side of an implication rule and so they can never be proven. The conspiracy theorist merely adds complexity to the hypothesis without getting any closer to the solution. In fact, by complicating the hypothesis he makes it more difficult to prove. In the final example, the conspiracist is setting himself up to be required to prove all of X, Y, and Z, whereas in the first version of his argument he merely had to prove X.

Algebraically it's like trying to solve

x + y = 0.

The solution set has an infinite number of elements, because any pair (a, -a) satisfies the equation. The conspiracist approach would be to rewrite the equation as

(x + z) + (y - z) = 0.

Adding another variable only makes things more confusing and doesn't get you any close to the solution.

Because the hypothesis X never appears on the right hand side of an implication, the conspiracists try to prove it indirectly. They try to establish that X is probable simply because everything else they think of is less probable. But even if X is the most probable theory among some selected set of theories, that doesn't make it true, or even objectively probable.

I also sort of enjoy trying to get people like cosmicdave to actually stand and deliver on a specific point.

It's like pulling teeth. 90% of any conspiracy argument is handwaving, and it's hard to get past that. This is why I sometimes come across as overly aggressive. It's not because I'm trying to ruin some person's day. It's because I'm trying to push through the many layers of handwaving (which fool many readers) and get to the nugget of just what that person knows about a subject.

For example, Cosmic Dave says the chances of the pattern of astronaut deaths in the 1960s occurring by chance is 1 in 10,000. To me, that means there should be a page of computations, the bottom line of which reads "p < 0.0001". I want to see that page of computations. To reproduce just the results of it is highly dishonest.

But I'm sure you believe as I do, that no such computation exists and that the "1 in 10,000" figure is simply plucked out of the air. That's even more dishonest.

Well, to answer the original post, I put in a section here about Lunar Conspiracies because, by default, I became a big debunker of this thing. I happened to have a page ready when Fox aired their program in 2001, and it got a lot of attention. Clearly, JayUtah's site is more thorough than mine, and I try to point people there every chance I get.

And yes, it is a popular theory amongst conspiracy theorists, and some small sector of the public, but despite the HBs' claims, it's still a very small percentage who even have doubts about the Moon landings.

According to the Orlando Sentinel poll, out of 848 people so far, only 105 (12.4%) believe in the hoax.

__________________
~AstroMike

Still 12.4% is a significantly large segment of the general population to have so uninformed about a defining moment in their own country's history (assuming the poll was done in the States). Scary.
I wonder what other historical events that 12.4% doesn't believe in?

It'd be interesting to know how people outside of the US (I'm obviously thinking about Sweden here) feel about this issue.

Frankly, until I found this board I didn't think anyone believed in the moan hoax - anywhere. It was like believing in Santa Claus to me - every adult person knows it's a hoax and yet the story goes around.

I had previously heard (but not seen it) of a TV show that was broadcasted on one of the less serious entertainment channels in Sweden. At that time I still thought no one took the hoax hypothesis seriously (and when I say no one, I mean that literally - I didn't think there were any real hoax believers, and that the whole thing was just a joke).

Then, after the show was broadcast, people started talking here. No one I met believed it, of course, but I realized there were a few Americans who did. Still, we have a saying here in Sweden that would translate something like "Oh, it's so American!" when we think something is ridiculous or ignorant. I thought that applied here as well, and didn't think more of it until I one day stumbled upon this board.

At the same time I overheard a discussion on the Net, where two Swedes discussed another hoax theory - let's call it the X hoax - unrelated to the moan hoax. The discussion played out something like this:

Man A: "Have you heard of the X hoax theory?"
Man B: "Yeah, it's really crazy."
Man A: "You're right. There must have been like a thousand people there to see it. The X hoax can never have happened. It's not like with the moon hoax where there was just a handful of people involved. That could actually have been a hoax."

My point is, beside that the reasoning is obviously ridiculous, that even if they didn't really believed in the moon hoax, some even more stupid people here *might* believe it.

Which leads me back to the beginning of my message here - I wonder how many people in other countries than the US belive in the moon hoax. I haven't seen any surveys of the Swedish view of it, but if anyone else has or have numbers for other countries, it would be interesting to see them posted here. Right?

Don't put TOO much credence in that Orlando Sentinel poll. Its hardly a random sampling and the 12.4 % figure is not of the general population but those that have responded thus far. Don't think this is really anything definitive in that they give no margin of error or any methodology other than being an obvious online poll.

fix typos


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Waarthog on 2002-07-03 18:13 ]</font>

I didn't think I'd do any more posting tonight but I caught this thread. M_Welander, I've read several of your posts and now see fit to say, I am Swedish. I also see fit to say I'm fairly ignorant of Swedish heritage and culture. (See that wasn't so hard). I'm Swedish on my Maternal Grandfather's side. Yet I don't know much, if anything about Sweden or the Swedes.

Admitting ignorance doesn't have to be hard. In fact, I'm now thinking about researching my geneology and Swedish history: The perpetual quest for knowledge.

Okay, to get this back remotely on topic. I've had discussions with friends and aquaintences about Man landing on the moon. I've asserted that this may be the largest accomplishment in the history of humankind. The HB's argument is a dishonorable slap in the face of this monumental acheivement.

Still, I have not seen the Fox show in its entirety. Yet, a couple of friends, one an engineer and up to that point a logical, critical thinker, talked up the merits of the program. This led me to search many sites and I have found this and Clavius to be the best.

In the US, it seems people are so easily swayed by 15 second sound bytes and what is refered to here as psuedo-science that historians and logical thinkers are fighting an uphill battle.

I apologize for rambling and not having a point (it's getting late), but I'm refreshed and encouraged by logical discourse; things that can be tested independantly of this, or any other website.

In closing, I promise to learn more about Sweden.







<font size=-1>[ small coding error fixed by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-07-04 22:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-07-04 22:20 ]</font>

Canadian and I watched the entire show and chuckled throughout it. I especially like the "waving" flag. How anyone that walks upright could not see the bad science in that one is beyond me.

Want to see posts by people who do believe the hoax? See http://www.bvalphaserver.com . I post there regulary and like the forums but I do get tired of being the lone conspiracy skeptic.

<a name="20020705.2:2"> page 20020705.2:2 aka TV & TVI
On 2002-07-05 00:50, jaydeehess wrote:
Canadian and I watched the entire s
So it easy for 2:25 A.M. HUb' to say
I probably missed it. but skeptic 1:
would rather `POISE there were few particles
of sufficient energy ariving from solar flares
to overRIDE the TV signal and illuminate the TV
screen with TVI making it a memorable time
realitively.. back to sleep 2:28 A.M. PST

I've done some research here on Swedish web pages concerning the moon hoax. Actually, in total I only found two pages dealing with it.

The first page is a message board message by someone who thinks the games of the recent soccer world cup were faked, and compare this to faking the moon landing. There's no solid information at all in the message, except a statement that "there are good reasons" for believing the moon landing was a hoax.

The second page is much longer. It seems to be part of a larger conspiracy site, but it only deals with the moon hoax. The fun thing is, the author claims to "want to believe" the moon landing was a hoax, but after having read Bill Kaysing's book the author has come to the conclusion that mr Kaysing is not trustworthy and can not be believed. So here we have a conspiracy web site which, after having read Kaysing's book, now believe the moon landing is real!

Let me translate and quote a part of the site (http://www.darling.se/nr36/fakelandning/):

"According to Bill Kaysing all evidence of the moon landing being a hoax can be found in the official images of the astronauts. He talks about shadows that are 'wrong' and unreasonable. Since the moon has just one light source - the sun - all shadows should be of equal lenght, according to him. Bill is right, if the moon was smooth as a billiard-ball, but with a surface that is uneven and has hills and mountains the 'unreasonable' shadows are no longer unreasonable.

Some more evidence:
A picture from Apollo 14 shows sharp foot steps in the sand below the moon lander. The sand below Apollo 14 should have blown away when the moon lander landed with the rocket engine directed downwards.
In the same image, the shadow side of Apollo 14 is visible where you can read the text 'United States'. The shadow side of things on the moon are black as coal since there is no atmosphere there and also no reflected light.
Not in any image can you see the sharp star light that should exist.
Neil and the boys have refused to talk with those who claim the moon landing was faked.
The moon buggy is too large to fit in the space created for it in the moon lander.
The hatches of the moon lander are too small for a fully dressed astronaut to enter or exit through them.
No images of the earth was taken from the moon. At least not during the first moon landing.
Stanley Kubrick is dead.

Many of these proofs are easy to refute. Starlight for example is difficult to catch in a photograph when the sun shines. Neil, Buzz and the others were on the moon during early day. Surely you can enter the moon lander in a space suit, but the astronauts must go exit, one after the other, backwards, so they don't tear up the extremely thin walls of the moon lander. Stanley Kubrick did live long enough..."

That was just part of it. While it is obvious the author doesn't really know what he's talking about, the fun thing is that he wanted to belive in a faked moon landing before he read Kaysing's book, and after reading it he believes the moon landing is real!


Thumper, I'd be glad to help you learning about Sweden, if you want.

I see that out of now 859 people voted, 108 (3 more) believe in the hoax.

__________________
~AstroMike