Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

This is just it. World leaders actually DO know how easy it is to 'lie to millions of experts, worldwide, for more than half a century'.

Vixen, they couldn't even hush up a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ burglary, something by definition done out of sight.

 

[Andy_Ross]

All they show is 'glassiness' (rather like the perlite discussion we once had about the effect of explosives on steel), plus, they are more basic than Earth's rocks, i.e., it won't be comprised of certain elements we expect on Earth. But the Earth and the Moon once used to be the same body, so all a rock can tell you is its inherent structure and what type of temperatures it might have been subjected to. So volcanic rock shows the type of 'glassiness' we see in Moon rock. Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time. In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either. That is a diversion.

Several times I have posted links to the actual repository for the lunar samples.
It has detailed information on every one. This includes it's physical and chemical composition and extensive photographs and micrographs.
There are also listings of what samples were requested, who by and the papers written.
Thousands of them.

Have you been to see yet?

Just in case you missed it, here it is again

Apollo Samples and Photo catalog

NASA Astromaterials Curation, an integral part of any sample return mission, comprises preparation and allocation of samples for research and education, initial characterization of new samples, and secure storage for the benefit of future generations. Collections curated at the NASA...

curator.jsc.nasa.gov

 

[Mojo]

Logical fallacy #212 The appeal to credulity.

The hoaxers certainly seem to have used it successfully on you.

 

[Mojo]

I can confirm we had to produce fifteen lab reports (not 'assessments') plus a dissertation. They were entirely bog standard and not 'grandiose'.

You don't seem to have understood the terminology EHocking used in his post.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I see we can add basic geology (and selenology) to the long list of subjects of which you have little knowledge but are willing to pontificate.

Geology went on that list a long time ago in a pretty short lived thread.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Geology went on that list a long time ago in a pretty short lived thread.

I sympathies go out to the poor sod curating that list.

 

[Mojo]

I didn't say that at all. I just don't think it is a relevant argument. It is like saying entire countries, 66m Brits and 330m Americans believed Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (= Iraq War). We now know that was completely false propaganda from Bush and Blair.

You're projecting again. The fact that you believed it doesn't mean that everyone else did.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Geology went on that list a long time ago in a pretty short lived thread.

For my sins, I delved back into forum history and found the thread I was thinking of...Oh dear, oh dear...

 

[JayUtah]

Again, the lunar rocks are rather like the reflectors, they don't actually prove the topic at hand.

They're pieces of the Moon brought back to Earth by the twelve people who said they went there and got them. It's evidence in hand that must be explained.

Argument from Incredulity.

All they show is...

No.

You're no more a geologist than you are a photographer.

Plus as I said, we have rocks hitting Earth (and the Moon) from outer space all the time.

Asked and answered.

In addition, there is no need to collect these rocks by hand, just as there was no need to leave reflectors there by hand, either.

Show me your evidence for a suitable uncrewed sample return mission.

You have none, of course.

Twelve people claim to have gone to the Moon and brought back hundreds of kilograms of material. They can document how they did it in meticulous detail down to the nuts and bolts of the ship they flew in. They took photos, film, and video of them collecting the samples.

"Well maybe they could have done it some other way," is not an argument. You're still trying to shove the burden of proof toward Apollo missions being impossible to fake, not that they simply weren't. I can give you a mountain of consilient evidence including the lunar samples that is consistent with Apollo having succeeded as claimed. You can show me zero evidence for any of your harebrained hypothetical alternatives for how we have that evidence—or even that any of them are remotely possible.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For my sins, I delved back into forum history and found the thread I was thinking of...Oh dear, oh dear...

Why is the larger part of the world's land mass mostly in the north?

(That thread started with those words, and ended with the words quoted below.)

But as a skeptic I maintain the utmost respect for the "well reasoned" thoughts of others.

 

[JayUtah]

So we have to reject the hypothesis that X no. of people believe it, therefore it happened.

Asked and answered. Same straw man as the other half dozen times you tried to tell me an apple is an orange.

 

[JayUtah]

Any youngster can take a rock from Earth and make it look like a Moon rock, and geologists all over the world would not notice the difference. Anybody who thinks otherwise are just making the fallacy #212 Appeal to Credulity

Bill Kaysing said you could make Moon rocks by taking ordinary Earth rocks and "baking them in a radiation oven." That's the level of geology we get from hoax claimants.

Probably because all previous moon asteroids had been collected to be presented as part of the scam

Collected personally by famed rocket scientist geologist Wernher von Braun.

 

[Vixen]

Are you a psychopath?

I am not comfortable with this type of communication.

 

[Vixen]

You don't seem to have understood the terminology EHocking used in his post.

Please explain it.

 

[Vixen]

Right....
You posted transparently idiotic nonsense and are trying to avoid talking responsibility. As usual.

As I pointed out, I was directly addressing your post.

 

[Vixen]

It isn't like saying that at all. It would indeed by wise to reject a hypothesis that was founded on a lack of information, or a distortion of information, and that is precisely what happened with the position on Iraq's WMD capability., very quickly. There are, just as a brief reminder, a large number of Iraqi Kurds who can testify to Saddam's possession and willingness to use chemical weapons, so WMD claims weren't entirely fabricated out of thin air like, for example, the claims made by moon hoax proponents.

The scientific community's examination of actual lunar evidence, with verifiable provenance, is not the same thing at all.

The thrust of the debate is that whilst millions may indeed believe in it, and that is the first 'debunk' in the OP video, it doesn't really work as a debunk, more of an appeal to faith.

 

[JayUtah]

Several times I have posted links to the actual repository for the lunar samples.

The core samples are the most noteworthy. They're extremely hard to collect using the tube method by which they are held and presented in the LRL, especially the ones that are hundreds of centimeters long. The lunar regolith proved to be far denser than expected, requiring engineers to rethink how to take long core samples. The problem is extracting the coring mechanism with the sample inside it against the tremendous friction. It takes a lot of creative manhandling to get the tube into and out of the ground.

We never did figure out how to do it with a remote spacecraft. When the Chinese did their core sample return mission just a few years ago, they used a completely different method: one that does not fully preserve the coherence of the core particles.

So the notion that NASA secretly built, launched, flew, landed, and returned these samples in the 1960s and 1970s really is a question that requires actual evidence, not just idle speculation about what "could" happen.

 

[Vixen]

You're projecting again. The fact that you believed it doesn't mean that everyone else did.

There is no denying the UK newspapers had full 'special editions' of the horrors of Saddam's Iraq. I had family that had to go and fight there as part of the British Army. So, yes, appealing to mass belief doesn't really work as a debunk.

 

[threadworm]

The thrust of the debate is that whilst millions may indeed believe in it, and that is the first 'debunk' in the OP video, it doesn't really work as a debunk, more of an appeal to faith.

There is no thrust to the debate, just weakly aimed jabs with no force behind them. I am more than happy to agree that faith is no proof of anything. Science and engineering are not built on crossed fingers and wishes. They do not run on opinion polls.

Accepting Apollo's historical record as fact can be done by examining the wealth of internally and externally consistent evidence from a wide range of sources. No faith is required. Accepting the hoax claim requires that you ignore that evidence and instead unquestioningly take as gospel the words of liars, frauds and undereducated idiots.

 

[JayUtah]

The thrust of the debate is that whilst millions may indeed believe in it, and that is the first 'debunk' in the OP video, it doesn't really work as a debunk, more of an appeal to faith.

No.

The thing you're thinking of is not a "fallacy of credulity," but rather argumentum ad populum or the Bandwagon Fallacy. This is the fallacy that says that belief in a proposition on the part of some (usually large) number of people is not evidence of the truthfulness of the proposition.

The thing is, it's only a fallacy depending on the reasons for belief. If thousands of people say, "I believe a proposition because someone told me it was true," then it's most likely a fallacy. But if those people say, "I believe a proposition because I've carefully studied the evidence and have concluded that the proposition is true," it's not at all a fallacy. Instead it's a consensus regarding the credibility of the evidence. That's how juries work.

Here we take the next step. The thousands of people who say they believe this proposition are, in fact, the only ones in a position to know whether it's true or not. The people who best know whether the Apollo program's technology was capable of fulfilling its mission are in fact the people who built it. This thoroughly defeats the notion that their collective belief is a bandwagon fallacy. And yes, the unanimous consensus of relevant experts and witnesses is extremely strong evidence that the proposition is true.

Finally we have millions of subsequent highly-qualified people who have examined the evidence in retrospect and not only find nothing wrong with it, but they find it an exceptionally well-preserved, complete, and correct record. Their unanimous opinion is conclusive evidence that the proposition is true.