I chose to interpret the question as asking what it would take to convince me that Apolllo was faked.

The technical argument is pretty much sewn up. The common conspiracy claim is that NASA had to fake it because it was technically impossible at the time. But the people who know technology best don't agree. The technical description of Apollo is rich beyond a techno-geek's wildest dream. It is so well documented that there just isn't any room left for it to be false. In order for there to be room for technical doubt, there would have to be some stones left clearly unturned.

Put another way, it's like saying there could be an elephant in the room. Now if the "room" were a basketball court with big curtains hung up in it, you could make that case. The "view" is large enough to obscure an elephant from view from certain vantage points. But in this case the "room" is your living room and you can see all the corners. There just isn't any place for the elephant to hide. Similarly there just isn't any place in the technical description of Apollo for egregious discrepancies to hide.

That's why I turned my attention to the historical record. You simply can't say credibly that it couldn't be done. But you could possibly more easily say it simply wasn't done. Without delving into motive, the question becomes simply: did Apollo happen as advertised?

In order to argue that it didn't, you'd have to come up with a complete, convincing, well-documented alternate history. Not just the one or two isolate bits of inconsistency that conspiracy theorists point to. See, they know it's a losing battle. They can't propose an alternate history that works. So they change the rules of the game and try to set up the hoax theory as a default that must be believed if the official story can't be wholly established.

Eyewitness testimony of the hoax itself is necessary but not complete. Documentary evidence of a hoax is necessary but not complete. The eyewitness could be lying, and documents require interpretation that may err. And there has to be a lot of that evidence. You have to outweigh the evidence in favor of authenticity, not just chip away at it with little doubts and innuendo.

It's not really a stupid question because anyone who claims to hold a belief rationally ought to be able to say why he does so. It's a fair question to ask what it would take to convince you. When we say, "That question is so absurd it doesn't even bear consideration," the message we send is that we haven't really thought much about why we believe what we believe. A knee-jerk response to disputation doesn't look good.

Now the notion of personal security is just the conspiracy mindset projecting onto the historical question. A staple of conspiracy belief is that anyone who has iron-clad evidence of fakery will be scared to reveal it. That's just an excuse for trying to explain why no such evidence can be presented. No, I wouldn't be afraid of NASA death squads coming after me because I proved Apollo was fake.

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

I just took a quick look into my living room.

Nope, no elephant.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

This might be true for someone who was born after the Space Age. I was born in 1951 and followed the space program with interest and enthusiasm, as did most Americans in that time. I consider myself an eyewitness to the moon landings, although of course I wasn't on the moon or even at Cape Kennedy. Yes, to someone who watched the news every day, the question is too absurd to consider. I read Apollo-hoax threads for amusement but rarely participate.

I hear this all the time. On the other hand, when was Ralph Rene born?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I looked here too. No elephants ..... or giraffes for that matter ....

__________________
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 ....

I'm not saying Everyone of my generation takes the moon landings for granted, but I think the conspiracy advocates must be predisposed to distrust the government and want to believe in a conspiracy. How long has he been a conspiracy advocate? Was he fooled as badly as me at the time? (Please spare me having to look it up.)

On the other hand a young person who isn't familiar with the history, and then hears of the possibility of a hoax, might think it's something that needs to be looked into.

I disagree with you here Jay. Your logic is sound and I'd rather not argue the point... But I do feel compelled to make a point:
Garrison wrapped it up in few words.
The OP was setting a trap.

JayUtah, with your extensive knowledge and intellect, exposing the trap and refuting it are easy for you.

But it's not always as easy for say; someone like me.

Upon spying a trap, one may recognize the trap and avoid sticking his foot into it.
While you might diffuse the trap, another might try to not step on it.

Responding to the absurd possibility is to condone the trap and to give merit to the possibility. Sure, the possibility exists; but it is not proper to recognize it by force. It is proper to recognize it by actual merit, not coercion.

Yes, I can state clearly why the evidence for the Apollo successes is so compelling. This does not mean I'm willing to be coerced into doing so, either.

In this forum, it is up to the OP to demonstrate why he has concluded that the missions were faked. He does not get to circumvent that by setting a trap.

So, Jay, Your logic is sound. Someone clearly asking why you think Apollo went to the Moon is Valid.
But to me, someone sneakily setting it up with the Ulterior Motive to support their supposition without having to defend it should not be recognized. You might choose to diffuse that. I might choose to recognize what he's doing and say, "You might wanna step back and try that again."
Both are effective. But both are just different choices a person might take. The "trap set" removes the validity of the honest question of, "Why do you think we went?" and diffusing that is more an exercise in outwitting him than in refuting him.

Hello again. FYI, I was not setting any 'traps', it was a thought in my head, there is no ah-ha or gocha moment I am looking for. It was a thought I had while I was bored at work. I did not post this in the conspiracy section, I posted it in the Q&A section as I thought that would be more appropriate, but a mod moved it over here, which works for me.

As for what I would do, which someone asked earlier in the thread? I think the same as another poster, who basically said they would contact the major news networks.

Im sorry if I offeneded you guys, but I can assure you I have no ulterior (or alterior) motive behind the question. It was a time passing question for Monday, I thought that would have been that and I was busy yesterday and did not get the chance to check in, but Im back now.

What Garrison wrapped up in a few words is an argument from silence. We don't know if the O.P. has beaten a hasty retreat or is just focusing his attention elsewhere for now. Even if he has retreated, we don't know why. Even if we are right in believing he retreated because he didn't get the answers he expected, we don't know whether that answer would have been to cower under fear of personal threats. It might simply be that he is satisfied with one or more the answers and has moved on.

Rhetorical traps are always a possibility. But that shouldn't be cause always to reject the straightforward interpretation of a line of reasoning. If you want to speculate about rhetorical traps, how can you be sure his "trap" was not to make us reveal our unwillingness to discuss the question?

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

I'm a walrus...


Impactstyles, I learned at some point in my life that the angle I approach things at may be a strong indicator of my subconscious preconceptions about it.

Perhaps this is the case with you. So, let's assume you had not intended to set a trap. You set one nonetheless.

You may not intend to break a vase, but nonetheless you will probably break one if you suddenly give in to the idle urge to toss one up in the air. Chances are strong that people will have trouble believing that you just wanted to see the vase fly without breaking. Because it seems very odd that a person could consider such.

As I pointed out to JayUtah- a person curious about the issue will ask a direct question.

Lastly, I recall no one acting offended nor saying they were offended. Please, no apology is needed for on offense. I'm honestly baffled as to why you might first ask a question in such a manner and then now claim people or a person was "offended" by it having been asked- if your intentions were nothing more than idle 'bored at work' speculations...

Actually Jay, I think it may have been this post:
No assumptions needed.
Again, I see it as, "This makes me suspicious."
Not, "I'm going to speculate wildly and unreasonably."

As you say Jay, there is a straightforward question that deserves a meaningful answer.

If not asked a straightforward question but instead offered what appears to be a trap (Regardless as to if it was intended to be or not) it is a perfectly valid response to prefer to recognize a straight forward question.

So if ImpactStyles truly intended to just ask why, he now knows a more proper way of doing so. It's an experience.
Don't toss a vase and then evince surprise when people ask why you tried to break it.

Again, you are not correct nor incorrect Jay, ImpactStyles is neither definably right nor wrong at this time and nor am I.
It's just a matter of perspective.

Wow, OK. You can armchair psychoanalyze me until your heart is content, HOWEVER, it is incorrect. I posed a hypothetical last week, enjoyed the discussion, came back this week, was reading ToSeeks thread about giving a talk on the subject, and thought of this. That was the line of thought that brought me here, oh yeah PLUS I wanted to start my very own thread.


I try to be respectful, nothing more, that is why I apologize if anyone is offended. I didn't expect accusations of alterior (or ulterior) motives, as that did not happen last week when I asked a hypothetical about the shuttle. If you feel there is more to this, that is your perogative. I enjoyed this discussion on Monday, but if reply, post, reply, post is going to turn into you sitting me on the proverbial couch and telling me what my subconscious intentions are, when you dont even truly KNOW me, then I am done here.

Oh, get over it.

It's not MY fault it looks suspicious.
It's YOUR fault it looks suspicious.

You tossed a vase in the air. You cannot then complain when people looked at you funny and claim they are psychoanalyzing you. Psychoanalysis simply does not apply.

I can apologize for upsetting you. Because I prefer to not upset you. I'd rather you just thought about it logically and we shook hands and that was that. But honestly, I would feel out of place delivering the apology.

Now, you can either change your premise, or continue to argue about your intentions. I have stated my points as clearly as I could. I do not WANT to argue your intentions.

You set it up. It came out looking funny. So let's just laugh it off and move on. You can continue the discussion along JayUtahs track if you choose.

Goodbye.

Note to the mod: feel free to delete this thread, I will not be returning to it.

See ya. I have no pity for you.

So just if they watched the news every day. Which means, bluntly, very little of any generation, except when their country was actually at war and not always then. (And please spare me having to go back and quote you directly; it is what you said.) People's being predisposed to trust the government is not as connected to age as all that. Yeah, sure--my generation grew up in a post-Watergate world. (Someone down the block from me was born the day Nixon resigned; he was in the same grade as my older sister. How old did I just make people feel?) We had pretty clear evidence that people high up in our government lied. Especially those of us who were paying attention during Iran-Contra, and you didn't have to be paying much attention. On the other hand, conspiracy theories about the evils of the government aren't new to my generation, either. Holocaust denial existed before I was born. The first books suggesting governmental complicity in the death of Kennedy were published before I was born. The first claims that FDR allowed the attack at Pearl Harbor to take place were made before my mother was born.

Did you feel the need to look into the fact that FDR might or might not have allowed that attack? Sometimes, a claim is just silly and can be dismissed on its face, no matter how old you are. I can promise you that very few people my age believe this nonsense, either, and that a lot of them, upon being told that there are people who think that, don't believe that.

Also--whoever said it first, "alterior" is not a word, and can we stop pretending it is?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Agreed.
The old saying. "Give 'em an inch and they take a mile."

A person can try to politely confront the issue again and again and again. In the end, they will be spinning their wheels, giving inches and losing miles.

This thread has transformed into an example. Of all people, I was in opposition to JayUtah (had to happen sometime) because each of us approached it differently.
My approach led to more conflict and possibly, driving off a member who just innocently wanted to entertain a notion.

Yet, the perspective I have is that I cannot hold his hand. He's a grown man. Anytime I am wrong, people rush in to confront me,not always politely. And my responsibility is to back up and examine it. I must hold that standard to others if it is held to me.

Personally, I can only see a person supposing a what if question about whether Apollo was faked if they do not realize how absurd the question is.

The onus is then on them, not on us, to confront the absurdity.

<chuckle>
I'm glad this minor point was addressed... I was googling to see if I was misusing the word "ulterior" feeling quite embarrassed...

Neverfly,

You need some kind of measuring device to wear on your wrist while posting,
thats makes a little alarm go off when it detects that you are going too far.

Although the question that the OP asked was certainly suggested to him by
knowledge of what hoax proponents spout, I didn't interpret it as the least
bit like a trap or set-up. I would not interpret it as appearing that way.
But then, I did read a few of his posts before he started this thread, so I
had some idea where he was coming from.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

I would make a website and expose the truth(tm).
Website would be huge wall of text with lots of varying text formatting and random colours that hurt the eyes.

lol

Yeah, a lil thing like that would be nice- but then... that's what I have you folks for.

I do not- quite- agree with you, though.

Off hand, I would be remiss to not step back and analyze if I went too far or not, considering what I just spouted. However, I must consider that I may have taken something reasonable further than I should have, than that it was unreasonable to consider the lay out as a trap.

I'm aware that several other people were suspicious as well.

People only learn about things over time. I had all kinds of mistaken
notions about the world when I was little. I'm still unlearning them.

Gillian is just wise beyond her years. She's a bad example!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Very true, which is why I confronted it. Learning is also a personal choice.
One must be open to learning in order to do so and that requires them to take the time to examine when shown to be in error.
Holding a persons hand may or may not teach them. Hard to say. But chances are that it will teach them far more slowly than whackin' them upside the head.

I get whacked upside the head a lot.

I cannot say I feel constrained to coddle others when my skull is permanently permeated with bumps. Maybe I'm just a mean ol' grumpy head.

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

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

Sorry to the Mods, it was just that when the OP originally announced their deaprture without offering their own viewpoint I wondered why.
As to the question it struck me as being roughly on a par with 'what if someone showed you a real perpetual motion machine?' It's a physical impossiblity, much like the notion of some magical smoking gun that would somehow overturn the mass of evidence supporting the reality of Apollo, which at the same time has remained hidden for 40 years.

Well, perpetual motion seems a fair bit less likely to me than a grand conspiracy that did not overturn any laws of physics, but should I be presented with such a machine, I'd at first investigate it for fraud. I'd then get friends to do likewise, and then call in some experts to look over it, too.

All along, I'd suspect fraud as the most likely explanation.

If, after rigorous testing, it was found that the thing really was a perpetual motion machine, then I'd work out how, exactly, the conservation of energy law broke down, and then woudl get on writing a paper for a journal on the subject.

Once I and friends had got to the stage of thinking that it was either a very, very good fraud, or real, I'd also start casting an eye to money making opportunities, as even a novelty engine with a cleverly concealed power source would sell well.

After all this, if we had to rewrite some basic laws of physics, I'd be surprised, but not knocked off my seat. After all, CP violation seemed pretty whacky when it was discovered, but it is still real.

Because I know better, I can say that the question, "What if Apollo turned out to be technically impossible?" is absurd. It's absurd to me, but it may not be patently absurd to someone else who may not know anything about space engineering. Some people are satisfied having an experienced space engineer say that the question is absurd. But a listener can't necessarily know that all who dismiss the question as absurd are doing it from an informed standpoint. They might be inclined to think the question is being labelled absurd so as not to be considered on its merits. It's not clear that the technological question is answered conclusively, hence it's not clear that the question is equivalent to asking for acceptance of perpetual motion.

Now on the historical question I can almost say it's absurd. That is, we have a very well documented history of Apollo development and operation. It is far more likely at this point that it's a true record than that it has been fabricated. But there's a difference between saying that it's not likely to be fake and saying that it cannot be fake. If someone wants to try to satisfy the burden of proof for an affirmative refutation of the Apollo historical record, I'm quite willing to entertain it. And I can't say here and now that any such attempt will fail. I can only say that all past attempts have failed -- quite miserably.

Can someone say how the moon rocks were faked? Not yet, but I'm willing to entertain proposals. Photographs? The still photos wouldn't be that hard to fake, honestly. Or many of them, anyway. Film and video: considerably harder. No one has yet explained how it could be done and shown evidence that's how it actually was done.

We have to remind ourselves that it's not enough to show that it is possible to fake something. A proponent has to show that's how it was actually done. An affirmative rebuttal can't merely point out that alternate paths exist; it has the burden to show that was the path that was followed. Conspiracy theorists don't understand this. They don't know what it means to prove something.

Can someone show how the telecommunications were faked? Perhaps. Mike Dinn can't figure it out, and he's one of the experts. But if someone comes along and says, "This is what they did to fake it, and here's the evidence it was actually done," then we do have an obligation to hear them out and test their claims on their merits.

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

lek wins the thread!

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Also, post the truth(tm) to various fringe message boards since that's the best way to get the word out.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

What about making a YouTube video with dramatic music that insults the people who don't agree with you? That's important too.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

So we have the CT Antiscientific method.

1) Make an observation (preferably an obscure one)
2) Form a hypothesis (preferably something that involves ... conspiracies)
3) Find and manipulate data, evidence.
4) After your hypothesis is proven beyond a doubt via step 3, your hypothesis becomes theory.
5) Publish your results. The commenting feature on YouTube ensures that it IS peer-reviewed.

__________________
Look at the BAUT banner, something fishy about it. Boxing gloves are probably not able to withstand the pressures involved in space. Another thing, look at the astronauts visor? See the sun? It's in front of him, but the illuminated ground that we see in the reflection is also in front of him when it should be behind him. Furthermore, the stars shouldn't be visible if the camera exposure was set for viewing lunar landscapes and astronauts. In all, I'm fairly sure the BAUT banner is fake.