Please put my husband right once and for all

[great_bear]

but there are not 2 sides, in this case. There is just evidence

My point is that there is a prevalent attitude of "don't question any photos from the moon landing, or you must be guilty of crimes against science." This is a shame, because there's lots to be learnt from those photos by questioning some of the many peculiar artefacts shown within them. The study of inconsistencies in the photos and videos is of benefit to science, not to the detriment of it. However, the debate about such specific peculiarities in a given photo can never be had, because discussion immediately descends into a bun fight between hoax theorists vs. the anti-hoaxers.

- and whilst I actually don't have an 'everyones view is equal' relativist stance - it is nonetheless true that I am far, far more concerned about the pathological anger I've seen vented at hoax theorists than I am about such people holding a misinformed set of beliefs.

[MikeWilson]

In any case, I certainly think it's wrong to foster an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation such that people are frightened to ask questions when something doesn't look quite right to their eyes.

I think I understand where you are coming from and I generally agree with you.

However consider yourself for a moment. Take a look at this picture:

You notice how there are no stars in the sky and you consider that strange. Do you:

1. Shrug your shoulders and go on your way, not caring one way or another

2. Scream, "Conspiracy!" at the top of your voice. Start a blog showing the "faked" evidence and proceed to tell everybody you know that the moon landings are fake and you have undeniable proof?

3. Research why there may be no stars in the picture.

Assuming most of the population fall into category one, that is they don't care or have never considered this photograph, they go about their daily business unaware of the hoax/non-hoaxers arguing on the internet.

Assuming that you fall into category two, the de-facto "hoaxer". There may well be good reasons for the phenomenon they have witnessed but instead of finding out why it doesn't work, they find this evidence agrees with their pre-determined position and they herald it as evidence for their side and immediately ignore dissenting opinion.

Assuming that you fall into category three, you do some research. You realise that the moon and stars, just like Jupiter and it's moons from earth cannot be easily exposed in the same frame (without some trickery). You then have two decisions to make - intellectual honesty of finding an interesting phenomenon (De facto "Bona fide") in the photograph OR willful ignorance of the facts that don't go along with your opinion and selective publishing of propoganda. De facto "con artist".

Moon hoaxers, like anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers and special creationists typically seem to fall into majority of category two with a few select "leaders" as category three, full time con artists who usually make a living on the lie by selling misinformation.

MrsR's hubby is probably just a category one chap, who doesn't really care one way or another. He's probably pre-occupied with other (more important!) things in life and hasn't given, for example the stars in the photograph much thought. Maybe he found the arguments for a fake moon landing compelling enough to not take the time and effort (and it IS effort) to determine why the hoaxer's arguments are bunk.

But the reason why some people are ardently strident in their approach to moon hoaxers is because of the misinformation spread by category three and in the knowledge of knowing how having fellow humans around believing in quackery can lead to a poorer society as a whole. Look at our friends over in America and the "wedge strategy" for getting creationism into schools for a good example of why some people get really angry about it.

Hope this helps

[mindburner]

My point is that there is a prevalent attitude of "don't question any photos from the moon landing, or you must be guilty of crimes against science." This is a shame, because there's lots to be learnt from those photos by questioning some of the many peculiar artefacts shown within them. The study of inconsistencies in the photos and videos is of benefit to science, not to the detriment of it. However, the debate about such specific peculiarities in a given photo can never be had, because discussion immediately descends into a bun fight between hoax theorists vs. the anti-hoaxers.

- and whilst I actually don't have an 'everyones view is equal' relativist stance - it is nonetheless true that I am far, far more concerned about the pathological anger I've seen vented at hoax theorists than I am about such people holding a misinformed set of beliefs.

I would not think that anyone would say not to question any held beliefs or theories, that is the nature of the scientific method, how knowledge advances.

but some of these so called challenges (eg the space glove test, or doorway test) are not relevant and do not follow the scrupulous standards held by the scientific consensus. Therefore proponents of these views deserve not to be taken seriously. Not to bully or attack ad hominem, but sometimes these people need to be laughed at. Arguing with them (on other forums) is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks all the pieces over, cr*ps on the board then squawks off claiming victory.

As for photos..

Any I have seen have been along these lines:

• The reticules are behind some of the images
  
• There are shadows on Aldrins space suit
  
• Shadow lengths wrong
  
• Aldrins antenna supposed discrepancy
  
• Same background supposedly used in multiple shots
  
• Supposed spot lighting on Aldrins space boots
  
• Differences in live footage and stills
  
• The ‘C’ rock
  

I agree it’s good to examine and learn from photographs but not to draw erroneous or false conclusions. I.e. this looks weird therefore it must be a forgery.

All these have explanations that do not involve a hoax. Hoax believers like to point to what they see as anomalies to hopefully erode the official story, while never actually putting their conspiracy theory (which usually changes from week to week) to see whether it too makes sense.

have you any examples of any faked photos?

[Zakalwe]

Oh - I think you're actually making the same point that I was making. Let me re-state it perhaps more clearly.

The problem as I see it is that there's dogma on both sides of the argument and it's this dogma that's unhelpful to the debate as follows:

• The conspiracy theorists believe that photos which appear faked in someway, prove that the moon landing didn't happen. Unfortunately, even if such photos were demonstrably fake, it still wouldn't prove that the moon landing itself was faked.
  
• On the flipside, anti-hoaxers (along with intimidation and bullying) often seem to argue in principle that because there is indisputable evidence that the moon landing happened, then any suggestion that a photo is faked must therefore be ludicrous.
  

However, the suggestion that some photos may be faked or enhanced is not - in and of itself - a ludicrous suggestion. They may be a number of reasons why things are faked - such as (as an example) the TV advert for the iPhone which received complaints because it made it look like using the internet was considerably more seamless than it really was. It was - in effect - a fake demonstration of the iPhone. Those iPhone adverts now have to have "Sequence shortened" in small print at the bottom of the screen because of the complaints.

In summary, whilst it's perhaps OK to laugh off claims that the moon landing was a fake, it's perhaps less wise to dismiss queries about specific inconsistencies in specific photos or video sequences. Such inconsistencies need explanations.

I've personally always found the explanations for those inconsistencies to be technically interesting and - indeed - also learned some new things about photography in the process - and I'm glad that people were brave enough to raise questions about things that looked odd to them.

In any case, I certainly think it's wrong to foster an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation such that people are frightened to ask questions when something doesn't look quite right to their eyes.

I think I see where you are coming from, but you are doing the hoaxers too much justice.

You use the phrase "dogma" in relation to both "sides". Dogma is defined (on Wiki) as " It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers", which is not a view that I would associate with any scientific principle. In fact, those of us with an interest in the subject go to get lengths to challenge our thinking, learn the science behind the Moon landings and take time to understand the subject.

The comparison to an iPhone advert, is at best, misleading. I personally have never seen any photo that was faked or doctored. I also do not know of anyone that doesn't go to some lengths to explain the "inconsistencies" which you speak (in fact, what the hoaxers talk about is not inconsistencies........just an example of their incorrect thinking).

As for an atmosphere of bullying or intimidation, again, I can only speak for my experience, and I have never seen or heard of anyone bullying or intimidating a hoaxer. I wish the same was reciprocated, unlike that famous video where Sibrel accosted Aldrin with a Bible.

[mindburner]

I think I understand where you are coming from and I generally agree with you.

However consider yourself for a moment. Take a look at this picture:

You notice how there are no stars in the sky and you consider that strange. Do you:

1. Shrug your shoulders and go on your way, not caring one way or another

2. Scream, "Conspiracy!" at the top of your voice. Start a blog showing the "faked" evidence and proceed to tell everybody you know that the moon landings are fake and you have undeniable proof?

3. Research why there may be no stars in the picture.

Assuming most of the population fall into category one, that is they don't care or have never considered this photograph, they go about their daily business unaware of the hoax/non-hoaxers arguing on the internet.

Assuming that you fall into category two, the de-facto "hoaxer". There may well be good reasons for the phenomenon they have witnessed but instead of finding out why it doesn't work, they find this evidence agrees with their pre-determined position and they herald it as evidence for their side and immediately ignore dissenting opinion.

Assuming that you fall into category three, you do some research. You realise that the moon and stars, just like Jupiter and it's moons from earth cannot be easily exposed in the same frame (without some trickery). You then have two decisions to make - intellectual honesty of finding an interesting phenomenon (De facto "Bona fide") in the photograph OR willful ignorance of the facts that don't go along with your opinion and selective publishing of propoganda. De facto "con artist".

Moon hoaxers, like anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers and special creationists typically seem to fall into majority of category two with a few select "leaders" as category three, full time con artists who usually make a living on the lie by selling misinformation.

MrsR's hubby is probably just a category one chap, who doesn't really care one way or another. He's probably pre-occupied with other (more important!) things in life and hasn't given, for example the stars in the photograph much thought. Maybe he found the arguments for a fake moon landing compelling enough to not take the time and effort (and it IS effort) to determine why the hoaxer's arguments are bunk.

But the reason why some people are ardently strident in their approach to moon hoaxers is because of the misinformation spread by category three and in the knowledge of knowing how having fellow humans around believing in quackery can lead to a poorer society as a whole. Look at our friends over in America and the "wedge strategy" for getting creationism into schools for a good example of why some people get really angry about it.

Hope this helps

I think your post puts it well, the apollo hoax thing is what got me to question lots of other things in my life, creationism being one of them. So in that respect the hoax believers do some good at getting folk to examine and learn. Would you happen to be a Sagan fan BTW:)

[MikeWilson]

I think your post puts it well, the apollo hoax thing is what got me to question lots of other things in my life, creationism being one of them. So in that respect the hoax believers do some good at getting folk to examine and learn. Would you happen to be a Sagan fan BTW:)

I'm a fan of every populariser of science and rationality. Not just for what science does for improving our technology but the human condition itself. It's the best framework we have for critical thinking and determining what is correct from what is not. As Neil Deg'rasse Tyson says, "When you are scientifically literate the world looks much different to you".

So yes, I'm a fan of Carl Sagan. In fact, his work, ideas and disarming presentation played a big part in helping me to reevaluate my own beliefs only just a few years ago. This is where my fascination with astronomy comes from.

Readers take note that I did take aim at special creation (that is the doctrine that says the cosmos and everything especially life suddenly sprung into existence because a magic man or super being declared it into existence). This doesn't mean that you can't hold nebulous and untestable beliefs about non-specific creation, of course you can, but all the available evidence doesn't support it. My point of view was very specific creationism (amongst other things) with come with certain truth claims that can be argued (I used to argue for this position) which unfortunately(?) (fortunately for me) don't hold up to scrutiny.

Peace,

Mike

[mdstuart]

There are many things in life that you cannot prove but yet they are true..

Mark

[great_bear]

(slightly off-topic, but...)

I would not think that anyone would say not to question any held beliefs or theories, that is the nature of the scientific method, how knowledge advances.

That might be the aim, but it's a long way from reality. The history of science is littered with examples of people whose scientific proofs were rejected for no better reason than they challenged the accepted beliefs.

Acceptance in science has historically had much more to do with your social standing than any evidence-based data that you've produced.

[MikeWilson]

Acceptance in science has historically had much more to do with your social standing than any evidence-based data that you've produced.

Only in so far as social standing provides the means to spend all day staring at the world and pondering mysteries and staring at the stars at night and charting their motions. It helps to have a lot of money and social standing in order to perform this.

The rejection of scientific theories does have many examples but usually this was for religious reasons. Challenging deeply held religious and/or threatening political positions.

Fortunately now we have the internet... much cheaper and easier for people to read, understand and take and defend genuinely controversial positions. Off topic, but we do see some fairly extravagant political wrangling around modern climatology.

There are many things in life that you cannot prove but yet they are true..

Mark

Hi Mark,

What would these things be?

I'm just picking up on this because I remember one of my old favourite lines, "You can't prove love". Only, actually you can measure it empirically so the statement is meaningless

To call something true or false requires a truth statement and a test. To assert anything, opens that thing up for debate. However for beliefs for which we have not enough evidence to swing either which way I think the sensible thing to do is to suspend judgement until we have more information. For example, "Is there extra-terrestrial life outside of our solar system?". A good question, one that I believe the answer to is: "yes" but only because of the sheer number of planets and stars there are in the universe. But of course, I'm not going to suggest that aliens have been caught at Area 51 and the same aliens routinely come down to earth to perform experiments (usually of a sexual nature) with man and beast. To assert such a thing would require much more evidence.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

Best Regards,

Mike

[sixela]

My point is that there is a prevalent attitude of "don't question any photos from the moon landing, or you must be guilty of crimes against science."

I think it's more "question photos from the moon landing only if you're prepared to be shown to be a fool".

What I usually see is bad arguments shred to pieces and the people making them then switching to the meta-argument "you're mean because you think I'm guilty of crimes against science, and it's all part of the conspiracy" once the original argument is lost.

Sure, it's entirely possible to fake photos, but of the many examples that "moon hoax" types have highlighted, not one I have seen has any evidence of being a fake.

On the contrary, they display subtle effects that are at first sight paradoxical but on closer inspection are not, and fakes would usually not show these effects but be more naturally intuitive (and wrong).

[sixela]

That might be the aim, but it's a long way from reality. The history of science is littered with examples of people whose scientific proofs were rejected for no better reason than they challenged the accepted beliefs.

Acceptance in science has historically had much more to do with your social standing than any evidence-based data that you've produced.

Short term? Yes. On the longer term, though, not many accepted beliefs have managed to stem the tide.

[great_bear]

Acceptance in science has historically had much more to do with your social standing than any evidence-based data that you've produced.

Only in so far as social standing provides the means to spend all day staring at the world and pondering mysteries and staring at the stars at night and charting their motions.

Great Scott!

I find it astonishing - to the point of it actually being disturbing - that anyone could still believe that we've lived in a world so equitable that the correct people are always credited with scientific achievements.

[CaptPaul]

Hi,

There are some photos on the nasa.gov website now taken of all the landing sites on the moon showning (very blurry) objects.

(sorry if this has been put up before now!)

NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

[mindburner]

going back on topic - any fake photo examples?

[great_bear]

You're not really getting the point are you?

[mindburner]

For my part, I don't doubt that we went to the moon - but quite frankly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if an already highly-pressurised NASA publicity department couldn't resist the temptation to "accidentally" (sic) slip in some impressive earth-based photos that were originally taken for testing purposes.

Let’s rewind here and not shift the goal posts. You have stated the above. Folk would i'm sure be interested to see these ‘test’ shots and evidence of deception or fakery. One or two will do. You make assertions but you have not backed them up!

Your second point is totally straw man and has no bearing on any Apollo issue.

However, the suggestion that some photos may be faked or enhanced is not - in and of itself - a ludicrous suggestion. They may be a number of reasons why things are faked - such as (as an example) the TV advert for the iPhone which received complaints because it made it look like using the internet was considerably more seamless than it really was. It was - in effect - a fake demonstration of the iPhone. Those iPhone adverts now have to have "Sequence shortened" in small print at the bottom of the screen because of the complaints.

Because X doctored a photo/video, therefore Y did also

[Zakalwe]

My point is that there is a prevalent attitude of "don't question any photos from the moon landing, or you must be guilty of crimes against science." This is a shame, because there's lots to be learnt from those photos by questioning some of the many peculiar artefacts shown within them. The study of inconsistencies in the photos and videos is of benefit to science, not to the detriment of it. However, the debate about such specific peculiarities in a given photo can never be had, because discussion immediately descends into a bun fight between hoax theorists vs. the anti-hoaxers.

- and whilst I actually don't have an 'everyones view is equal' relativist stance - it is nonetheless true that I am far, far more concerned about the pathological anger I've seen vented at hoax theorists than I am about such people holding a misinformed set of beliefs.

Can you let us have some examples where the prevalent attitude you describe is evidenced? I have only ever seen great patience displayed to the hoaxers...even when Aldrin punched Sibrel it was at the end of a very long, obstructive and (especially for some such as Aldrin who has strong religious beliefs) offensive.

In reality, the pathological anger seems to come from the hoaxers. I have seen some of them in full spittle-flecked rants when they were presented with well reasoned arguments to their wild ideas.

There are a couple of books that I time-after-time recommend reading: The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, and Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins. Both are superbly written by two superb authors who have spent years making science more accessible to the general public. Indeed Sagan's tireless, enthusiastic and patient explanations in the Cosmos series probably accounts for a lot of people's interest in science and astronomy. in comparison, rants, obfuscation, poor thinking, lack of research and plain lies from the likes of Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing are nothing short of embarrassing.

[great_bear]

You make assertions but you have not backed them up!

Well - it's not possible to discuss the issue with someone who misrepresents what I say There was no "assertion" whatsoever in my statement. You're too keen to "characterise" what I say so that you can make an unwarranted attack. It's exactly the kind of behaviour I was referring to.

Because X doctored a photo/video, therefore Y did also

I didn't assert that either...

[mindburner]

LOL - This is your quote

Quote:

For my part, I don't doubt that we went to the moon - but quite frankly, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if an already highly-pressurised NASA publicity department couldn't resist the temptation to "accidentally" (sic) slip in some impressive earth-based photos that were originally taken for testing purposes.

so do you think that NASA has faked / misrepresented Apollo photos?

if yes, then an example would be nice

if no, fine but just say so

I can assure you that I am not attacking you, All I and others have done is ask for a photo examples

I honestly would like to see these photos, if they exist, as if they are legitimate it would be well impressive. Most Apollo fans are not fixed or dogmatic. & can handle new information.

[TheDove]

If someone really doesn't want to believe in it, they won't. Even if you do have a photo they will claim it's a fake:

I'm brand new to this forum but this made me glad I joined !!

[Holderness]

There's so much cheese in my fridge, if we didn't go to the moon were has it all come from?

[sixela]

I find it astonishing - to the point of it actually being disturbing - that anyone could still believe that we've lived in a world so equitable that the correct people are always credited with scientific achievements.

There are many theories that are attributed to the "wrong" people (or for which some credit is not given where credit is due) but that's a completely separate discussion; it doesn't change whether the theories are useful or not and to what extent they have predictive power or are falsified (which is not a black and white proposition; theories that are incomplete can nevertheless be very useful if the context in which they are used is well chosen).

In the greater scheme of things, not even the initial reactions to some theories matter either. Even some theories that are accepted for the wrong reasons (Pasteur's experiments on spontaneous generation gave results that could've been different if the protocol had accidentally been altered just a bit, but that doesn't change the fact that spontaneous generation is still dead in the water) but in the end prove robust don't matter.

The system only fails when dogma wins over evidence and continues to do so, not when people are initially prejudiced (they always are, especially when confronted with something new, almost by definition; you have to do your homework to judge and before you've done it, all you can do is pre-judge) or when accidents determine exactly when a theory is accepted and who it is credited to.

Thank you for moving the goalposts, though. At least that keeps the thread going .

[rubberman]

There's so much cheese in my fridge, if we didn't go to the moon were has it all come from?

Exactly:D

[sixela]

It can only be moon cheese if it's green, despite the best efforts of Aardman productions to portray the moon as being made out of yellow English cheese (when I watch "A Grand Day Out" my family watches me while I scream "fake, fake, it's a conspiracy!")

NASA says so, and I gullibly believe them whenever I'm not wearing my tin foil hat:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060401.html

[great_bear]

This is your quote

Yes - and I think most others understood it several posts ago. If I rephrase it, then perhaps you might too:

What my statement is saying - is that, should it materialise at a future date, that specific Apollo photos have been post-processed in some way, or that a given photo was not what it was purported to be due to some "mix-up" (sic) in the Press Department, then I personally wouldn't be the least bit surprised by such a revelation. I wasn't asserting that this has actually happened.

Apologies if this is still in any way unclear to you.