The Moon Mission
Discussion
Doofus said:
I've said before on PH that my dad was very closely involved in a few Apollo missions, including Apollo 11. He was an arse, but he wasn't a mug, and if he had any suspicion it was faked, he'd have told me.
I've seen or heard nothing in the intervening 55 years to make me doubt the Moon landings happened, and this thread just shows what it takes to be a disbeliever.
A US President had "relations" in the Oval Office with an intern, presumably the only two people present at the time and couldn't even keep that secret!I've seen or heard nothing in the intervening 55 years to make me doubt the Moon landings happened, and this thread just shows what it takes to be a disbeliever.
Imagine the amount of people who would have to be party to faking the moon landing & staging of footage/photos, but none have come forward in 50+ years with actual evidence - what is the likelihood of that?
andyeds1234 said:
MikeM6 said:
I'll say it again, calling people stupid is not persuasive. If the aim is to increase scientific understanding, then we need to be more persuasive.
I’d suggest you may not have encountered a genuine conspiracy theorist, if you believe that they can be persuaded.It’s like Roger Federer playing tennis against a wall. The wall has no training, knowledge or skill, but see who runs out of patience first.
A CT also has about much interest in genuinely understanding, as the wall has, in winning Wimbledon.
I explained some aspects of why he was wrong about a very small aspect of his thinking. He now understands that we did not evolve from monkeys for instance*. He may still have very different ideas, but he was persuaded on one aspect of it. He also has a fractionally better understanding of gravity.
I would say a conspiracy theorist for have a genuine desire to understand the world, they just have very different source material and are convinced they are right and you are wrong. It's similar to religious belief. Attack it and you don't get anywhere, but offer a helping hand to develop understanding and you can help people see beyond. Ironically, it's what a lot of conspiracy theorists get wrong too, as they often attack conventional wisdom (unconvincingly).
I think we all get the urge to say "that is stupid, why on earth do you think that?", but once you suppress that and engage in genuine dialogue with people you get further. Surely, that has to be a better outcome then people on the internet just insulting each other constantly. Or maybe that is wrong, and it's the insulting that people prefer.
- Just in case, we evolved with monkeys from a common ancestor.
Read first few pages and the last few. Moon landing deniers have been around for a while, all their 'questions' whether its about shadows, what the lander is made or or flags waving have been done, and debunked - there is nothing new to be seen here.
There isn't a single piece of actual evidence to say it didn't happen.
And thats the crux, evidence.
Often things like moon landing deniers cite 'i cant believe that...' then insert something about space, technology or whatever. Its important to recognise that personal incredulity is not evidence, simply stating that you cant believe it does not make it false. What it does mean is that you are not qualified to make informed conclusions on it.
So instead of objective informed thinking, we have a leap to a suspicious mindset with huge confirmation bias driving them toward information that confirms that narrative.
This thread demonstrates that perfectly.
Or it could all just be some big wind up
There isn't a single piece of actual evidence to say it didn't happen.
And thats the crux, evidence.
Often things like moon landing deniers cite 'i cant believe that...' then insert something about space, technology or whatever. Its important to recognise that personal incredulity is not evidence, simply stating that you cant believe it does not make it false. What it does mean is that you are not qualified to make informed conclusions on it.
So instead of objective informed thinking, we have a leap to a suspicious mindset with huge confirmation bias driving them toward information that confirms that narrative.
This thread demonstrates that perfectly.
Or it could all just be some big wind up
MikeM6 said:
andyeds1234 said:
MikeM6 said:
I'll say it again, calling people stupid is not persuasive. If the aim is to increase scientific understanding, then we need to be more persuasive.
I’d suggest you may not have encountered a genuine conspiracy theorist, if you believe that they can be persuaded.It’s like Roger Federer playing tennis against a wall. The wall has no training, knowledge or skill, but see who runs out of patience first.
A CT also has about much interest in genuinely understanding, as the wall has, in winning Wimbledon.
I explained some aspects of why he was wrong about a very small aspect of his thinking. He now understands that we did not evolve from monkeys for instance*. He may still have very different ideas, but he was persuaded on one aspect of it. He also has a fractionally better understanding of gravity.
I would say a conspiracy theorist for have a genuine desire to understand the world, they just have very different source material and are convinced they are right and you are wrong. It's similar to religious belief. Attack it and you don't get anywhere, but offer a helping hand to develop understanding and you can help people see beyond. Ironically, it's what a lot of conspiracy theorists get wrong too, as they often attack conventional wisdom (unconvincingly).
I think we all get the urge to say "that is stupid, why on earth do you think that?", but once you suppress that and engage in genuine dialogue with people you get further. Surely, that has to be a better outcome then people on the internet just insulting each other constantly. Or maybe that is wrong, and it's the insulting that people prefer.
- Just in case, we evolved with monkeys from a common ancestor.
If you go back far enough on the phylogenetic tree it's true.
coldel said:
Evolution deniers are generally linked to creationists, so trying to convince them it is true is impossible as it will fundamentally mean a shift in how they perceive the world and the religion they follow.
Probably, but at least one of the common arguments to debunk is the evolving from segment. Correcting this (without judgement) is a first step towards enlightening someone. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will provide for himself.
Tell a man he is stupid for not knowing how to fish and he will tell you fish shouldn't be eaten.
Or something like that. Maybe.
I think one of the problems with conspiracy theories is that many people, especially young people and older ones with short attention spans, are getting their information and understanding of the world from watching short videos on TikTok/Instagram/YouTube rather than trying to inform themselves in more depth. The Andrew Chaikin book mentioned earlier has 670 pages, and I remember reading a different, similarly sized book about Apollo from the library when I was a teenager. When I was young, if you were interested in a subject, you sought out some well-researched books about it, and if you were lucky you came across a BBC documentary... now you watch 500 30-second videos about it.
The internet and social media have democratised information, communication and education, but this has brought disadvantages as well as advantages. Now anybody can put out a video on any subject, even if they're talking complete rubbish.
The internet and social media have democratised information, communication and education, but this has brought disadvantages as well as advantages. Now anybody can put out a video on any subject, even if they're talking complete rubbish.
Notch 8 said:
I used to be one of them.
I grew out of it. It’s embarrassing to think about it now.
Can I ask you, what was the motivation for you holding such notions?I grew out of it. It’s embarrassing to think about it now.
And how and why, thank goodness, did you eventually abandon them?
I'm interested from a psychological aspect as it is a complete mystery to me why any individual should travel down this utterly nonsensical path.
Eric Mc said:
Notch 8 said:
I used to be one of them.
I grew out of it. It’s embarrassing to think about it now.
Can I ask you, what was the motivation for you holding such notions?I grew out of it. It’s embarrassing to think about it now.
And how and why, thank goodness, did you eventually abandon them?
I'm interested from a psychological aspect as it is a complete mystery to me why any individual should travel down this utterly nonsensical path.
Then someone asked me who put the reflectors/mirrors on the moon. I really couldn’t answer that, and it got me thinking very differently.
I think most of the moon landing deniers are doing it out of significant ignorance, mixed with thinking that it makes them appear 'special'.
It does make them 'special', but perhaps not in the way they think it does...
This thread has been interesting and a bit depressing. The sceptics didn't seem to know we've landed on the moon six times, and one of them seemed to think that Apollo 11 put a single person on the lunar surface, rather than two.
I'd like to see these kinds of people updating their views based on having been educated, but they never seem to do that. It's also interesting that some of the most extreme of the covid thread contributors were the most ignorant posters here.
It does make them 'special', but perhaps not in the way they think it does...
This thread has been interesting and a bit depressing. The sceptics didn't seem to know we've landed on the moon six times, and one of them seemed to think that Apollo 11 put a single person on the lunar surface, rather than two.
I'd like to see these kinds of people updating their views based on having been educated, but they never seem to do that. It's also interesting that some of the most extreme of the covid thread contributors were the most ignorant posters here.
Notch 8 said:
The whole U.S vs the U.S.S.R space race thing. I used to think that the U.S just simply had to beat their main rival by whichever means, tied in with a Netflix programme or two.
Then someone asked me who put the reflectors/mirrors on the moon. I really couldn’t answer that, and it got me thinking very differently.
Shallow thinking and lack of knowledge then.Then someone asked me who put the reflectors/mirrors on the moon. I really couldn’t answer that, and it got me thinking very differently.
There is no substitute for reading and learning.
I'm glad you realised the error of your ways.
Eric Mc said:
Notch 8 said:
The whole U.S vs the U.S.S.R space race thing. I used to think that the U.S just simply had to beat their main rival by whichever means, tied in with a Netflix programme or two.
Then someone asked me who put the reflectors/mirrors on the moon. I really couldn’t answer that, and it got me thinking very differently.
Shallow thinking and lack of knowledge then.Then someone asked me who put the reflectors/mirrors on the moon. I really couldn’t answer that, and it got me thinking very differently.
There is no substitute for reading and learning.
I'm glad you realised the error of your ways.
Notch 8 said:
The fact that the U.S.S.R tracked the ‘69 mission, and congratulated the U.S.A on landing is also more than noteworthy.
Not only the USSR.Many, many nations had the capability to track the various Apollo (and other) spacecraft on the way to the moon. In fact, even though the Apollo programme was ostensibly an American effort, it required assistance from institutes and governments from all over the world. Apart from the USA, there were tracking and communications stations in the Canary Islands, Spain, Africa and Australia as well as ship and aircraft filling the gaps (Pacific and Indian Ocean particularly).
Even amateur enthusiasts could track aspects of the mission, such as Kettering Boys' Grammar School which had a very enthusiastic science teacher who had his boys listening in and recording bothe voice and telemetry data coming from the Apollo and Soviet missions.
The problem is, to even pause to question their won beliefs, means damaging the ego. I guess we just have to chip away until the doubt is so strong, they have to look objectively. A Damascene conversion is unlikely.
I asked a couple of flat earthers on another forum, if the earth is flat, why are Ukrainian forces accounting for curvature of the earth when firing ATACMS? If the earth is flat, why did the Vulcans need to stop at Ascension for Operation Blackbuckk? Surely, they could have refuelled in Belize, based on the flat earth map
By trying to apply a constant stream of real life questions, which they are unable to answer, is the only way forward...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff