Don't let the title fool you, this thread does not offer proof that the Moon landings were faked, it provides a definition of what evidence would be
necessary to prove they were.
Whether or not astronauts landed on the Moon in the last century, or indeed, whether or not human beings have even left the surface of the Earth, is
not a scientific question, it is an historical one. Historical methodology
uses a number of
critical techniques to examine several types of evidence: contemporary documentation, eyewitness accounts, secondary sources, and physical evidence.
All of these are cross checked against one another. The reliability of each source is evaluated, and a theory constructed to harmonize them all. As
further evidence emerges, such as the discovery of new archives or physical remains, this evidence is incorporated into the theory if it fits, or the
theory is altered to accommodate it.
One fallacy that Moon Hoax proponents make is that "if a single detail is wrong or contradictory, the entire narrative must be false." This is a
fallacy because documentation is subject to human error. Numbers get miscounted, locations get misidentified. Every few years archaeologists or
military historians "discover" where the Battle of Agincourt took place. Just because the battlefield seems to meander across the French countryside
from year to year does not dismay historians. There is ample documentation, first hand in some cases, from both French and English sources to confirm
that such a battle took place. Furthermore, the course of history would probably have been much different had it not. Likewise, it is no problem that
the French and English sources "spin" their narratives to make their knights more virtuous and the other side more treacherous. The body counts were
Another major fallacy is that the burden of proof lies entirely on those who affirm the historical record. This leads to moving goalpost phenomenon.
First, they want confirmation from a source that is not NASA. When that is provided, they claim that the source has somehow been corrupted, and want
another one.When that is provided, they claim it, too, was faked, and so on. If one wishes to claim that the body of historical evidence is false,
the burden of proof falls on the challenger.
There is no point hiding behind an opinion being "plausible." If one believes one's interpretation of events is "plausible," one needs to explain
Why is it plausible that a country would spend billions designing, building and launching equipment, but not use it for its intended
purpose? Why is it plausible that America's geopolitical rivals, the Soviet Union, China, and France, would not expose the fraud? Why is it plausible
that the government's internal
opponents, like the Union of Concerned Scientists would not expose it? Why is it plausible that thousands of
scientists and engineers were unable to detect the imposture? Why is it plausible that they could all be bribed or threatened in order to be silenced?
You get the picture.
I consider myself to be objective, and am perfectly willing to consider counter-narratives to the history of the space program. I certainly
understand that there was much more cloak and dagger involved than the public was allowed to see: Blue Gemini, MOL, the (still) classified
telecommunications and ranging experiments flown on various missions. I'm sure the political narrative was not as clean as it is usually presented.
(Ever notice how most of the newly built NASA bases were below the Mason-Dixon line?) The squeaky clean image of the first astronauts is also suspect.
There is adequate documentation to make inferences about these "counter-narratives."
But what about the allegation that the lunar landings were somehow "faked." Well, given how much documentation the historical record contains, anyone
making that claim has got a lot of work they need to do. They need to provide an equal volume of:
1) Executive Orders authorizing various phases of the deception.
2) Memoranda from government officials and private contractors describing aspects of the hoax.
3) Blueprints for the special sound stages used to fake the film and videos.
4) Technical drawings of the rigging used to simulate reduced/zero gravity.
5) Detailed accounting records showing how the project was paid for.
6) Employment records detailing the names of the thousands of engineers, technicians, and special effects experts employed in the project.
7) The physical remains of the sound stage(s) used.
8) The physical remains of the various props, scale models, etc.
9) Eyewitness accounts by individuals involved in the project.
10) Journal entries detailing employees participation.
11) "Out-takes," hours and hours of film and video that could not be used for one reason or another.
12) Behind the scene film and photographs showing how the production was done.
Provide me with enough of the above, and I will not only be convinced, I will spread the word. I'm not holding my breath.
edit on 1-2-2016 by
DJW001 because: (no reason given)