I'm not a conspiracy nut job, like they say "your not paranoid if they are actually out to get you" )

Honestly though, I've read a lot about alternative history, I deeply enjoy challenge the norm. I believe there is evidence of all kinds of errors in the orthodox view of history that warrant at minimum, further investigation. That being said, I'm here because of the moon landings.

I have two things to state.

#1 Why isn't there any detailed photos of the moon? Why isn't there any photos of the landing area from Earth and/or Space (orbiting satellites). How can Google Earth focus in on my deck chairs in my back yard but they can't show even the faintest pixelation of some foreign object on the moon? I would think that some eccentric billionaire would have built a satellite that could take a picture by now... but nothing? Numerous satellites have been sent back to the moon since the 70's yet still no updated digital photos?

Now my second statement. Yes I am aware that there is a reflector on the surface of the moon. I do not dispute that. However, you must also agree that evidence of a man made object on the moon is not proof enough that man has actually set foot on the moon. Is it not possible that a probe could remotely deposit the reflector on the moon's surface?

I'm not saying that they did, only that it's possible.

If I could only see a photo of the landing sites I would be convinced, yet for some reason there is nothing. Any ideas on this?

-----

Also to save time I've done a little of my own research. I know of this page that gives reasons as to why we can't photograph the moon in detail. It states that a satellite (Smart-1) will be taking detailed photos and that they should be able to release them in a few months.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0238.shtml

This article was dated 24 July 2005...

Welcome to BAUT.

The search feature will lead you to many threads here explaining why imaging the Apollo landing sites from the vicinity of Earth is problematic. However, to claim that no photos exist at all is no longer accurate. See this the thread, LRO sees lunar landing sites for the ever-improving images being acquired by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. One of the posts in that thread links to this image of the Apollo 14 site. You can see the trails left by the astronauts and their Mobile Equipment Transporter.

The images will only get better once the LRO settles into its orbit.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Well there you go then. I guess that means we didn't find evidence of an ancient civilization on the moon and then created a cover up by faking the landings and hiring the face men (buzz and neil) to play the puppet?

I wonder what else will become clear as the surface is fully mapped...

Much of the imagery used by Google Earth for extreme zooms were taken by aircraft, rather than satellite.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on only the reflectors. We have samples of the Lunar regolith including rocks of varying sizes (many photographed prior to collection), dust, and core samples. In flight telemetry was independently verified by international sources, including amateurs. There's much more. None of this evidence points to the construction, launch, and operation of a secret probe.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Here you go:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html

Are you convinced now?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Yes, reflectors can be placed remotely. The Russians actually did it.

But, does anyone have evidence that any alleged devices remotely placed those reflectors claimed to be placed by Apollo?

* Design of them
* Build of them
* Launch of them
* Operation of them
* Payment for them
...and note just how many people it takes to design/build/launch/operate such devices.

No, sorry. Lack of evidence for such a mission, and the difficulty of keeping it secret if it had been done, renders this suggestion no better than that magic fairies placed the reflectors.

(* and... can we see the alleged devices in the LRO photos?)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

The evidence is mounting. That being said, to be convinced of anything is dangerous, because in truth we can never really know anything.

I look forward to future photos and the information it will bring.

Mounting?! Please!

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

If that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

How can you enjoy life, never convinced of anything?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

But earlier you said that if you could only see a photo of the landing sites you would be convinced. You have the images. Apparently you weren't being entirely truthful.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

By the way, I just check the SMART-1 official website, and the only image I could find pertaining to Apollo was an image of the A11 landing site, with a ground resolution of 157 meters per pixel. Of course it was at a distance of about 1700 km.

It also appears that the main mission of SMART-1 was to take X-ray and infrared images of the moon, not visual.

...like they say "your not paranoid if they are actually out to get you" )

Agreed, but paranoiacs firmly believe "they" are out to get you. The difference between paranoia and prudence is the objective evidence that you are being persecuted or deceived. Simply believing that one is being persecuted does not separate you from paranoia.

...I deeply enjoy challenge the norm.

And so you probably deeply enjoy the notion that the Moon landings may have been faked. You told us a certain kind of evidence would convince you, and when it was presented you weren't convinced. You shifted the goalposts to protect your belief. That makes you paranoid, not prudent.

How can Google Earth focus in on my deck chairs in my back yard...

Because those pictures were taken from low-flying airplanes, not from space.

Numerous satellites have been sent back to the moon since the 70's yet still no updated digital photos?

The spacecraft sent to the Moon until recently have not been capable of the kind of optical resolution that's needed. It's not hard to do the computations to show that even from lunar orbit most ordinary cameras can't photograph the Apollo remnants recognizably.

Is it not possible that a probe could remotely deposit the reflector on the moon's surface?

Indeed it's possible. It's also possible that they were placed there by human astronauts. So you have two hypotheses to test.

Look at the evidence. The Soviets placed a retroreflector using unmanned technology. They have the engineering plans of the spacecraft, examples of its construction, detailed records of its launch, operation, and deployment. In short, their case is all in order. If someone were to doubt that achievement and say that it's "possible" that the reflector was instead placed by cosmonauts (e.g., because the automation task is thought to be too complicated to work), that hypothesis would run up against the total lack of evidence for any Soviet manned flight to the Moon, and its associated hardware, designs, and records of operation.

On the other hand, the Americans placed their retroreflector using onsite astronauts. We have detailed engineering data on the methods used, the testimony of those who built and operated it, records and witnesses of its launch, and so forth. The record of that method is all in order. Yet along comes someone and claims the Americans did it with unmanned probes. However there's no record of any such probe being designed, built, tested, launched, operated, and deployed.

The evidence is pretty clear.

I'm not saying that they did, only that it's possible.

And that's worthless for the purposes of investigation unless you take the next steps and determine which method most likely was used. When you do that, it's just as silly to propose that Apollo retroreflectors were "really" put there by unmanned probes as it is to claim the Soviet retroreflectors were put there by cosmonauts.

If I could only see a photo of the landing sites I would be convinced...

Apparently not.

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

...to be convinced of anything is dangerous, because in truth we can never really know anything.

Hogwash. When all the evidence (including what you originally claimed would be convincing) points to a certain conclusion and none of it points to some other conclusion, there is no danger in drawing the obvious conclusion.

Greater danger lies mostly in holding out hope for some desired proposition on no better basis than it seems abstractly non-impossible.

I look forward to future photos and the information it will bring.

What other information is absolutely necessary besides the mountain already available?

You don't get to put stock in the hoax theory by some sort of default. What evidence can you provide that Apollo was hoaxed? And I don't just mean random alleged flaws in the "official" story: I mean actual evidence that some form of hoax actually took place.

It seems you're in a position where all the evidence points in one direction, and none points in the direction you're contemplating. Can you explain why failing to draw the obvious conclusion isn't irresponsible?

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

What makes you so sure of this? Do you know it? Do you really know it?

If you don't really know it, are you prepared to admit the possibility that the statement is wrong?

__________________
"People do not want immortality... They simply do not want to die... They want to feel the ground beneath their feet, see the clouds overhead, love other people, be with them, and think. Nothing more. Everything that has been said beyond that is a lie." - Ijon Tichy

You are if you insist they are actually out to get you with no evidence to back that up.

And straight away you fall into the usual conspiracy theory trap. Instead of asking if such photos exist you state outright that they don't. Well, they DO exist (you've been given some by now). How much research did you do before saying they didn't?

Conspiracy theorists routinely assume that if something exists it should drop into their laps without any effort on their part, and the failure of anything to do so is an indication that it does not exist. I hope I don't need to point out the flaw in that assumption.

There's plenty of images of the landing sites. The question is what resolution is available on the equipment used to take them. You don't get to simply assume a) that such images must be possible and b) that such images must have been taken.

Because Google Earth uses aircraft as well as satellite imagery, and there's a world of difference between photographing cars while flying over at a few hundred miles per hour at a few thousand feet and photographing a LM on the Moon while flying over at several thousand miles per hour at about a hundred miles altitude.

Why?

You've already been given the LRO images by now, so I won't repeat that, but I will repeat the question about how much research you actually did on this matter before coming here.

What is possible is beside the point. What the evidence points to is what matters. There is no evidence whatsoever of any unmanned probe placing those reflectors. The advertised designs of those reflectors require alignment by hand. If they were sent then they needed men to put them in place. If unmanned methods were used then where is the evidence of the different design and manufacture, or the launch vehicle and probe used to place them?

You don't get to avoid responsibility for your claims by just saying it's possible. It's possible you're a serial rapist with a harem of women in your cellar, but if I were to actually try to pursue that line of accusation you'd expect me to provide some evidence, not to be told it's your job to prove me wrong.

Not that much, it seems, if you missed the whole LRO imagery.

__________________
"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.

Hold on everyone, I'm not some wack job that is stuck to some magical hypothesis. I was merely asking questions that intrigued me about the moon landings.

As for the statement about the photos, I should have clarified that. I want to see high resolution photos that are analyzed by experts to prove their validity. I was quite shocked to learn that there were any photos at all (the ones you provided were quite interesting).

Though the resolution was so far away that it wouldn't have been impossible to fake those photos, not that I'm saying they are! Only that they are not of high enough detail to be conclusive for me.

As for "not truly knowing anything". Nothing is wrong with having a skeptical mind. As Socrates said "An unexamined life is not worth living". I would think people such as yourselves (educated and scientific) would embrace such a philosophy.

Further more, I did try to locate some photos of the landing site on Google before I came here and was unsuccessful, though I will admit I didn't look very hard. (I did look hard a few months ago but came up empty. I guess these LRO photos are relatively new. Sorry for not being current!).

I can tell by my warm welcome that you probably have a lot of crazies come to this forum. I promise I am not that. Though I might challenge the accepted ideas from ancient history to the moon landing I assure you that I am open minded to most things.

The Moon landings are fact...the evidence is overwhelming. What does an "attempt" to deny that have to do with "having a skeptical mind"??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

The earth was flat at one time, it was a "fact". Leaches sucked out the sickness at one time, it was a "fact". Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, this is a modern day "fact". Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization, this is also a modern day fact.

Facts have a way of changing. Just because something "is" doesn't prove it's validity. I am not discounting the moon landings. To be honest, after coming to this site I'm a lot more skeptical about the hoax theories. HOWEVER, unless you have been to the moon landing site, touched the rover and brought back the evidence You cannot know for certain. You are believing what others have told you.

Which is fine, this is how the human brain works. But you cannot say with 100% certainty that your view is the correct view. To do so would be as dangerous and foolish as those hoaxers who think they KNOW the truth.

Since I've never actually been to Fiji and touched any of the buildings and brought back some of the beach sand, I therefore cannot know for certain that it isn't just some made up place. I just have to believe what others have told me.

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Why would Hi-res photos convince you anymore than the currently available evidence? After all, hi-res photos can be altered or "faked" easily enough.

Then why did you say that hi-res shots would be "conclusive" for you? Not trying to be combative here, I just dont get how you can so easily shift the goal post and still maintain that you have an "open mind"...

Only when actual evidence is supplied.
There is a huge amount of evidence supporting the Moon landings. And your claim that you can't 'really' know anything is not evidence.

Fact: there is ZERO evidence to support a massive hoax involving hundreds of thousands of people (including my own father), billions of dollars, and dozens of independent countries. Zero, zip, nada.

Using the OP's logic, until proven otherwise, it's entirely possible that dyspeptic elves live on the moon with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.

So only the astronauts who walked on the Moon know "for certain"?

No...I rely on evidence not belief when forming my opinions.

I can say for certain that there is no credible evidence that the Moon landings didn't happen.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Actually, that hasn't been a "fact" for a very long time (thousands of years). Many ancient civilizations recognized the Earth was round.

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

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I was merely asking questions that intrigued me about the moon landings.

Actually you're pretty much following the conspiracy-theory playbook. You may not consider yourself a conspiracy theorist, but you're thinking and arguing like one. If you don't want to, then pay careful attention to what people are telling you. I and others have no problem telling you dispassionately what about your lines of reasoning are indefensible and make you seem like a crackpot.

I want to see high resolution photos...

What is the appropriate resolution for your purpose and why is your value the appropriate standard of proof?

...that are analyzed by experts to prove their validity.

No. That's not how photographic analysis or any other examination for authenticity works. You can never prove that something is authentic; you can only demonstrate that it has not been faked by any means you know how to detect. Hence the burden of proof is always upon those who claim something is fake.

If you want to suggest the LRO images are fake in order to dismiss their evidentiary value, you'll have to prove that they are fake, not merely that they can have been faked. Abstract possibility without an investigation of likelihood or factually has zero proof value.

The LRO photographs are accepted by relevant experts as authentic photographs taken from orbit of the Apollo landing sites, showing what would be expected of such photographs had the Apollo missions been real. You're the one challenging that, so let's see your case. If the LRO images do not show lunar landing sites, what do they show? The photos are observations which must have an explanation. Show why yours is best according to the evidence.

I was quite shocked to learn that there were any photos at all...

I'm sure you were. Ad hoc revision is the order of the day in any conspiracy theory. You say X will convince you, and when X is immediately produced you say you didn't mean X but Y instead. That's not a very encouraging backpedal after you say you've done your homework. The LRO images have been in the news for weeks. Yet your homework on lunar surface imaging seems to have started and stopped at exactly the same talking points conspiracy theorists have been bringing up for years: SMART-1, someone should build a spaceship, yada yada.

the ones you provided were quite interesting.

Indeed. Please tell us why they're not convincing, or at least compelling. Saying you want more is not an answer. Saying they "could" be fake is not an answer.

You bear, amusingly enough, the burden of proof to show why your standard of evidence is justified.

As for "not truly knowing anything". Nothing is wrong with having a skeptical mind.

Hogwash. "Skepticism" which merely clings to some farfetched possibility when all the available evidence points to a certain other conclusion is not skepticism -- it's just wishful thinking. Questioning a belief when there's no evidence to oppose it is not rational thinking.

As Socrates said "An unexamined life is not worth living". I would think people such as yourselves (educated and scientific) would embrace such a philosophy.

We do indeed. That's why we put all ideas to the test. Most people wrongly assume we cling to a believe in Apollo out of some idealistic nostalgia or some devotion to authority or some apathy toward investigating alternatives. We believe in the authenticity of Apollo because we have examined it. We further disbelieve the conspiracy theories because we have similarly examined them and find them to be woefully lacking.

Not all prevailing views are held out of ignorance and convenience. Often they prevail because they are the most demonstrably correct. Not all minority views are defensible simply because they are alternatives.

I can tell by my warm welcome that you probably have a lot of crazies come to this forum.

That's its purpose.

Though I might challenge the accepted ideas from ancient history to the moon landing I assure you that I am open minded to most things.

The problem is that you appear to be preferentially open-minded toward fringe explanations. You give far too much credence to anything that challenges the status quo, and you misapply rigor according to a double standard that requires strenuous proof only for the status quo and not for any competing hypothesis. If you are not willing to put your own ideas to the test, then you cannot expect to have much sympathy.

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

There is 100% certainty, and there is reasonable certainty.

Is there really anything that one can know with 100% certainty? And if there is, please tell what? (that's not a rhetoric question, I want an answer)

Why does touching the object (like the rover) or visiting the site make it 100% certain - can you be certain those weren't faked? And if we could take you to the moon, right now, for a visit, how do you know those objects were put there in July 1969 and not yesterday?

So a reasonable person, at some point goes, "nothing is 100% certain, but the evidence of it is overwhelming, and the evidence against it is non existent." What would get you to that point?

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

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Unfortunately, 'I was only asking questions' is pretty standard conspiracy theorist fare round here. We see it pretty much from every one that comes along.

How do you prove that a digital image taken in space, encoded, transmitted, then decoded to form a new digital image down here on Earth is genuine? You can only prove something has been faked. Authenticity is assumed until proven incorrect.

This is where the problem lies. You said you had done research, and yet you missed LRO in its entirety. It isn't a difficult thing to find. You also, rather than ask if any such pictures exist, asked why such pictures did not exist, and rattled off a long (if flawed) argument as to why they should. That comes across not as an innocent enquiry but a line of questioning geared towards laying suspicion that something is not right. Again, standard conspiracy theorist methods, I'm afraid.

It would not have been impossible to fake any photo. Nor would it be impossible that they are genuine. Abstract possibilities are meaningless, as I attempted to illustrate earlier. The evidence stacks up very strongly on one side of the possibilities, however.

Explain what would be good enough for you, and why that standard is reasonable.

We do. We don't cling on to Apollo out of fanatical belief or blind faith in NASA and the US government. Most of us here support the reality of Apollo because we have done our own investigations and concluded it to be real.


That still is not a sensible basis for concluding that the images do not exist. The internet doesn't yet contain all human knowledge. Again, please try to understand why we distinguish so firmly between people who ask questions like 'does such an image exist?' and 'why does such an image not exist?'

One or two, yes...

Good. You'll find people here more than willing to discuss most things with you, but you'll also find people here who will debate not only the substance of your debate but your debating style, because it is heavily relevant to how the discussion will go.

__________________
"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.

You cite as examples of putative fact:

The earth was flat at one time
Leaches sucked out the sickness at one time
Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light
Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization

No, these are beliefs.

Each was or is based on the best understanding of the available facts at the time. When evidence was presented that the Earth was not flat, the belief was forsaken for a new one. When medical practitioners were better able to observe the behavior of the human organism, the belief regarding blood-letting changed. Our observations regarding the nature of light remain unchallenged, though science certainly does not close the door to the possibility that future observations will change our perspective.

Facts have a way of changing.

No, they do not. Facts remain the same. Our ability to discover them improves. Our ability to reason properly from them to defensible beliefs improves. That march of progress is exactly what science does. It applies its knowledge to making better observations. It studies its mistakes to learn how to avoid similar pitfalls of reason in the future.

The scientific method is the body of practice that governs how and when facts should alter our beliefs. It proposes methods of testing those facts and the conclusions reasoned from them.

When that process is applied to the question of Apollo's authenticity, there really is no question. The various challenges fall absolutely flat when examined rigorously.

Just because something "is" doesn't prove its validity.

Nor does your ability to imagine alternatives challenge validity. If you want to affirm an alternative explanation for something, you bear the burden to prove that your affirmation is more than just imagination. It takes on absolutely no evidentiary value until some assessment of actuality occurs.

I am not discounting the moon landings.

But you're challenging their authenticity on purely abstract and entirely evidence-free grounds. Your challenge is not meaningful, and therefore comical.

HOWEVER, unless you have been to the moon landing site, touched the rover and brought back the evidence You cannot know for certain.

What an absurd standard of proof.

You are believing what others have told you.

If you look closely, you'll find that the conspiracy theorists are more based on faith than we are. You'll find that they tell fanciful stories amongst themselves that acquire the appearance of fact simply through repetition. You'll find that conspiracy authors are the ones expecting you to take their word for it and not do your own research. You'll find that the conspiracy theorists are the ones trying to dismiss criticism of their ideas as propaganda and disinformation without considering its content. And you'll find that conspiracy theorists are the ones trying to tell everyone that belief in Apollo's authenticity can only be the result of "sheep" following the shepherd. Conspiracy theorists have no concept of the notion of a well-reasoned rejection of their claims.

I'm an engineer. I deal with defensible fact. I can be held legally liable for the strength of my reasoning and the validity of my conclusions. I have yet to see any conspiracy theorist attempt that degree of rigor. As for the validity of Apollo claims -- I am able myself, using my own professional understanding, to verify many of the claims made. I don't need someone to tell me that Apollo was real: I can see it for myself. And in ten years of vigorously researching these hoax theories, I have yet to see a qualified engineer who doesn't agree with me.

But you cannot say with 100% certainty that your view is the correct view.

Is anyone here claiming they are 100 percent certain the Moon landings were real? Again the straw-man argument. No one has to be that sure of anything in order to hold a defensible belief about it.

Can you say with any amount of certainty that the Apollo missions were hoaxed? Do you have a shred of evidence for any hoax scenario?

See, you've imposed a very heavy burden of proof upon those who want to believe in Apollo. But when it comes to competing potential beliefs, you apply no test to them whatsoever! If you were to judge any of the hoax theories by the same standard as what you propose for us, you'd see how laughably defective they are.

The problem with conspiracist reasoning is the failure to recognize the hoax theory as something that requires proof. The conspiracy theorist sets up a framework where his hoax theory (or some unknown, abstract hoax theory) is considered a default that must hold when the "official" story fails to meet some arbitrary standard of proof.

This is wrong.

Imagine a 17th century doctor applying his leeches dutifully to his patient. He believes, and has training and observation that suggests, that such a treatment will improve his patient's condition. We know now in hindsight that he's wrong, and that the lines of reasoning that seemed to support the effectiveness of "bleeding" a patient were flawed.

Then enters a witch doctor who says, "No, letting blood out of the patient is not the right process. It won't work." We know from the omnipotent storyteller's point of view that he's right: the treatment is ineffective. But the witch doctor doesn't know that he's right; he's only accidentally right, because he continues: "The appropriate way to treat this patient is to shake these magic rattles over him."

At that point we see that the witch doctor's affirmative refutation of the leech method is even more poorly founded. However misguided blood-letting will turn out to be, magic rattles are even more off the deep end. There was some evidence that appealed at the time to the rational mind that blood-letting was a valid method of treatment. But there is no evidence that magic rattles are a better (or even remotely viable) alternative. From our medical doctor's perspective, leeches still remain the best choice from those alternatives that were presented.

The question is not whether some alternative can be imagined that challenges the official story of Apollo. The question is whether some specific hoax theory emerges as a better explanation of the total body of facts that must be accounted for. You can't just say, "It's remotely possible and we can never know for sure." That's just a vague but fervent faith in magic rattles. Proposing that alternatives exist, but not testing any of them, doesn't advance knowledge. It only muddies the waters artificially.

The notion that Apollo was authentic doesn't have to be the 100-percent assurance in order to be the defensible belief. It just has to be the best explanation among all those available.

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

But, critically, and usually missed by hoax theorists, we are not believing blindly. I don't look at the video and the photos and believe they are genuine because NASA tells me so. I don't believe the technical aspects because NASA tells me they are right. I don't accept anything happened just because someone tells me it did. I apply my own critical thinking ability to the evidence. I can discount most of the arguments of conspiracy theorists with simple experience and knowledge I already possess. I know what radiation does because I've exerimented it with myself. I know what gravity does because I've done experiments in school to characterise its actions. I know about thermal transfer because I've done experiments and seen applications that rely on it. I don't have to believe, I can deduce and conclude.

What conspiracy theorists usually do is believe blindly that their limited knowledge of how the world works is 100% right and that anything that doesn't fit in with it, rather than requiring a re-evaluation of what they think they know, is automatically suspect.

I can say with 100% certainty that no conspiracy theory ever presented regarding the lunar landing missions holds together with anything like the strength of the idea that it was all real.

__________________
"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.

You'll find people here more than willing to discuss most things with you, but you'll also find people here who will debate not only the substance of your debate but your debating style, because it is heavily relevant to how the discussion will go.

Indeed; I cannot underscore this enough.

The argumentation and rhetoric that accompany a conspiracy theory rely heavily upon structuring or manipulating the debate so that it is not possible to lose. Naturally this fails to test an idea; it provides only the semblance of a test.

True investigation is harsh to ideas that have no basis. This seems needlessly restrictive to people who applaud a certain notion of open-mindedness. However the purpose of investigation is not to enumerate abstract possibilities but to arrive at some proposition of likely truth. Open-mindedness ensures that each imagined possibility gets its day in court, so to speak. But open-mindedness does not mean lowering the standards of proof so that practically any imagined possibility passes muster.

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