Dan Goldin comment

[twik]

I am not sure why people choose to believe in conspiracy theories despite lacking "hard evidence". I supose that to a certain mindset, "circumstantial" evidence is more enthralling. I notice that profmunkin stresses motive in a number of posts as if it were very strong evidence. But there are many people walking around happily today, for whom you could find a lot of people with motive to bump them off, and yet nothing happens. And there are plenty of actual murder victims with multiple people with motive to kill them, but only one actual killer.

Motive can be dreamed up for anyone to do anything. It's not evidence.

[Jason Thompson]

Furthermore, to put motive in such a prominent position in discussion of conspiracy theories is akin to putting someone on trial for murdering his wife because he had a motive to do so before actually checking to see if she was in fact dead. All the circumstantial evidence and possible motives in the world won't secure a conviction if his wife is still walking around in good health.

In the case of Apollo, most of the motives offered up for faking it are served equally well by actually performing the missions as advertised, which further renders discussion of motives pointless.

Apollo is a meticulously and extensively documented historical event. However, it is also a highly technical achievement, and as such many elements of it are not intuitive to the layman. All the facts are there to be examined. Many of those who examine them lack the prerequisite knowledge to properly interpret them. More distressing, many of them seem determined to maintain that and call reality into question rather than their own limited understanding.

[JayUtah]

I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

Nonsense.  You asked us to interpret the meaning of an explanation attributed to him.  You took something that someone claimed elsewhere and brought it here for comment.  You assumed the quote was genuine and accurate, but you were able only to trace it back to where someone else had summarized his statement with only vague attribution.  The question therefore should have been, "Did Goldin really say this?"  And it should have been asked back at the other forum where you got the claim.

Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles? ah shit!

Did he?  That's the question you have to answer first.

[gillianren]

If the evidence we have now isn't convincing, what would be?

[profmunkin]

If the evidence we have now isn't convincing, what would be?

I came to the conclusion a while back that the evidence for the moon landing is solid and unshakable.  I posted that I would no longer offer the opinion that we did not go to the moon nor will I offer the opinion that we did. You have some new evidence I will be the first to look at it.
Right now I don't know for sure either way.

There is no reason to even consider discussing on this board some of the subjective evidence that forms my opinions because this board is myopically focused on an absolute fact that Apollo went to the moon. Discussing these issues is like discussing with a born-again-christian that christ may be a composite figure and may not have been a real person. Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.

Seriously, I am devoting my spare time to re-aquaint myself with the details of JFK assassination.

[Bob B.]

Give use something halfway credible and we'll give it due consideration and discuss it.  But we're not going to pretend that something has merit just so you can feel good about it and have a conversation.  The fact you can't get far here when trying to promote the hoax is testament to just how weak the conspiracy arguments are.  We'll happily discuss the moon landings and the hoax theory, but if you present crappy evidence to promote a silly theory, we're going to tell you why its crap.  If you want facts about the moon landings then this is the place to be.  If you want somebody to pat you on the back for displaying ignorance about the moon landings, then there are other places on the net better suited to you.


edit spelling

[Jason Thompson]

I came to the conclusion a while back that the evidence for the moon landing is solid and unshakable.

...

Right now I don't know for sure either way.

How can you seriously post such contradictory stetements? If the evidence in favour of the landings is solid and unshakable how can you possibly be unsure either way?

There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.

We can conceive of the possibility. We just don't have any evidence of it. And nor do you, so what exactly is your point?

[gillianren]

I came to the conclusion a while back that the evidence for the moon landing is solid and unshakable.

...

Right now I don't know for sure either way.

How can you seriously post such contradictory stetements? If the evidence in favour of the landings is solid and unshakable how can you possibly be unsure either way?

This is what's confusing me as well.  Is this another stupid motive question?  Because the US might have had a motive to fake it, obviously it's possible that they did?

[Glom]

There is no such motive.

Either the feat was achievable in which case they would just do it (as they did) or it was not doable in which case the race is off because the Russians couldn't do it either.

If the race is off, then wasting resources on a hoax is stupid when there are real demonstrations of power to worry about. Like competing with Salyut.

[raven]

And even if NASA did decide for some reason to hoax it, then the former Soviet Union would also have a motive for revealing said alleged hoax, which, if it was fake for the reasons stated, they absolutely could.
You can't have it both ways.

[twik]

Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!

You mean, "Look at how everyone pointed out that the quote I was using to insinuate the Moon Landings were hoaxed was a hoax itself. How rude!"

That's not craziness, that's debate. If you think it's crazy, refute it. If you can't, don't blame people who don't believe everything they read on conspiracy sites.

[gillianren]

Yes, I know there's no realistic motive.  You can't tell some people that, though.

[Bob B.]

The motive for going to the moon wasn't to show up the Soviets, as some hoax believers seem to think.  The motive was to actually develop the technology to assure America's place as the world leader in space.  You don't accomplish that by faking it.

[Echnaton]

There is no reason to even consider discussing on this board some of the subjective evidence that forms my opinions because this board is myopically focused on an absolute fact that Apollo went to the moon.


Discussing these issues is like discussing with a born-again-christian that christ may be a composite figure and may not have been a real person. Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.

Seriously, I am devoting my spare time to re-aquaint myself with the details of JFK assassination.

Consider that the problem may not be our myopia but your lack of understanding.  Your born again christian argues from faith, we argue with tested evidence.  Usually against those that can only muster something akin to faith to support a view.  Don't mistake the seriousness of the tone with the substance of the argument.

People here can of course exchange ideas on subjectives, and do with some vigor from time to time.   But we also do not consider subjectives to be evidence in the material world.  Either you can discuss your personal, subjective ideas or you can discuss the material world.  But you can't expect others to accept your subjectives as having material consequences. 

[Glom]

The motive for going to the moon wasn't to show up the Soviets, as some hoax believers seem to think.  The motive was to actually develop the technology to assure America's place as the world leader in space.  You don't accomplish that by faking it.

Pretending to have capabilities you don't only makes things worse because it spurs your enemy to work hard to increase his.