The Moon Landings: fact vs fiction.

[floo]

All humans, however bad, are a cut above the Biblical god.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Are we still banging on about the moon landings?

Actually, I’ve found it quite instructive reading this thread for the first time. Every GCSE student doing their Maths exam next June will be able to explain why the use of the word conspiracy theory is biased.

There are some interesting observations. For example, this exchange on Page 2:

I am neither convinced nor unconvinced.   It would be nice to be convinced, more interesting I think.

What type of evidence would convince you?

Let me repeat that last question:

What type of evidence would convince you?

Now: Try asking that question to any atheist here about e.g. the supernatural/existence of God, etc., and you will be met with all manner of obfuscations, e.g. if God exists, He should be able to convince everyone of His existence. Now, try applying that argument to the moon landings.

If the moon landings really happened, then those involved should be able to convince everyone that they did

Again, further down on the same page:

No.  It is just one thing that would convince me the moon landing happened - and is not going to occur now!  However I think it could have happened, I just concede the possibility that it might not.  It doesn't bother me either way and I wouldn't even have thought of it had it not been mentioned on here.

What would convince you now?

Again: Try asking that kind of question to atheists here with regard to the supernatural / God’s existence and you’ll be met with e.g. claims of shifting the burden of proof. Typical obfuscations include requests for God/supernatural to be defined. So, you’re claiming something that you can’t even define or cite an example of evidence for doesn’t exist?

But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I don't know why people cannot at least be open minded about it. It's quite possible the moon landings were faked.  We don't know for sure but having some scepticism doesn't make a person a loony conspiracy theorist (not that anyone has used those words except me).

To be honest, this is why I’m interested in this now. Why the attempts to rubbish any claims against the landings?

You asked a question about why does it matter? In my opinion, one word...truth.

From my perspective, I’m open to the possibility that some were genuine, but at least one may have been faked. The film Capricorn One (based on the objections, but uses a mission to Mars) illustrates brilliantly that not that many people need to be in on any attempted cover-up.

[torridon]

Again: Try asking that kind of question to atheists here with regard to the supernatural / God’s existence and you’ll be met with e.g. claims of shifting the burden of proof. Typical obfuscations include requests for God/supernatural to be defined. So, you’re claiming something that you can’t even define or cite an example of evidence for doesn’t exist?

But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?

The claim that a god exists is a positive claim requiring justification.

The claim that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon is a positive claim and is thus backed up by volumes of evidence.

The claim that NASA perpetrated a grand hoax by faking spurious landings in Arizona is also a positive claim requiring justification.

Claims 2 and 3 are in opposition to each other depending on exactly how the claims are worded, they cannot both be true, so it essentially comes down to the principle of the balance of evidence.

[torridon]

You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?

This rather smacks of desperation.  So how do we know you have not been hypnotised ?  How do we know you haven't been abducted by aliens and had false memories implanted ?  Might explain a few things.

[Anchorman]

This rather smacks of desperation.  So how do we know you have not been hypnotised ?  How do we know you haven't been abducted by aliens and had false memories implanted ?  Might explain a few things.
[/quote



Substitute 'brainwashed' hor hypnotised, Torridon.
I admit Irwin has grown somewhat unorthodox in his spiritual outlook, but when I met both him and Borman it was at a university science and spirituality seminar.
Borman was very erudite at the time (1980) being very much in touch with the shuttle programme at the time, as an active consultant for NASA.
I saw no evidence of duplicity or anything other than truth.
Sass's imagination is somewhat hyped up. Hypnotism is good, yes, but even the very best hypnotist - McKenna, imo - is very clear that to get more than one person experiencing the same hypnotic trance experience with perfect clarity and no flaws is virtually impossible.
Nice conspiracy, though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The claim that a god exists is a positive claim requiring justification.

I believe grounds are constantly provided.

Antitheist and atheist justification for their positions are a strange concoction of both appeal to induction and the problem of induction.

And the there is reductionist twaddle.

[Maeght]

Actually, I’ve found it quite instructive reading this thread for the first time. Every GCSE student doing their Maths exam next June will be able to explain why the use of the word conspiracy theory is biased.

There are some interesting observations. For example, this exchange on Page 2:

Let me repeat that last question:

What type of evidence would convince you?

Now: Try asking that question to any atheist here about e.g. the supernatural/existence of God, etc., and you will be met with all manner of obfuscations, e.g. if God exists, He should be able to convince everyone of His existence. Now, try applying that argument to the moon landings.

If the moon landings really happened, then those involved should be able to convince everyone that they did

Again, further down on the same page:

Again: Try asking that kind of question to atheists here with regard to the supernatural / God’s existence and you’ll be met with e.g. claims of shifting the burden of proof. Typical obfuscations include requests for God/supernatural to be defined. So, you’re claiming something that you can’t even define or cite an example of evidence for doesn’t exist?

But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?

There is a claim being made that the moon landings were faked and evidence for that is being requested and that evidence tested.

Where a claim is made that the moon landings were genuine then evidence must be provided and tested.

I see no issue with this or what has been said on this thread and it is not a case of a negative proof fallacy.

[torridon]

Substitute 'brainwashed' hor hypnotised, Torridon.
I admit Irwin has grown somewhat unorthodox in his spiritual outlook, but when I met both him and Borman it was at a university science and spirituality seminar.
Borman was very erudite at the time (1980) being very much in touch with the shuttle programme at the time, as an active consultant for NASA.
I saw no evidence of duplicity or anything other than truth.
Sass's imagination is somewhat hyped up. Hypnotism is good, yes, but even the very best hypnotist - McKenna, imo - is very clear that to get more than one person experiencing the same hypnotic trance experience with perfect clarity and no flaws is virtually impossible.
Nice conspiracy, though.

That seems reasonable; I just don't get why Sass and others like her seem so desperate to push this hoax idea. I find it baffling and slightly saddening by turns - it is an insult to all the courageous people who put their lives on the line to achieve something unique and remarkable for all humanity; the internet has proved fertile arena for conspiracy theorists.

Great to see you posting again btw 

[Anchorman]

Cheers, torridon!

[Hope]

That seems reasonable; I just don't get why Sass and others like her seem so desperate to push this hoax idea.

Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it.  Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.

[Sebastian Toe]

Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it.  Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.

Can you elucidate on the one or two inconsistencies?

[Gordon]

Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it.

Such as?

Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.

Or they could indicate there there may be mistakes or lies involved, hence the inconsistencies: so it would be important to exclude these risks before assuming 'truth' - would you not agree?

[Hope]

Can you elucidate on the one or two inconsistencies?

The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering.  Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun; this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage.  This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax.  Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.

[Gordon]

But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?

Those claiming the Moon landings didn't happen aren't being asked to 'prove a negative'.

What they are being asked to provide is evidence of the basis for their claim that the Moon landings were deliberately faked by the actions of people who produced fictional propaganda involving the fake portrayal of astronauts, lunar landers, moon-buggies etc etc - the practical evidence of fakery.

What we are seeing, from Sass in particular, is very different in that it involves mistaken claims regarding radiation that have been rebutted in previous posts (and elsewhere), so we can ignore that: it now seems she thinks hypnotism is involved so what we need is supporting evidence of that: I wouldn't hold your breath!

[Gordon]

The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering.  Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun; this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage.  This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax.  Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.

These have all been debunked though - this Wiki page deals with these and other issues and contains an extensive reference list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

[Maeght]

The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering.  Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun; this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage.  This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax.  Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.

These have been explained so many times.

[Hope]

These have been explained so many times. Do you really think those of us who do not find the idea that the moon landings were a hoax to be convincing don't know about these arguments?

Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are.  That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.

[Maeght]

Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are.  That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.

But you appeared to suggest that people who don't think the moon landings were fake weren't aware of these arguments. You may not have meant that - which is why I have modified my post.

Which of the 10 reasons is not explained?

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are.  That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.

site doesn't appear to me on any of your posts so far

[Sassy]

Those claiming the Moon landings didn't happen aren't being asked to 'prove a negative'.

What they are being asked to provide is evidence of the basis for their claim that the Moon landings were deliberately faked by the actions of people who produced fictional propaganda involving the fake portrayal of astronauts, lunar landers, moon-buggies etc etc - the practical evidence of fakery.

What we are seeing, from Sass in particular, is very different in that it involves mistaken claims regarding radiation that have been rebutted in previous posts (and elsewhere), so we can ignore that: it now seems she thinks hypnotism is involved so what we need is supporting evidence of that: I wouldn't hold your breath!

Radiation has not been rebutted for the clothing and the spaceship at that time.
Scientist have not been proved wrong. Ever heard the term..." Blind them with science."
Even the astronauts killed didn't believe they could pull it off.

I would love to still believe they walked on the moon. Believe everything was true they have taught us since 1969 but we were technically primitive even by todays standards back then.
We know the scientist would not make these claims if there was no truth in their eyes.
Men are more advanced in their knowledge in every day life now.

There were matters like the boot print from the boots worn being different when they showed the suits worn on display being received as the original.
Whatever we do believe whether it is for or against. None of us will ever have the true answers till it no longer matters.

[Sebastian Toe]

Radiation has not been rebutted for the clothing and the spaceship at that time.
Scientist have not been proved wrong. Ever heard the term..." Blind them with science."
Even the astronauts killed didn't believe they could pull it off.

I would love to still believe they walked on the moon. Believe everything was true they have taught us since 1969 but we were technically primitive even by todays standards back then.
We know the scientist would not make these claims if there was no truth in their eyes.
Men are more advanced in their knowledge in every day life now.

There were matters like the boot print from the boots worn being different when they showed the suits worn on display being received as the original.
Whatever we do believe whether it is for or against. None of us will ever have the true answers till it no longer matters.

It doesn't really matter if scientists argue over anything at all though does it?
Space suits, radiation, footprints......etc
Doesn't matter a jot. Why? Because the astronauts were all hypnotised in such a manner as has never been seen before or since.  That is hypnotised to a minute degree of accuracy whereby they can all give account so similar to that as if they had actually visited the moon.
Was it only one hypnotist that did it do you think?

And when I say all, of course I  mean all except those who could not be hypnotised. They were of course murdered.!

And all for what purpose I am wondering?

[Maeght]

Radiation has not been rebutted for the clothing and the spaceship at that time.
Scientist have not been proved wrong. Ever heard the term..." Blind them with science."
Even the astronauts killed didn't believe they could pull it off.

I would love to still believe they walked on the moon. Believe everything was true they have taught us since 1969 but we were technically primitive even by todays standards back then.
We know the scientist would not make these claims if there was no truth in their eyes.
Men are more advanced in their knowledge in every day life now.

There were matters like the boot print from the boots worn being different when they showed the suits worn on display being received as the original.
Whatever we do believe whether it is for or against. None of us will ever have the true answers till it no longer matters.

The footprints match the tread of the over shoes worn by the astronauts. The question of the radiation levels has been answered many times on here. You refer again to these 'scientists' without being specific about who you are referring to. Note that Van Allen himself has rebutted the radiation claims.

Of course none of us know for sure and we have to make a judgement on the evidence presented. The evidence that the moon landings were fake has in most cases been rebutted and seems to be based on a lack of knowledge and a feeling in the US particularly that big organisations can't be trusted. Even if all the evidence is rebutted this is not proof that man did go to the moon of course, that would be determined by the strength of the evidence that we did.

[Sassy]

It doesn't really matter if scientists argue over anything at all though does it?
Space suits, radiation, footprints......etc
Doesn't matter a jot. Why? Because the astronauts were all hypnotised in such a manner as has never been seen before or since.  That is hypnotised to a minute degree of accuracy whereby they can all give account so similar to that as if they had actually visited the moon.
Was it only one hypnotist that did it do you think?

And when I say all, of course I  mean all except those who could not be hypnotised. They were of course murdered.!

I guess you want to make of it what suits your own particular beliefs. You will choose what you want to believe.
If you want to believe they landed on the moon and walked on it, having been weeks in space then that is your choice.
But whilst scientists have questioned the reality, and most of us just want the truth. Then you have to admit you don't have a clue as to if it is really true. You choose to believe what you yourself want to believe.
I find it questionable.

And all for what purpose I am wondering?

You mean you cannot see why?  The Americans wanted to be first.  The Russians even cast doubt with their failed missions.

But you choose. We all choose. I choose to believe there is certainly enough doubt cast. Which makes me unable to choose between the scientist...

[Sassy]

The footprints match the tread of the over shoes worn by the astronauts.

Not according to official pictures of the suits and boots on show and those of the treads on the moon.
Why haven't you looked.

When you research the answer given by Nasa they will tell you the boot print was not Neil Armstrong but belonged to Buzz Aldrin. But when you see the suit of Buzz displayed you see it does not match his either. Then when you see a pair of boots they have supposedly belonging to Neil Armstrong you see a perfect match for the footprint but they don't match the original suit being preserved. They certainly do not match the suit worn.

The question of the radiation levels has been answered many times on here. You refer again to these 'scientists' without being specific about who you are referring to. Note that Van Allen himself has rebutted the radiation claims.

They haven't been answered... The scientist know the clothes they wore and spaceship could not protect them.
They also know there is no safe way to fly through the Van Allen Belt but you cannot see that scientist have reasons for their beliefs. Radiation could not be avoided.

Of course none of us know for sure and we have to make a judgement on the evidence presented. The evidence that the moon landings were fake has in most cases been rebutted and seems to be based on a lack of knowledge and a feeling in the US particularly that big organisations can't be trusted. Even if all the evidence is rebutted this is not proof that man did go to the moon of course, that would be determined by the strength of the evidence that we did.

There were many people and the mans who report went missing when he and his family were killed are something to be weary about. As I said you choose what you want to believe.