For those looking for a poll on whether the moon landings were real or faked, here's a link. I know the results are off, because you used to be able to vote as many times as you want.

I'm surprised the "I'm not sure" category is only 1%. This tells me that the hoax phenomenon is really an anti-establishment thing rather than a debate over evidence. If there was a real debate going on there would be more confused people in the middle, but instead we are seeing people apparently willing to jump to the hoax side with little questioning.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

Well, I certianly agree with your "anti-establishmentism" conclusion. But that's how I've always felt about most HB'ers.

I suppose I should also follow the rules and take some time to research myself instead of letting Jay do all the refuting Opinion only takes you so far (which isn't very far at all).

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

78% say it happened, but 19% think it was faked. Hmmmm. I vaguely recall something about three or four years ago (I think) where I think the group that thought it was faked was about 15%. Does anyone know if this was in fact the case? If so, might this suggest there a worrying (I would probably say disappointing) trend towards conspiracy theories?

Does anyone know of any such survey/s that have been done over the last few years? It would I think make interesting reading, although whether any conclusions could be gained I would doubt, knowing the nature of many surveys, polls etc.

Thoughts anyone?

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Those polls are done all the time. I've seen them as low as 8-9% believe they were faked to as high as 30-40%. I remember one poll claiming more than 50% for the HB-side.

Which really begs the question of who's being polled and how is the question(s) being presented. That's the classic problem with polls, and also the reason poll results should not be used as evidence. They can be helpfull tools, but not evidence.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

That sums it up...any results from this poll are meaningless.

I voted and when I tried a second vote I got "You've already voted, but here are the current totals"...

Usually information about such polls spreads fast among those who represent the radical minority. Pro Apollo People simply do not care to go there to give their vote. At least I do not.
But for HBs its a great opportunity to make their own statistics....

Ahhh. Just tried it again. You can vote again after a minute or so.
Again, the effort to return every minute to vote again is nothing I would like to do. Other more "radica minded" people might want to do so...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

I have always been skeptical of any internet polls for several reasons:

1. As pointed out on some you can vote as many times as you want.
2. I would suggest that people with an interest in the subject are the only ones likely to vote, and of course, if there is an option for a conspiracy/hoax, that will probably attract proportinally more like minded people. For Apollo, many of us (on this board) probably couldn't be bothered to vote, as we know the answer.
3. Along with option 2 above, the pro-hoaxers probably actively encourage others to vote to "help their cause" ... thus they can then say "in a recent poll 73.7% of people said they believe Apollo was a hoax..."

Personally, I would be more inclined to believe a street poll (to some extent), as long as it followed full polling "rules" and the sample was at least, say, 5000 people spread across the country. However, these type of polls cost money to set up and operate. An internet poll can be done for nothing.

Well, that about sums it up. You get what you pay for ......


Well there you go. That proves a point ..... which one it proves, I will let you know later when I've made it up ...... errrr ...... worked out the results...

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

It wouldn't be hard to code up a macro to vote automagicly every minute and seriously screw the numbers, particularly if the person doing so had control of some zombied machines.

Ok, that would be possible, but I shrink away from blaming HBs to be criminals...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

I'd say the majority of the HB's I have "debated" with have been anti-authority and especially anti-US Government. They generally have also followed the LHO didn't act alone and that 9/11 is a coverup as well.

A lot of them have a belief that the US Government is evil and always lies. Whether they then determine that as they always lie and they say Apollo happened it must have been a lie, or if they work on the basis that Apollo would have been mankind's greatest achievement and this can't be allowed to have been done by such an evil entity, I'm not sure, but the basis of their claims often ends up being that the US Government lies about everything and anyone that supports the offical version is a US Government stooge.

__________________
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

19% say faked. I'd love to see that poll broken down by geographic location.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Good catch. I completely agree.

It's almost like a partisan, conservative/liberal dividing line. Very little room for gray area.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Just to get back to the original topic of the thread, I thought I'd share this latest quote from Jarrah W, last night on YT. I got a good chuckle out of it, after slapping my forehead until it was red.

As you may or may not know, I included a short clip from the Apollo 11 30:28GET TV transmission in my video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SRV7elUFjo

Long story short - my narrator says, "the shot never cuts away" (which it doesn't). Jarrah immediately claimed I had lied about it being unedited.

His rationale: The entire 24-minute 30:28 transmission contained a few edits, and I was clearly referring to the entire video, not the clip in question.



Ok, so I asked him point blank if the "shot" I referred to in LL5 contained any edits. His hilarious reply:

JarrahWhite (2 hours ago)
"It only appears continuous in LL5 because you conveniently edited any interruptions out that would prove it wasn't a continuous shot."

To summarize: I supposedly took an edited clip, and edited it even further, to make it appear unedited.

<sigh>

I don't know what more I can do here people.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Now you understand why I long ago gave up on Jarrah White.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

LOL.

Yeah, it appears to be a dry well.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

I found it funny that the person who has this quote was asking for backup for the assertion that it was a hoax. Is my logic flawed for thinking perhaps he should be asking for backup for the assertion that it happened?

It depends on the precise claims and counterclaims.

If someone claims he has been abducted by aliens in their spaceship, then he has the burden to prove that. Producing witnesses who testify to having seen it happen partly carries that burden of proof. Circumstantial or physical evidence carries another part of it. If the sum of that evidence satisfies some standard, then the claim can be considered plausible. But if there are no witnesses and no evidence, the claim can be dismissed.

But where witnesses and circumstantial or physical evidence can be explained in other ways, a claim has to show the preponderance of evidence above all other explanations. If someone says the witnesses are mistaken or lying, and that objective evidence has been faked or is inconclusive or can be variously interpreted, then he has a burden to establish his own explanation above the others. It's an affirmative defense: one that rebuts a claim by arguing that the evidence is better explained by a specific proposition other than the claim.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

May I ask where you debate the majority of these HB's?

I concur. But I seem to keep reading claims from others who have engaged these hardcore types, who support the idea that there's a common thread of anti-Americanism in play. That supports my argument that the patterns I'm seeing aren't my imagination.

All other factors being equal, do you think the current percentage of hoax believers in the UK would remain the same if the moon had six Union Jacks planted in it, instead of U.S. flags?

Implying they don't actually believe what they're arguing? If that were the case, why would they be arguing the same points against their own countrymen in many cases?

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02