Moon landing

is a picture of the Apollo 14 landing site by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Of course the conspiracy crowd will call this part of the cover up but we did land on the moon 40 years ago.

Did you mean to post this picture?

Yes, sorry my cut & paste capabilities not so good. :stuck_out_tongue:

LRO sees Apollo landing sites. It is very exciting. Carte Blanche had quite a good evening tonight - doing a story on the moon landings and a discussion on the claims of alternative medicine.

Should have posted this under general science and then moved conspiracy comments here?

This seem like a reversal in roles somehow. Sceptics upholding the landing and woo nuts questioning the evidence.

Oh wait, it is the evidence that makes the difference ;D

I just wish we already had like a lunar colony going, that would have been so sci-fi and uber kewl.

Watch China… they’re stirring up all sorts of competitive notions again.

Good for them!

Yes, we landed on the moon. At the time this was a huge achievement. But now it is “been there, done that and got the T shirt to prove it”. Why there is a race now I don’t know. There is nothing there. One thing that might work is to build a big telescope on the far side, but to go there just for the sake of going is pointless. Let the Chinese go.

A moon base, they want to build, now what do you think would happen if the Chinese built themselves a cosy little shack on the moon? Do you not think it would become a war for ownership? That flag that the US planted is meaningless if there is a threat of another nation actually colonising the moon. Us humans are a jealous and warring race.

That’s how the bantustan of Bophuthatswana was before Sol got in there. Maybe it’s a massive property development conspiracy? :stuck_out_tongue:

Cyghost raises an interesting point on nomenclature:

This seem like a reversal in roles somehow. Sceptics upholding the landing and woo nuts questioning the evidence

We generally refer to the claim that the moon landing never happened as a conspiracy theory. I think that, strictly speaking, this is wrong.

Consider the following:

  1. Conspiracy theories make positive, unsubstantiated claims.
  2. Scepticism provisionally rejects positive claims.
  3. “People have walked on the moon” is a positive claim.

So, to state “the moon landing was a hoax”, is a provisional rejection of a positive claim, and therefore falls in the domain of scepticism.

Folks questioning the moon landing are sceptics, not conspiracy theorists! :stuck_out_tongue:


Given the weight of evidence for a moon landing and people having walked on its surface – evidence that, it is true, could have been forged but at what cost and for what reason? – as well as the magnitude and implausibility of the NASA/US government conspiracy that would be necessary to uphold such a fabrication, it would be more accurate to say, “Folks denying the moon landing are idiots.


So as the evidence for a positive claim accumulate, there comes a breaking point beyond which the extreme sceptic can no longer question the evidence, except at the risk of becoming an idiot?

Or is it more of a sliding scale?


Well, yes, denial in the face of compelling evidence is merely obtuseness or stupidity, possibly both. We give our provisional assent to contentions that are well supported. Such assent can be withdrawn instantly should persuasive contrary evidence come to light. In fact, it should not be hard to see that there must come a point at which at least some positive claims are sufficiently well evidenced for us to accept them as true. Were it not so, we could never properly claim to know anything because almost everything would remain in doubt.

To continue questioning – as impartially as possible, please note – certain claims is of course healthy and useful, and can lead to new knowledge. In many cases, it is just such questioning that has produced fresh advances in knowledge. It is denial of accepted facts, i.e. conducting oneself as if accepted facts were false, that is silly and counterproductive, especially when the alternative position on offer is poorly justified and/or overly contrived, as in the case of the alleged moon landing hoax.

Thus, it is foolish, and perhaps even harmful, to deny such things as the near-sphericity of the Earth, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Standard Model of subatomic physics, HIV as the pathogen of AIDS, or any number of other similarly well-established articles of knowledge.

However, recognising exactly at what point the reversal in burden-of-proof issues occurs, is itself a tricky epistemological problem. As a decently reliable guide, one should look to the community of relevant experts: if they are largely agreed, it is unwise, as a non-expert, to hold a different view. Sure, there have been instances where a body of experts has been mistaken, but such is much more the exception than the rule. An ancillary problem in this context is recognising which groups actually qualify as “relevant experts.” Needless to say, a constellation of astrologers, a snort of aromatherapists, a fusillade of psychics or a thicket of theologians should be assiduously avoided. The decisive criterion here is that the discipline in question should be an accepted part of the corpus of science.


Thanks for the informative and useful reply, and you have preempted my next awkward question, which would have been: How do we know when evidence is sufficiently compelling? At some point, yes, we just need to trust the experts.

Needless to say, a constellation of astrologers, a snort of aromatherapists, a fusillade of psychics or a thicket of theologians should be assiduously avoided.



rule 4 pwns!

Michael Tellinger says that the moon is a space ship, and the aliens there sent our astronauts home, telling them not to return??

eish. what next?

One thing I find interesting is that almost all these conspiracy crazies put up really ugly websites like this one. Perhaps the same part of the brain that serves up rational thought is also responsible for aesthetic sense, so if it is broken you get these crazy ideas propounded on eyeball hemorrhage-inducing websites. Perhaps someone could do a PhD thesis on it (just share your Nobel money 50-50 with me, hey.)

In that case, for better or worse, Tellinger will agree that the moon landing wasn’t a hoax. Maybe that’s something.

Woo-woo crackpots’ predilection for garish colour combinations and tacky layouts is not limited to their websites. It often carries over into rambling prose littered with impressive-sounding terms, but which prose is ultimately unintelligible. A quick browse of your local bookshop’s New Age section should convince you that books of that genre usually come dressed in loud covers, often deafeningly so. Lilac and pink are prominent for touchy-feely works, while black with gold leaf lettering is common for the stuff aimed right at your wow-buttons.