why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Count Zero]

This discussion since the last two lines of response #1012 is both fascinating and insightful.

L.O. - Could we split this into a separate thread, and perhaps even "sticky" it near the top of the page?

[Not Myself]

And HBs notably lack those skills, which is why I agree with the assessment that they probably can't even conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong

I don't know whether HBs lack those skills, or simply fail to use them in particular circumstances.  I have on many occasions witnessed individuals who clearly possess critical reasoning skills, and sometimes (or even often) demonstrate an ability to use them, but act like they're trying out for the Olympic Blowhard team the moment they step out of their areas of expertise.  CosmoQuest is overrun with this sort.

It's probably just to amuse myself, but I sometimes conjecture that some of the HBs might actually be highly intelligent and articulate individuals in some spheres, who, knowingly or not, act like buffoons in others.  I wonder this because I've seen people on the other side do it, and not a small number of times.

[smartcooky]

Any of you ever seen the documentary "Alternative Three"?

It was an episode of the Anglia Television's weekly "Science Report" broadcast in the 1970's, that claimed to be an investigation into the Britain's "brain drain", and it supposedly uncovered a plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of predicted global warming.

It was of course, a hoax, but it was quite well done for the time, especially the sequence with the Mars landing and discovery of "life".

[Obviousman]

I not only saw the doco, I used to have the book!

[onebigmonkey]

I have actually seen that program quoted as serious evidence of a hoax, and when it was pointed out that it was a fake documentary, it was then twisted to "a-ha, cointelpro psyop.." 

To be fair, I was fooled by it myself, especially the mars footage, although I was about 10 at the time.

[Andromeda]

What on Earth would make anyone believe that something hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more complex (faking the Apollo programme), could be covered up successfully for 44 years.

But that's just it - the HBs don't think it has been covered up successfully because of all the no stars/waving flag/wires/slowmo/"confession" by some guy who worked at NASA bullcrap they keep dragging up.

[ka9q]

We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

We're here because we tend to know a lot about Apollo and space exploration. We think it's important and worthwhile, and we're outspoken about it and the role it played in inspiring many of us older kids to become engineers and scientists. Some of us work in aerospace and related technical fields, and we're fond of telling everyone how satisfying it can be.

Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives,  they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.

A few of these people (Bart Sibrel comes to mind) have had opportunities to confront those who actually worked on the program, with various results. Most haven't. So maybe they see us as their best available targets of opportunity. And pretending to believe that the program we all regard so highly was actually a criminal hoax is just their way of getting to us.

[Noldi400]

We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

I think that's absolutely true. I'm one of those who believes that Kaysing started out knowing it was all BS and either got caught up in the story and couldn't admit he just did it to poke at a government he hated or (I don't think he was entirely mentally stable) said it so often he started believing it.

I also think it's likely that at least some of the more outspoken ones are just entertaining themselves - the folks who always wanted the contrarian side on the debate team. They know there's no hoax, they just enjoy the argument.

Yeah, personally, I don't think a demonstration of "why" the landings were hoaxed would prove a thing.  Questions of motive only mean so much.  Questions of motive can never really be proven.  The landings are a question of fact, and the only rebuttal is to show that the facts are wrong and to show facts that replace them.  That's what it would take to show me that the landings were hoaxed.  A complete demonstration of all the facts of how the hoax was accomplished.

Agreed about motive. I've heard more than one DA say that it's a common fallacy (mostly an artifact of TV) that the prosecution needs to show motive in proving a criminal case. While it can be helpful, it's not necessary at all - sometimes it's never really known why an individual does something. All that's required, just as you said, is to prove the facts of the case.

Wouldn't you hate to be a DA with an HB or two on a jury? Any physical evidence is faked, and all prosecution witnesses are lying, either because they've been paid off, or are under a death threat, or some such. Hell, the whole thing was probably a guvmint op, and the defendant is a fall guy.

What would convince me is a Ken Burns documentary.

Not the documentary per se, but the environment in which such a documentary would be made; in which all sorts of material becomes available about the hoax, the process of the hoax, the people who made it possible. 

The documentary would be lots and lots of talking heads of people describing the struggles and travails and improvisations and doubts and small victories.  And all the moments where it looked like the (hoax) project was going to fail, but due to luck or some stroke of genius or a whole bunch of grueling long just-plain-work, the thing got back on track again.

And there would be technical studies and pictures of the equipment and behind-the-scenes of the filming.  And all sorts of surprising esoteric stuff most people would have never thought needed to be part of the hoax, and that took all sorts of clever work to pull off.

And they would be proud, too.  A little sad -- especially sad that it hadn't been possible to go to the Moon -- but aware of their place in history and of what they accomplished in fooling the world.  And they'd want to talk about it.  They wouldn't be frightened, they wouldn't avoid interviews; they'd be pleased to have a chance to finally talk about it, and to get back together again with the men and women who had been involved in that escapade with them.

Wouldn't a well made mockumentary like that be  hoot? Sort of like Dark Side of The Moon but focused more on the technical side? Of course, the HBs would quickly adopt it as their own.

[Sus_pilot]

We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

We're here because we tend to know a lot about Apollo and space exploration. We think it's important and worthwhile, and we're outspoken about it and the role it played in inspiring many of us older kids to become engineers and scientists. Some of us work in aerospace and related technical fields, and we're fond of telling everyone how satisfying it can be.

Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives,  they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.

A few of these people (Bart Sibrel comes to mind) have had opportunities to confront those who actually worked on the program, with various results. Most haven't. So maybe they see us as their best available targets of opportunity. And pretending to believe that the program we all regard so highly was actually a criminal hoax is just their way of getting to us.

I think you're on to something there. 

Slightly off-topic, but related in behavior, that resonates with why I believe someone at JREF is claiming, in spite of all contrary evidence, that no planes were involved in 9-11. 

LO, before you chastise me for being off-topic, I'm talking about behavior, not events.  Compare and contrast this to our favorite sock-meister, JW, Sibrel, et al, and read KA9AQ's post.  I think he's got it.

edit: fixed typo.  Added quote for context.

[wazman_nz]

The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!

Its a sad sad day!!!

[Echnaton]

It's about something called the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, and it postulates that human beings are hard-coded to win arguments rather than to seek the truth. I find this extremely easy to believe.

Winning arguments whether through words or force it seems to me is a way of establishing status within a hierarchy. 

I would be inclined to  bet that most of us here have backgrounds in which we were either taught critical thinking skills formally or had to learn them as an inherent part of our professions.

In my case, I was poor at winning arguments through either of the above means.  I decided that I had to learn how pick  discussions I could contribute to and fights I could win, in order to gain some status.  That meant concepts and words.  Nothing beats facts and clear thinking processes for that so I chose a profession that required them and thankfully had the underlying abilities that were needed. 

Sarcasm? Or approval?  Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.

Approval.  Marijuana is an emotional and heated subject that has a large social component.  It tends to be divisive.  It needs to be in its own thread in the proper section of the forum not as a tag on to a hoax thread.  Now what were we talking about?

[raven]

I apologize for bringing it up.

[Tedward]

The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!

Its a sad sad day!!!

I think it was more of an international effort across a few (if not most?) of those, that is a problem as they cannot claim the US kept it under wraps. Even supersonic fighters had a multi national bent in a way. Other nations and engineers working on similar problems, no secrets as to how it eventually all worked.

[Echnaton]

I apologize for bringing it up.

No one was offended. It is an interesting subject because of the volatile mix of science, social behaviors, preferences and prejudices.  The location in a separate thread just seems preferable for a political topic that we appear to have some sharp disagreement on.

And I hope LO doesn't tag me for in thread moderation.

[Noldi400]

Sarcasm? Or approval?  Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.

Approval.  Marijuana is an emotional and heated subject that has a large social component.  It tends to be divisive.  It needs to be in its own thread in the proper section of the forum not as a tag on to a hoax thread.  Now what were we talking about?

Good enough. I really wasn't trying to extend the debate, which is one reason I put in the caveat about not being an activist myself. Like some of the other non-engineers here, it's hard to resist commenting when something comes along that is actually in my field.