What evidence would turn you into a HB?

[Yorkshireman]

We've often had threads about what evidence might de-convert a hard core HB to accepting the reality of the Moon Landings. However, I'd be interested in the hypothetical question [donning tinfoil hat now]:

What evidence would make you really doubt Apollo took place?

We also have to address the question of what is necessary evidence and what is sufficient evidence. For example, if some HB scientist found a way to manufacture absolutely convincing, fake moon rocks, in a way that could have been done in 1969, then one strand of evidence for Apollo is weakened. But the sum total of evidence is still standing.

The first 4 options in the Poll would be enough to turn me into a HB.

Rob.

[kucharek]

Leak of a signed "fake it!" order from Richard Nixon
Dick came too late into power to stage the whole thing.

A sequestered confession from an Apollo astronaut
Depends on who makes the confession and under which circumstances.

Convincing Moon-rocks made in an Earth lab
That something can be faked is no evidence that something was faked

High res photos show nothing at the landing sites
Can be faked

I'd never doubt the reality of Apollo. Ever.
The pro-moonlanding evidence is so overwhelming and coherent, that I can't imagine that it was faked.

[TriangleMan]

The amount of evidence is so diverse that challenging a single piece, such as being able to produce moon-rocks in a lab, does not dismiss all of the evidence (and just because such rocks could be produced now it doesn't mean they could have then). The same goes for the photos, especially in this day and age where photo-manipulation is widespread.

A detailed confession by a major player in the landings, such as Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin, would have a lot more weight. We'd definately have to reexamine the evidence and analyze the details of the confession.

[Bob B.]

To me the first three items are not convincing evidence that it "was" faked. For instance, the discovery of one fake rock doesn’t disprove the authenticity of the others. An order from Nixon saying fake it doesn't automatically invalidate all the evidence saying it was real. And how do we know that a confession from an astronaut is not the result of a vendetta or mental problem. The only thing I see on your list that would be real direct evidence of a fake is the absence of the Apollo hardware on the Moon, and then only if the images were or sufficient resolution and precision that all alternative explanations could be eliminated.

On the other hand, if a combination of the first three items occurred or if several reliable witnesses came forward and confessed, then I'd might be forced to change my mind. But the evidence would have to be pretty overwhelming and a convincing explanation of how it was faked would have to be offered.

[kucharek]

If Neil Armstrong would suddenly hold a press conference and say, that he never went to the Moon, there would be some possible explanations that are more likely than a moon-hoax:

-Neil went silly
-Terrorists have taken his grandchild as a hostage and pressed him to make the statement
-Neil wins a bet
-Neil showing more humour than ever someone imagined
-...

[Yorkshireman]

The amount of evidence is so diverse that challenging a single piece, such as being able to produce moon-rocks in a lab, does not dismiss all of the evidence (and just because such rocks could be produced now it doesn't mean they could have then). The same goes for the photos, especially in this day and age where photo-manipulation is widespread.

That's an important point. The provenance of the photos would have to be convincing. I would want to know the source of the data, which agency or individual, and how it was come by. I'd also want an independent photo by a different agency, even by a different probe.

[Yorkshireman]

-Neil wins a bet
-...

I'd put my money on that being the likely explanation.

[jrkeller]

I think the moon rock faking would be one too. If we have the capability to create fake moon rocks, it would show that our government has technology that's probably centuries ahead of our current technology. Of course if that were true then we probably could go to the moon.

[Jason Thompson]

Leak of a signed "fake it!" order from Richard Nixon

Nixon was not president during the developmental procedures, and even if he did give such an order, I would still want evidence that that order was adhered to, and that someone at NASA didn't say 'excuse me, Mr President, but we can actually do this for real, so why bother faking it?' and then go ahead with the real deal.

This scenario would also still require evidence to be found of how it was faked.

A sequestered confession from an Apollo astronaut

The truth of Apollo does not hinge upon the testimony of one man. I would want to know the circumstances of that confession before I put any stock in it, and then I would still want the evidence for how it was faked. I'd also want verification by the other members of that crew. Even then, there are other missions that are still not touched by the confession of one astronaut. If Neil Armstrong confesses that Apollo 11 was faked, that has no bearing on the subsequent missions.

Convincing Moon-rocks made in an Earth lab

Would prove nothing. The announcement that moonrocks could be faked now in no way directly undermines the authenticity of the Apollo samples.

High res photos show nothing at the landing sites

These would still need verification. This is probably the item most likely to cause real concern, but there would still need to be exhaustive investigation to rule out any other alternatives.

I'd never doubt the reality of Apollo. Ever.

There is so much evidence in favour of the reality of Apollo that it seems unlikely that there could ever be enough evidence of fraud to undermine it all.
[/b]

[Waarthog]

As has been said by others, no single thing would do it for me. There is just too much out there that we can check against our own expertise to determine the validity of Apollo. I would need to see how the entirety of how it was done and corroborating documentation on the deception plan speaking of it as such.

[ToSeek]

As has been said by others, no single thing would do it for me. There is just too much out there that we can check against our own expertise to determine the validity of Apollo. I would need to see how the entirety of how it was done and corroborating documentation on the deception plan speaking of it as such.

Yes, I'd practically want a book entitled How We Faked the Moon Landings, along with corroborating evidence.

[Yorkshireman]

I'd be vary wary of ticking the "Nothing would convince me, ever!" box. That's basically a faith statement, if you are saying that no amount of evidence, whatever it is, would make you doubt Apollo.

[R.A.F.]

Yeah, I could be convinced that the Apollo missions were faked...IF I woke up tomorrow and discovered that the last 35+ years of my life were all a dream. You know...kinda like what happened on the TV show Dallas.

Seriously, the problem is the documented evidence demonstrating that the Moon landings actually took place ...somehow it would ALL have to "go away".

I just don't see that happening...

[Glom]

You'd have to pry ALSJ from my cold dead hands!

(I love that phrase )

[Swift]

As has been said by others, no single thing would do it for me. There is just too much out there that we can check against our own expertise to determine the validity of Apollo. I would need to see how the entirety of how it was done and corroborating documentation on the deception plan speaking of it as such.

That's my vote too. But as Yorkshireman said, you can't pick the last point either, because it is unscientific to say no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise. Still, I'd happily bet $100 that no one will ever come up with a preponderance of such evidence so as to convince me that we didn't land.

[Mellow]

Yorkshireman,

I ticked the "nothing would convince me" box because you left no other reasonable option, only 4 ways to agree with you and one easily derideable way to disagree.

You should have just given us a "none of the above" option.

I think I would need evidence of similar weight to that which I see in favour of us actually having gone to the moon.

[Yorkshireman]

Yorkshireman,

I ticked the "nothing would convince me" box because you left no other reasonable option, only 4 ways to agree with you and one easily derideable way to disagree.

You should have just given us a "none of the above" option.

I realise I could have set up a 'None of the above' option. And 100% of people then could have picked it - what I tried to do here was put in a 'grade' of counter-evidence from the stuff like (1). which, if it convinces anybody on it's own, they are probably half-believing it anyway - to (3) which would make most of us sit up and go what??? if it were actually to occur. And hopefully see what other items people might have picked in their stead, or in addition.

I don't see picking any of the option 1) to 3) as agreeing with me, as I hoped it was clear from the opening post that I'm definitely not a HB. But often enough on this board, people ask a HB for what threshold of evidence would convince them that we did go to the Moon, and the HB always skirts the point. I decided to play the reverse argument for a 'what-if' scenario. That's why I am a bit startled by the number of votes for 'I'll never be moved. My faith is a rock.'

[Cylinder]

I chose the confession scenario, though it would balance the scale of evidence as opposed to tipping it in favor of a hoax. You'd have to be able to examine the confession forensically. Where did they actually go during the mission? What was the motive for a hoax? Where's the paper trail? The astronauts would have had to be so heavily entrenched in the hoax that they should also be able to provide some pretty compelling coraborative evidence. Lacking such coraboration, you would have to look at "state of mind" or other factors that might tend to impeach the claim.

[ Edit: I cast my vote before the previous post, in case anyone is wondering :wink: ]

[lyford]

I picked Hi-Rez photos of the site, but understanding that they are from some probe or obervation that is verifiable and repeatable, and public. Not Weekly World News standard. I am not losing sleep worrying about this possiblity however. More photos can only help our cause! \/

All the photos I have seen of the landing site, including hi-res pics, have Apollo hardware in them!


Any "evidence" would also have to explain away the enormous historical record that already exists. One picture can't do that.

[Cylinder]

I think that's the point people here are trying to make (speaking for myself, at least it is.) There are so many pieces of verifiable coraboration in support of successful missions that it would be hard to imagine one piece of evidence tearing them all down in one neat little step.

[Jason]

What would convince me would be a trip to the moon and a personal inspection of the landing site of Apollo 11 without finding any Apollo equipment.

So if the missions were faked, I'd still get a free trip to the moon. A win-win situation.

[Yorkshireman]

There are so many pieces of verifiable coraboration in support of successful missions that it would be hard to imagine one piece of evidence tearing them all down in one neat little step.

Exactly. It gives the lie to the argument so many real HBs make of "only one little piece of evidence that doesn't fit, and 'poof' - whole thing is out of the water". All the rest of the evidence stands. That's why I made the point (which is a mathematical one really) about necessary and sufficient arguments. If a photo came in from some future high-res orbiter showing nothing doing at Taurus-Littrow, there is still hundreds of kilos of Moon rock to explain away as well. But the photo would demand some logical explanation to be forthcoming (from Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt in particular - for falsifying their time-sheets!)

[R.A.F.]

If a photo came in from some future high-res orbiter showing nothing doing at Taurus-Littrow, there is still hundreds of kilos of Moon rock to explain away as well. But the photo would demand some logical explanation to be forthcoming (from Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt in particular - for falsifying their time-sheets!)

Not really...the argument could also be made that "Hoagland's Moon people" are very good housekeepers, and they cleaned up everything after Gene and Jack left.

My head hurts from thinking up this "woo stuff"...

[Waarthog]

Yorkshireman,

Quick question, I may have misunderstood the spirit of your question. Was it asked in rhetorical fashion that the unstated hypothetical assumption for debate purposes was that Apollo was faked? I am not suggesting you foment such a postition as a true situation, (indeed you already confirmed that) but rather as a vehicle for discussion.

Even so, to select #4 is not completely intellectualy dishonest from the choices given. The hoax evidence has to negate the totality of the Apollo evidence dataset. A better question might have been to ask what of the following would go the furthest in casting doubts on the authenticity of Apollo?

This is a good way to have kicked off some discussion but I think it might turn into a debate as to why or why not #4 is a good or the best answer.

[Lurker]

um... since there are laser reflectors on the moon that we left there, I find it hard to understand how I could be convinced that we did not go to the moon.

I have one of the new gold dollar coins in my pocket. I put it there, I can feel it pressing gently against my leg as I sit here typing this. I doubt that there is any amount of evidence that anyone could present that would convince me that it is not there...

[die Nullte]

um... since there are laser reflectors on the moon that we left there, I find it hard to understand how I could be convinced that we did not go to the moon.

But, you see, the Soviets put a reflector up there with an unmanned probe. So this "proves" that NASA did it the same way. That's HB logic. I've even seen the claim that there are no reflectors, that simply shooting a laser at the moon is certain to produce a reflection that can fool gullible scientists into thinking it came off a reflector.

[Andreas]

I chose "None of the above". Since that choice was missing, I didn't vote on it.

What evidence would we need? We have picture and movie material that is perfectly consistent with the moon environment and with Apollo being true. Decades of close inspection found no goofs as would be expected if it was faked (there are no perfect movies). The special effects technology (high resolution digital image manipulation) didn't exist back then, even with today's technology the cost to go to that level of realism would probably be prohibitive.

Still the major problem is that the computers back then weren't advanced enough to create fake pictures and movies of the required quality. For them still to be faked, we need evidence that the required technology was supplied by an outside source -- meaning evidence for aliens visiting or time travel. There's also the thing with the radio tracking which proves that something went to the moon and back. So NASA still would have needed the technology to at least send an unmanned radio relay around to the moon.

Show me the alien/future artifacts and I might consider that there's something to it. Oh, I forgot, there also had to be some mInDkOnTrOl technology to have those many people believe that they were working on a successful program. Yeah, show me these.

[Lurker]

um... since there are laser reflectors on the moon that we left there, I find it hard to understand how I could be convinced that we did not go to the moon.

But, you see, the Soviets put a reflector up there with an unmanned probe. So this "proves" that NASA did it the same way. That's HB logic. I've even seen the claim that there are no reflectors, that simply shooting a laser at the moon is certain to produce a reflection that can fool gullible scientists into thinking it came off a reflector.

I understand... but the question is what evidence would convince me that we did not reach the moon. When one goes through all the evidence, from moon rocks to reflectors, to positioning of the space craft by its signals, to even watching the urine dumps from the space craft... the evidence is overwhelming....

I can no more be convinced that we didn't go to the moon than I can be convinced that the dollar coin is in my pocket... the evidence is just too overwhelming... Some things have actually happened and arguments cannot sway:

- hurricane Ivan is really in the Gulf of Mexico
- the sun shown today (where there were no clouds)
- there is a dollar coin in my pocket
- we landed on the moon.

[Doe, John]

I can no more be convinced that we didn't go to the moon than I can be convinced that the dollar coin is in my pocket... the evidence is just too overwhelming

I have one of the new gold dollar coins in my pocket. I put it there, I can feel it pressing gently against my leg as I sit here typing this. I doubt that there is any amount of evidence that anyone could present that would convince me that it is not there...

Ambiguity!!! Misstatements!!! Obviously you are a disinformation agent!!!
[/sarcasm] #-o

[Lurker]

Ambiguity!!! Misstatements!!! Obviously you are a disinformation agent!!!
[/sarcasm] #-o

Watch it Doe... We know where you live!! [-(
We don't like people identifying us... 8-[

:P