Where Are The Hoaxers?

[Count Zero]

As a long time lurker of this forum, I can assure you that I have not seen and doubt that there will ever be a “compelling” argument put forward regarding any moon landing hoax. Pure and simple because if for whatever reason you had to fake a moon landing you would not, could not, fake it the way it was done. Perhaps not at all.

In the absence of HBs, that's an interesting topic:  What would a REAL hoax look like?  We had a thread about it a while back.  Among the features were no TV, few photographs, no wide-spread distribution of samples, classified engineering, to name a few.

[nweber]

But Derek Jacobi is an anti-Stratfordian

Hah!  I didn't know that.  I guess he wasn't allowed to ad-lib on the point in Kenneth Branagh's film version of Henry V.  Or if he did, it hit the cutting room floor.

[JayUtah]

Ok, My bad I had forgotten about the obscenities posted by Margamatix. I certainly don't condone that sort of posting and is highly offensive. Unfortunately for me he was one that stood out from memory, I think I know why now.

Yeah, those two are not shining examples of how to make an argument that proves a point.  One of many problems we have in this style of open, informal public debate is that a lot of contributors clearly have agendas that have nothing to do with the question at hand.  They just want to achieve a certain performance.  So frequently we see "suicide by mod[erator]," which means that a poster will deliberately commit some irrelevant but bannable offense and say they were "banned for their beliefs."  Questions like the authenticity of the Moon landings, the assassination of JFK, 9/11 building collapses, and so forth seem to be mostly proxy questions for a deeper debate.  And the motivations arising out of the deeper debate are what often provoke more of what we see in terms of the day-to-day debate.

As a long time lurker of this forum, I can assure you that I have not seen and doubt that there will ever be a “compelling” argument put forward regarding any moon landing hoax.

I'm glad you said "compelling" the way you did, because we find that a fair number of people are compelled by some of the pro-hoax arguments.  If you're willing to lie, cherry-pick, speculate, mislead, and frame, you can make a persuasive argument for almost anything.  But I'm on fairly solid ground, I think, when I say that we won't have an argument for faked Apollo missions that is both compelling and objectively valid.  Those are two different goals and different standards of proof.  Outside the very small echo chambers of the dedicated conspiracy theorists, there is just no legitimate controversy over whether Apollo was real.

Pure and simple because if for whatever reason you had to fake a moon landing you would not, could not, fake it the way it was done. Perhaps not at all.

The record we have today of Apollo is vast, far larger than any of the hoax theorists contemplate.  So I agree that it would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to fake that record.  But let's say we wanted to fake a manned mission to Mars within the next 15 years.  Would we be able to do it convincingly?

[gillianren]

But Derek Jacobi is an anti-Stratfordian

Hah!  I didn't know that.  I guess he wasn't allowed to ad-lib on the point in Kenneth Branagh's film version of Henry V.  Or if he did, it hit the cutting room floor.

I've seen him talk in a few documentaries, and yeah, it's awkward.  I think he's an Oxonian, but I don't remember.

The record we have today of Apollo is vast, far larger than any of the hoax theorists contemplate.  So I agree that it would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to fake that record.  But let's say we wanted to fake a manned mission to Mars within the next 15 years.  Would we be able to do it convincingly?

Honestly?  I don't think so, no.  While the technology for doing so is better, it still isn't there.  It will also suffer from the same sort of problems as hypothetical aliens--we've gotten too used to documenting everything.  We know what it looks like, and we know what to expect.  A faked Mars landing would also come with the expectations of NASA for generations.  You'd have to assume YouTube videos from astronauts en route, for example.

[smartcooky]

As a long time lurker of this forum, I can assure you that I have not seen and doubt that there will ever be a “compelling” argument put forward regarding any moon landing hoax. Pure and simple because if for whatever reason you had to fake a moon landing you would not, could not, fake it the way it was done. Perhaps not at all.

In the absence of HBs, that's an interesting topic:  What would a REAL hoax look like?  We had a thread about it a while back.  Among the features were no TV, few photographs, no wide-spread distribution of samples, classified engineering, to name a few.

The narrative for how the Apollo programme was accomplished is established. It is established in the extensive engineering, all of which is publicly available, including engineering drawings, schematics and written accounts of testing. It is established in the still photographs and films and  live TV broadcast all over the world. It is established in the science, the lunar samples, and the rocketry. It is established in the Lunar Surface Journals, a detailed timeline of crew activities. It is established in the fact that everything in the narrative is self-consistent; nothing conflicts with any other thing within the narrative. Finally, there were the sheer number of people (about half a million)  involved world wide from many different nationalities.   

I think we have all tried over the years to get HBs to tell us how the Apollo Missions were faked; to give us a narrative of exactly how it was all done. None of them, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to do so. They have sometimes tried to claim how parts of it might have been done, but they often conflicted with other HB's ideas on how other parts might have been done, and in any case, they have all been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

The Apollo missions were not faked, for the simple reason that there was no need to do so. They could not have been faked because it was scientifically, technologically and cinematographically impossible to have done so.

[chuckey_69]

The record we have today of Apollo is vast, far larger than any of the hoax theorists contemplate.  So I agree that it would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to fake that record.  But let's say we wanted to fake a manned mission to Mars within the next 15 years.  Would we be able to do it convincingly?

I agree with Gillianren on this one. I couldn’t imagine how hard it would be to convincingly fake a Mars landing, about as hard as it would be to actually go there id guess. Though it does sound like a good idea for a "compelling" B grade movie….


Sadly though I don’t believe we are much closer to landing people on Mars then we were back in 1969 especially if the goal is to return them safely to the earth. While SpaceX has been exciting on many different levels they are still miles off, NASA are billions of dollars off (Possibly trillions). I would love to see it in my life time but I’ll settle for a manned circum-mars fly by.

[Geordie]

But let's say we wanted to fake a manned mission to Mars within the next 15 years.  Would we be able to do it convincingly?

Mission name: Capricorn II

[benparry]

I spend a bit of time on facebook and there are a few groups on there proporting the hoax. i have been a member of a few but left because my head hurt. i am now a member of a few which proport the landing.

same as youtube really you can say what you want from a computer screen.

i have actually asked a few questions here put to me from the facebook groups. even though i gave them answers which would more than satisfy open minded people i was still wrong lol

believing in the moon landing hoax in my opinion is plain and simply a psychological issue.

[gillianren]

believing in the moon landing hoax in my opinion is plain and simply a psychological issue.

No.  It isn't.  It can be, but there are as many reasons for believing in a hoax as there are for any other form of conspiracism.  Going back to Derek Jacobi--it's easier to brush his off, because it's a small and old conspiracy, but his belief that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays is not a psychological issue.  He believes what he believes for whatever reason, but it's not proof of mental illness, which I assume is what you meant.  Some conspiracists are mentally ill--I could name names but won't because I don't believe in armchair diagnoses for the most part.  Others are in it for the cash.  Some like having a sense of superiority over the Sheeple.  Some simply haven't been presented with conflicting evidence and learn more and change their minds.  There is no "plain and simply" to conspiracism--or, come to that, to psychological issues.

[benparry]

what I should have said was those who believe because they want to.

[gillianren]

It's still not true.

[benparry]

you clearly haven't debated with the people I have. Pascal Xavier (as many people on here will tell you) believes because he wants to.

[jfb]

you clearly haven't debated with the people I have. Pascal Xavier (as many people on here will tell you) believes because he wants to.

And other people believe because that's what they've been told to believe and have no urge to question. 

And other people believe because they think that's what the evidence really shows.

Yes, there are people who believe "because they want to believe", but that's not exclusive. 

[benparry]

no absolutely not but I am yet to come across anybody who has changed their mind in the face of immense evidence. agreed I am debating in MOON HOAX forums on facebook so these people have already made their mind up so maybe my cross section of people isn't evened out.

[Bryanpoprobson]

no absolutely not but I am yet to come across anybody who has changed their mind in the face of immense evidence. agreed I am debating in MOON HOAX forums on facebook so these people have already made their mind up so maybe my cross section of people isn't evened out.

There have been a number of hoax believers that have changed their minds. But there is another devious group who really are just trolls. You argue them to a standstill and they have no reasonable retort, so they run away. Next thing they are on another forum with a different name spouting the same old rubbish arguments that they could not defend.