Did man land on the moon?

[Mash]

Did someone mention cheese?

Ah, brilliant! The moon landing conspiracy belongs in the land of claymation!

[Purple Hayes]

Did someone mention cheese?

Ah, brilliant! The moon landing conspiracy belongs in the land of claymation!

Why not? As good a theory as any......and when you go to the moon don't forget the crackers

[dpwolf]

the alternate theories haven't been overly plausible to me any more than the official explanation

It's the opposite that rubs me. If neither explanation convinces convincingly, why pick one over the other? I choose the other by default - even if just for the sake of argument - with you - simply because I don't trust the government version. Ever.

Two things: why do you assume I'm picking one? I find the official explanation of what happened at the Ambassador somewhat wanting and I find the alternate theories wanting. As such, I haven't picked any—I'm waiting for something that satisfies the evidence to my judgment. Second, picking the conspiracy side by default seems as dogmatic as always believing the government. Kneejerk responses don't tend to lend themselves to insight. Just because the govt has lied and been engaged in shady activity in the past doesn't mean its involved in every shady activity or that all its activities are shady; likewise, just because some govt actions are upfront doesn't mean it hasn't been involved with more sinister plots.

For the lunar landing, I assumed you were picking one because you appeared to be completely dismissing the "conspiracy" version. I further assume you remain somewhat open about JFK but still haven't been convinced it was an inside job. But that I don't quite understand: it seems to me that you either believe there was one shooter or more; if you believe there were more people involved than Oswald, you believe in the conspiracy version. You don't have to believe alien free masons traveled through time to shoot JFK, you just have to believe Oswald did not do it alone. This is the luxury the conspiracy versions should enjoy - - all you have to do is believe some are covering something up - but unfortunately gross exaggeration and expansion becomes the method by which all conspiracies are automatically critiqued and dismissed.

Of course just because the govt has lied and been engaged in shady activity in the past doesn't mean its involved in every shady activity or that all its activities are shady, but it does mean the govt shouldn't be trusted blindly, and when there is smoke perhaps we should look, and look hard, for the fire.

If the government can lie and cover up something like JFK's assassination, including as to all the various active and passive players involved, as you say, which seems to be at least partially true, why not other assassinations, government manipulations and the lunar landing as well?

There have been other conspiracies, without a doubt. But that doesn't mean that everything is a conspiracy. It's about looking for likely candidates and whether the available evidence is positively suggestive.

I agree.

The Soviets thought it impossible at the time, I thought, or at least they didn't follow up and do it themselves. Why not? If the race was that hot it doesn't make sense for them to just give up and continue beating lesser records by placing more people and women in the upper atmosphere or whatever. Why wouldn't they want their flag up on the moon. or more people. or for a longer time.

No idea—I've never read anything about the politics of the Soviet space agency beyond the initial Sputnik launches. All kinds of non-sinister reasons for not pursuing it—e.g., no longer a propaganda prize, lack of technical expertise, political directives, interest in other projects like a space station—that it seems odd to default to the sinister explanation, especially when no one can posit a rationale for the Soviets keeping silent. Unless there's compelling evidence that there are mysterious forces controlling a majority of things in the world, I see no reason to search for a master planner.

Well like you I'm not all that educated on the Soviet space program but if they didn't believe it was possible I suppose they wouldn't have proof to share anyway. I suppose it could have gone round and round with "did to" and "did not" but that would go no where and probably would not be newsworthy, in the US anyhow.

You're talking about the group that wants to manufacture an incident. I'm talking about all the other actors who would have no reason to agree to continue the conspiracy but apparently go against their interests and do so. It's relatively easy to conduct a fraud; the hard part is covering it up, increasingly so as the number of participants, before, during, and after the act, grows.

I agree the hard part is covering it up but the number of participants decreases after the act and there is not otherwise the need for an ever-increasing number of co-conspirators. For the lunar landing, I agree it seems there would probably have been too many involved to pull such a sham off. But then again, for the sake of argument, perhaps it was very narrow and controlled, with video feeds to others in NASA, in the government, etc. but not "in the know." The astronauts themselves would seem to be the biggest stumbling block for the conspiracy, but at the same time there was only a few and they were heavily trained top secret government military types. Either way you cannot include the Soviets in the conspiracy because they wouldn't know anything about it, and as I said how could they prove we didn't land other than to say well our science at the time concluded it was impossible without killing the astronaut.

In any event, it sounds like we're trying again in 2020 - after 35 years of inactivity.

[Dr. Medulla]

For the lunar landing, I assumed you were picking one because you appeared to be completely dismissing the "conspiracy" version.

As my original post suggested, I'm open to some of the photos being faked, but the large logic required for a complete fake is especially weak. Hence, the much greater likelihood is that, indeed, American astronauts have been to the moon, several times.

I further assume you remain somewhat open about JFK but still haven't been convinced it was an inside job.

I have never ever never ever ever denied a conspiracy regarding Dallas. There are some weak spots with many of the theories—namely how many organizations were actively involved—but the official version is laughably weak. Above, I was talking about Robert Kennedy's assassination—neither conspiracy nor official theory adequately accounts for the evidence, so I remain open on that, tho leaning to a conspiracy.

This is the luxury the conspiracy versions should enjoy - - all you have to do is believe some are covering something up - but unfortunately gross exaggeration and expansion becomes the method by which all conspiracies are automatically critiqued and dismissed.

No, most conspiracy theories (or rather the proponents) suffer from a lack of rigour in their argument and in self-critique. They tend to work from a "this could have happened" to a "it must have happened." Evidence that debunks the conspiracy is regarded as flawed or cooked, whereas any scrap that supports the conspiracy is accepted. Like with any scientific investigation, if you're not equally hard on your own theses as you are on competing versions, you're doing the entire process a disservice.

Well like you I'm not all that educated on the Soviet space program but if they didn't believe it was possible I suppose they wouldn't have proof to share anyway. I suppose it could have gone round and round with "did to" and "did not" but that would go no where and probably would not be newsworthy, in the US anyhow.

Really? Do you really think the Soviets couldn't offer up evidence that there were no flights to the moon and that no one anywhere in the world wouldn't pay attention?

Either way you cannot include the Soviets in the conspiracy because they wouldn't know anything about it

No, the Soviets are pretty much the key because they could offer evidence of it being faked given their own space and satellite program and they would have no reason to go along with a cover up.

[esmark]

YES, THERE IS A FUCKING FACE ON MARS!!!!!

I agree with Paul Stanley....

[Mash]

Did someone mention cheese?

Ah, brilliant! The moon landing conspiracy belongs in the land of claymation!

Why not? As good a theory as any......and when you go to the moon don't forget the crackers

Tastes like no cheese I ever tasted ...

Well, it was an interesting conspiracy, but in my book it was thoroughly debunked years ago (the conspiracy theory captivated my interest for a bit in the late 1990s). It's been so long since I've looked at it that I forget the particulars. But I could dig it up again and produce the evidence that will thoroughly squash all the major cornerstones of the conspiracy theory if (if) I felt it was worth my time.

The info is readily available to any search engine savy citizen with internet access.

[dpwolf]

For the lunar landing, I assumed you were picking one because you appeared to be completely dismissing the "conspiracy" version.

As my original post suggested, I'm open to some of the photos being faked, but the large logic required for a complete fake is especially weak. Hence, the much greater likelihood is that, indeed, American astronauts have been to the moon, several times.

Why would they fake some of the photos?

I further assume you remain somewhat open about JFK but still haven't been convinced it was an inside job.

I have never ever never ever ever denied a conspiracy regarding Dallas. There are some weak spots with many of the theories—namely how many organizations were actively involved—but the official version is laughably weak. Above, I was talking about Robert Kennedy's assassination—neither conspiracy nor official theory adequately accounts for the evidence, so I remain open on that, tho leaning to a conspiracy.

Excellent.

This is the luxury the conspiracy versions should enjoy - - all you have to do is believe some are covering something up - but unfortunately gross exaggeration and expansion becomes the method by which all conspiracies are automatically critiqued and dismissed.

No, most conspiracy theories (or rather the proponents) suffer from a lack of rigour in their argument and in self-critique. They tend to work from a "this could have happened" to a "it must have happened."

Unfortunate but sometimes true. I suspect its typically done to $ell the book.

Evidence that debunks the conspiracy is regarded as flawed or cooked, whereas any scrap that supports the conspiracy is accepted. Like with any scientific investigation, if you're not equally hard on your own theses as you are on competing versions, you're doing the entire process a disservice.

Okay, but the same and more can be said for evidence offered to debunk the official version. Plus I'm not sure scientific investigation is the end all be all for this kind of stuff. The facts for the lunar landing, JFK, RFK or 9-11 do not exist to be discovered as in a scientific investigation, unfortunately, but are rather facts offered and supported, perhaps falsely, by their own creators and promoters. Documents drafted for a purpose. Manufactured evidence. I'm not sure scientific method is an effective tool for proving or disproving such a conspiracy. Take the Iraq war for an example. It seems a stretch to say a scientific investigation into the intelligence which led to the war found it to be flawed, let alone intentionally misleading. It was rather individuals who came forth with the truth after the fact. Those individuals did a lot more than any internal investigation. Similarly, those of us who jumped to the conclusion much earlier than the press did so because we didn't trust Bush and his administration, not because we used the scientific method, reviewed the intelligence reports ourselves and concluded that Iraq had no WMD and wasn't connected to 9-11.

Well like you I'm not all that educated on the Soviet space program but if they didn't believe it was possible I suppose they wouldn't have proof to share anyway. I suppose it could have gone round and round with "did to" and "did not" but that would go no where and probably would not be newsworthy, in the US anyhow.

Really? Do you really think the Soviets couldn't offer up evidence that there were no flights to the moon and that no one anywhere in the world wouldn't pay attention?

Like what? See here are our satellite readings that show nothing went to the moon? Our scientists said it can't be done?

Either way you cannot include the Soviets in the conspiracy because they wouldn't know anything about it

No, the Soviets are pretty much the key because they could offer evidence of it being faked given their own space and satellite program and they would have no reason to go along with a cover up.

The only evidence they could have offered would be out of their own, separate and deemed inferior by our successful landing, technology. As for satellite readings, the response would have been "wholly inaccurate." As for it was impossible, that would have been met with a "you're wrong; we figured it out and you haven't." Again this isn't a scientific investigation where the fact nicely line up and the longer wins. If we didn't land on the moon and were lied to by our own government, the Soviets would not have been part of the conspiracy. They would rather have been misled like the rest of us, I think.

Regardless, it seems most likely that we landed on the moon back in the sixties and haven't really been interested in doing it since, for whatever reason. I'm aboard. Ready to move on and talk about the immortal alien kings of Egypt and Sumer?

[101Walterton]

Anyone been to the darkside?

Nope, never been tempted to support Man U..

I thought it was Arsenal or Pompey

[tepista]

Didn't Bowie try to land on the moon?
With the pseudonym Major Tom?

He was just going where his spaceship took him.

I told his wife that he loved her, but she already knew.

[101Walterton]

The Japaneses are going to land on the moon soon so we shall all find out the truth then !!!

[Dr. Medulla]

Why would they fake some of the photos?

I explained that in my first post—because the photos taken on the moon weren't good enough for public consumption (the propaganda aspect). Hypothetically, of course.

Okay, but the same and more can be said for evidence offered to debunk the official version. Plus I'm not sure scientific investigation is the end all be all for this kind of stuff.

Scientific method—hypothesis, testing the hypothesis that the available evidence proves to the exclusion of other hypotheses.

Similarly, those of us who jumped to the conclusion much earlier than the press did so because we didn't trust Bush and his administration, not because we used the scientific method, reviewed the intelligence reports ourselves and concluded that Iraq had no WMD and wasn't connected to 9-11.

And that would be poor methodology. That you were right is nothing to brag about.

Like what? See here are our satellite readings that show nothing went to the moon? Our scientists said it can't be done?

The former. Hard data indicating no activity on the moon.

The only evidence they could have offered would be out of their own, separate and deemed inferior by our successful landing, technology. As for satellite readings, the response would have been "wholly inaccurate." As for it was impossible, that would have been met with a "you're wrong; we figured it out and you haven't." Again this isn't a scientific investigation where the fact nicely line up and the longer wins. If we didn't land on the moon and were lied to by our own government, the Soviets would not have been part of the conspiracy. They would rather have been misled like the rest of us, I think.

The official American response to that would be largely irrelevant. The competing information—hard data—would be available for public examination. The Warren Commission Report is still the official finding and those involved have dismissed all criticism. That doesn't change the fact that independent investigators have put forth more plausible theories based on new evidence and better reading of older evidence. It's not about what the official response is; it's about providing evidence for others to examine. And, with the moon landings, no other country ever did that.

Ready to move on and talk about the immortal alien kings of Egypt and Sumer?

I've got a stiletto next to my right temple in anticipation …

[dpwolf]

better than the scientific method -

[youtube][/youtube]

[Dr. Medulla]

Reminds me of a great (for academics, anyway) story about Eugene Genovese, a prominent white historian of slavery. Genovese was at a conference in the late 60s and was confronted by an angry and loud black grad student(?) who told him he had no right to write about black people. Genovese, getting tired of this frequent line of attack, just said, "You're an idiot." Genovese said he didn't like doing this, but the level of conflict was so intense and absurd that he thought you either slam them down or retreat—there was no middle ground for actual debate.

[Wolter]

I hope Buzz helped him to his feet and then decked him again. What a maroon.

[tepista]

I like to believe the conspiricy theory for fun (like when Wolter told me there was no such thing as Shakespeare) but now that I've read a bit about this Sibrel clown, I hate his guts.

GO MOON LANDING!!!