Canberra Skeptics talk on the Apollo Moon Hoax

Byzantine Magpie

Thinker
B
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
144
Folks

In case anyone is interested, I'll be doing a talk for the Canberra Skeptics on Friday week about the Apollo Moon Hoax.

= = = =

Brilliant Stupidity - Why the Apollo Moon Hoax makes no sense

OR

Testing conspiracy theories - it isn’t rocket science!


Speaker: Peter Barrett

On Friday, 13 April 2007
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: Visions Theatre, National Museum of Australia, Acton Peninsula

Free admission


There are people who believe that NASA faked the Moon Landings, that Neil Armstrong said his famous lines on a sound stage in Area 51, or Sudbury in Canada, or somewhere in Australia - and many people find Moon Hoax arguments superficially convincing.

When compared with other issues that Skeptics deal with, the Apollo Hoax is small beer. But the Apollo Hoax is a conspiracy theory, and it’s worth looking at from the point of view of how to test a conspiracy theory when you don’t have relevant technical knowledge.

This talk will outline a few of the arguments presented by Apollo Hoax Believers, explain some of the non-technical methods you can apply to conspiracy theories, and then apply those methods to the Hoax arguments.

Warning! This talk may contain traces of technical jargon.
 
Good luck! My best "conversion" ever was when I convinced two hoax believers of the non-truth of all of the hoax claims.

I was passionately into the Apollo programme when I was a kid, and I'm still full of admiration for the astronauts, scientists and engineers who made it happen. The hoax proponents are mean-minded troublemakers who can think of nothing better to do than throw mud at a great human endeavour.

What annoys me most is that all of the main claims (e.g. disappearing reseau marks on the photos, non-parallel shadows, fluttering flag) have been comprehensively and definitively debunked, but the elievers still trot them out, and the hoax sites never remove the claims.
 
The Bad Astronomer said:
Be careful! I heard there was a brilliant speaker there a couple of years ago on this very topic.

:-)
Click to expand...

Thankfully he convinced so many people that I should be able to manage the rest!

One hoax believer has indicated he might come. Interestingly, this man worked at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station during Apollo. I don't know the basis of his skepticism, but it appears to lie somewhere in the idea that just because he helped point its dish at the Moon doesn't mean Apollo wasn't faked.

However, there might be other ex-Honeysuckle people there too, so it would be interesting to see how they all interact.
 
Okay, the talk went well.

There were about 100 people in the audience (the organisers thought as many as 130, but there seemed to be a lot of empty seats), and they were all very well behaved. They even laughed at my occasional jokes, and at some of the more absurd conspiracy theory beliefs. Afterwards, my wife Lorraine couldn't stop smiling, and said I was very clever.

At first, I thought there weren't going to be any questions after the talk, but after a couple of minutes, things got going, and Q&A went for about half an hour.

The whole talk and Q&A was videoed (from up the back of the theatre), and the guy who did so said he'd be posting the video on YouTube. So I'm hoping the talk might get a little bit more publicity. I didn't record the talk myself.

The one experiment I did went reasonably well. I used some talcum powder to show how dry powders hold a thumbprint, and then used a can of flyspray to simulate the blast of the LM engine. Best of all, the powder showed an ersion pattern quite similar to that shown in photos of the ground underneath the LMs.

I also used some photos from a recent gathering of Apollo Hoax-Busters to show shadow anomalies (the photos are shown on the ApolloHoax and BAUTForum boards).

I've also been asked to present the talk to another group. I supported the talk by putting the major points in a Word document which I projected, instead of a Powerpoint presentation. But I'd like to develop a Powerpoint presentation, as it would probably look better. I'd like to get to the point where I could present the talk as confidently as the Bad Astronomer presents his Moon Hoax talk.

The structure of the talk was: Part 1 - some Apollo Hoax arguments; Part 2 - some tests to apply to conspiracy arguments; Part 3 - applying the tests to the Apollo Hoax arguments. However, Lorraine suggested I should cut Part 1, as this would cut out a lot of repitition.
 
Bugger. I missed it.

Bloody hell, I was going to be busy, and then I wasn't...and I forgot this was on.

Grrr.

Athon
 
Byzantine Magpie said:
I also used some photos from a recent gathering of Apollo Hoax-Busters to show shadow anomalies (the photos are shown on the ApolloHoax and BAUTForum boards).
Click to expand...

Heya Peter, didn't realise you posted here too. Just as a heads up, I posted those photos in the Apollo Hoax thread here the other day too. :)
 
I thought people might be interested in the ten tests I developed which people can apply to conspiracy theories.

= = = =

Questions to test conspiracy theories

Test 1: Is the argument factually correct?

It’s remarkable how many conspiracy theories are based on arguments which are simply factually incorrect. If you’re presented with a conspiracy theory argument, the first thing to do is to check the surrounding facts. Many incorrect arguments are repeated in ignorance. But it’s also been my unhappy experience that there are some purveyors of conspiracy theories who knowingly repeat arguments they know are incorrect.

Test 2: Is the argument relevant to the theory?

A second common problem with conspiracy theories is that they cloud the issue by attaching true, but irrelevant, arguments. Just because an argument is true doesn’t mean it’s relevant to the theory you’re testing. This is a form of guilt by association, and gives the impression that the theory is being padded.

Test 3: If the argument is true, what implications does it have in other areas?

An argument on its own may appear to be plausible. But if we apply the argument to related fields or subjects, does it continue to make sense? Or would it require the world to be very different from how we see it?

Test 4: Is the argument consistent with other arguments used to support the theory?

There’s a temptation to judge a theory simply by the number of supporting arguments, regardless of how they interact with each other. But amongst all these arguments, there’s the danger that two or more of them contradict each other. This immediately means that at least one of the arguments is wrong, but in the context of conspiracy theories, it’s perhaps worthwhile doubting both.

Test 5: What do relevant experts say about a particular argument?

Conspiracy theorists often tout their apparent expertise with a body of knowledge in order to bolster their arguments. But, perversely, they also often decry other experts in the field. This is often because the expert consensus in that field is contrary to the argument presented. Similarly, they often quote experts speaking inaccurately outside their field of expertise.

Test 6: Is there actually an argument in the argument, or is it just an opinion?

An argument which merely expresses an opinion, but which doesn’t have any supporting evidence, adds nothing to the theory, and should be ignored.

Test 7: Does the argument offer any supporting evidence?

Some arguments are presented with weasel words such as “could have” or “maybe”. Without any supporting evidence, these aren’t arguments – they’re just speculation. They too should be ignored.

Test 8: Is the explanation provided by an argument the only possible explanation for the evidence?

There are cases when an argument presents two alternative explanations for an event. One is the conspiracy explanation, while the other is said to be the official explanation. When the official explanation is debunked, the conspiracy explanation appears to be correct by default. Problems arise, though, when the apparently official explanation turns out to be a straw-man misrepresentation of the official explanation.

Test 9: How does the argument deal with positive arguments which contradict it?

Theories aren’t built out of opposition to other theories. Instead, they’re created to better explain the evidence than previous theories. Therefore, any conspiracy theory has to address evidence which contradicts it. Ignoring the evidence isn’t acceptable, and should be treated as a major weakness of the theory.

Test 10: Would an experiment of your own help shed light on an argument?

Some conspiracy arguments rely on you accepting them without question, perhaps by an appeal to common sense. Sadly, common sense can lead us astray. This is where simple experiments, or even just careful observation of the world around us, can provide useful insights into the accuracy of an argument.

Conclusion: Is the conspiracy theory a coherent theory?

A problem with many conspiracy theories is that they exist only as a challenge to the official version of events. Yet if the conspiracy theory is true, a series of events must have occurred to bring the conspiracy to fruition. However, many conspiracy theorists aren’t willing to spell out exactly how they think the conspiracy was achieved. This appears to be a tacit acceptance that their arguments don’t add up to a coherent theory. What they often have, instead, is an ad hoc collection of arguments which, if put together, create an implausible, self-contradictory and ad hoc narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom