Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[catsmate]

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

Sigh. No.

 

[Mojo]

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.

But a) that has nothing to do with whether people believed in the existence of the WMDs (in fact, I remember it being fairly controversial even at the time) and b) nobody has been "appealing to mass belief", they have been pointing out the virtual impossibility of keeping a conspiracy that size secret for over half a century.

 

[Mojo]

I was actually referring to a logical fallacy within a debate. Say you wanted to prove alchemy can turn lead into gold. The debate saying, oh look Francis Bacon is our top scientist so it must be true and because he has teams of scientists in his Royal Society who are experts and back him, does not logically prove that it must be so. It is assuming there is nothing to be debated. The correct way to look at it is to say, well let's look at the steps shall we because we can't see that this is necessarily true. Enter a bunch of outraged members of the audience declaring, 'How dare you p!ss on this man's life's works. He is such a fine fellow! How very dare you...you...blithering nincompoop.'

So this expression of endorsement - the most common we have seen here - is hardly a debunk.

No, that's an argument from authority. And whether it's actually a fallacy depends on whether the authority cited is appropriate.

Arguing that some scientific idea is true because it is supported by Francis Bacon is invoking the fallacy of inappropriate authority because he was a painter, not a scientist, even if he did have a team of scientists at the Royal Society.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh. No.

Yes, I certainly was.

 

[Vixen]

But a) that has nothing to do with whether people believed in the existence of the WMDs (in fact, I remember it being fairly controversial even at the time) and b) nobody has been "appealing to mass belief", they have been pointing out the virtual impossibility of keeping a conspiracy that size secret for over half a century.

It is not impossible at all.

 

[steenkh]

Anyway, we'll soon have the Chinese and/or Artemis Crewed Moon Landings to compare and contrast. Let's revisit then.

Please explain why you think Artemis, and the Chinese landings are not going to be the same kind of huge fraud like the one you think was committed in the 60'es.

 

[steenkh]

It is not impossible at all.

Because …?

 

[Darat]

It is very easy to debunk a liar, is it not? Yet, the debunks in the OP video don't quite work. If it is believed that all that is needed is a demo of 'how the human eye works' then who are the 'undereducated idiots' here?

Anyway, we'll soon have the Chinese and/or Artemis Crewed Moon Landings to compare and contrast. Let's revisit then.

Yes, that is why it is very easy to debunk you.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, I certainly was.

This is getting childish, even by your standards.
Actually it's not starting to get childish.

 

[catsmate]

It is very easy to debunk a liar, is it not?

Indeed it is.

 

[JayUtah]

It is not impossible at all.

"Because I say so."

Again you keep pushing the burden of proof far, far away from yourself. You talk about what you think is possible, not what you can actually show happened. Which is more likely to be the case according to the available evidence?

1. That hundreds of thousands of highly skilled people did the thing they can show they did?
2. That hundreds of thousands of highly skilled people were fooled into thinking they had done something within their fields of expertise, they had not done?
3. That hundreds of thousands of people kept a huge secret for decades?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is not impossible at all.

Is that an answer to my previous question? You're going with the world's populations of scientists and engineers have all been fully committed to maintaining the hoax for almost sixty years?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because …?

Because the alternative would be that Vixen could be wrong about something.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"Because I say so."

Again you keep pushing the burden of proof far, far away from yourself. You talk about what you think is possible, not what you can actually show happened. Which is more likely to be the case according to the available evidence?

1. That hundreds of thousands of highly skilled people did the thing they can show they did?
2. That hundreds of thousands of highly skilled people were fooled into thinking they had done something within their fields of expertise, they had not done?
3. That hundreds of thousands of people kept a huge secret for decades?

Who enforces their silence?
How are they recruited?
Who enforces the silence of the retired enforcers?
Is the job handed down through the generations?

 

[Matthew Best]

I am not comfortable with this type of communication.

That sounds like the sort of thing a psychopath would say.

 

[Vixen]

That sounds like the sort of thing a psychopath would say.

Please explain.

 

[Vixen]

Is that an answer to my previous question? You're going with the world's populations of scientists and engineers have all been fully committed to maintaining the hoax for almost sixty years?

At this stage I still lean towards the program not being ready on time. There is no way any responsible person is going to send those three guys up to the Moon with no tested way of bringing them back safely. So yeah, I do think the Apollo 11 Moon Landing was a 'placemarker' if you like, and then highly classified for the next hundred years. That is just my opinion having looked at all of the facts. The guys are on the front page of all the newspapers internationally and on tv live around the world. Mission accomplished whether they went there or not.

 

[JayUtah]

At this stage I still lean towards the program not being ready on time.

The evidence shows it was.

There is no way any responsible person is going to send those three guys up to the Moon with no tested way of bringing them back safely.

There was a rigorously tested way of bringing them back safely.

So yeah, I do think the Apollo 11 Moon Landing was a 'placemarker' if you like, and then highly classified for the next hundred years.

...according to your fertile, uninformed imagination.

That is just my opinion having looked at all of the facts.

I see no reason to believe that you have looked at all the facts.

The guys are on the front page of all the newspapers internationally and on tv live around the world. Mission accomplished whether they went there or not.

Except the evidence unilaterally supports the conclusion that the missions succeeded as claimed. All that you and your sources can muster to otherwise explain that evidence is ignorance, lies, and imagination.

 

[steenkh]

At this stage I still lean towards the program not being ready on time. There is no way any responsible person is going to send those three guys up to the Moon with no tested way of bringing them back safely. So yeah, I do think the Apollo 11 Moon Landing was a 'placemarker' if you like, and then highly classified for the next hundred years. That is just my opinion having looked at all of the facts. The guys are on the front page of all the newspapers internationally and on tv live around the world. Mission accomplished whether they went there or not.

You are now claiming that this huge scam duping every scientist working in this, examine fake moon rocks, and so on, was a last-minute change? 7 times (including Apollo 13)??

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So yeah, I do think the Apollo 11 Moon Landing was a 'placemarker' if you like, and then highly classified for the next hundred years. That is just my opinion having looked at all of the facts.

Which confirms my opinion of the value of your opinion, and of your ability to look at all the facts.