Apollo 11 documentary
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
I read an article the other day that claimed 1 in 6 brits thought it was a hoax. Crazy.
I’ve seen several polls over the years that show the percentage as higher than that; up to around 50%. The issue is the same as creationism, flat earth, etc; if there’s a topic that people aren’t familiar with, then they tend to believe the first thing they hear. There has been a bit of research on this that makes interesting reading. People also haven’t got a clue these days where to find the truth and who to trust. We no longer just have books, we have the internet, where everyone’s content is hosted in a similar way, so the reader has to decide if they’re reading nonsense or considered opinions and facts.For example, anyone familiar with photography, astronomy and basic physics knows that on the moon in daytime, even though the sky is black (due to a lack of atmosphere scattering the light), photos aren’t going to reveal stars. With the sun blaring down on the astronauts and the reflective lunar surface, there’s no way stars will appear. For those people unaware of that, if someone tells them this is a “glaring error” in the moon landing photos, they believe it, and they are more likely to stick to the original explanation. Conspiracy believers also don’t tend to know about Russia’s lunar programme, or NASA’s Gemini before Apollo and Voyager, Space Shuttle etc after it – that lineage falls apart if you remove Apollo.
I always enquire of " moon landing hoaxers" their views on the validity of the hundreds of other space programmes beyond Apollo - both practical day to day satellites and the more exotic planetary probes and other manned programmes.
They generally end up forcing themselves down a road that means they have to state that ALL space technology is faked - and therefore they end up leaving the debate when asked about their use of the internet, long distance TV and phone calls, weather forecasting etc.
They generally end up forcing themselves down a road that means they have to state that ALL space technology is faked - and therefore they end up leaving the debate when asked about their use of the internet, long distance TV and phone calls, weather forecasting etc.
It's a very interesting area, psychologically. One thing that is notable is more often than not, someone who believes one conspiracy theory believes pretty much all of them, so a moon landing denier will often think 9/11 is an inside job, etc, etc.
What fascinates me, in particular, is actually not all of them are stupid, some are otherwise perfectly intelligent, functioning individuals. It's like a sort of 'short circuit' in critical thinking skills.
What fascinates me, in particular, is actually not all of them are stupid, some are otherwise perfectly intelligent, functioning individuals. It's like a sort of 'short circuit' in critical thinking skills.
I frequently chat to these people online, not for the sake of arguing (which I hate), but simply because I’m passionate about physics and astro. The two arguments that I’ve found stop them dead in their tracks (which is very rare online these days!!) are:1) If they deny Apollo 11, do they also deny other Apollo missions? The answer’s normally yes. So then I ask if they deny Gemini missions, which laid the foundations for Apollo. Do they also deny what came after Apollo? Voyager, Space Shuttle, etc etc. How were they possible without Apollo?
2) The artistic mechanism for faking it. In the 1960s, space movies were made with paintings and models. Are they seriously suggesting that all the film and photographic evidence is made from models and paintings? It’s clearly not.
Interestingly, the more conventional direct evidence that we went to the moon doesn’t convince them, such as the third of a tonne of moon rock that we brought back, the reflector placed there that we use daily to measure the distance to the moon, the images taken subsequently from lunar orbit of Apollo artefacts left on the moon, or the USSR tracking Apollo craft all the way to the mon and back!
paulguitar said:
It's a very interesting area, psychologically. One thing that is notable is more often than not, someone who believes one conspiracy theory believes pretty much all of them, so a moon landing denier will often think 9/11 is an inside job, etc, etc.
What fascinates me, in particular, is actually not all of them are stupid, some are otherwise perfectly intelligent, functioning individuals. It's like a sort of 'short circuit' in critical thinking skills.
There a very good podcast, Conspiracy Theories, run by a couple of non-conspiracy theorist's who look into historical events and then into the theories that have arisen and, after examining all the evidence, then attempt to calculate the validity of each.What fascinates me, in particular, is actually not all of them are stupid, some are otherwise perfectly intelligent, functioning individuals. It's like a sort of 'short circuit' in critical thinking skills.
It works very well as it's critically considered, logical, calm and non-sensationalist.
Many of the 9/11 theories seem to arise from the existence of Operation Northwoods back in the sixties where, to justify an invasion of Cuba, elements within the US Governments wanted to commit acts of terror on US soil and blame it on Cuba. One such idea was to fly drone aircraft into buildings.
Whether or not there's any validity in 9/11 the declassification of Northwoods showed that America at least had form in this area.
Likewise, many of the UFO incidents would probably happily have been dismissed / forgotten by the public had the Government agencies not given such ridiculous explanations.
But none of that has any relevance whatsoever to Apollo. Idiots think that because someone may be economical with the truth 1% of the time, they must be lying 100% of the time.
On the whole, I ignore such cretins because to me, they are beyond redemption and it's a waste of whatever time I have left on this planet getting involved in a debate with them. However, now and then I might engage with such a fool and they invariably just run away when faced with genuine evidence and their complete and absolute capability of refuting such evidence - usually down to a complete and utter lack of scientific or engineering knowledge.
Fools and idiots - all of them, without exception.
On the whole, I ignore such cretins because to me, they are beyond redemption and it's a waste of whatever time I have left on this planet getting involved in a debate with them. However, now and then I might engage with such a fool and they invariably just run away when faced with genuine evidence and their complete and absolute capability of refuting such evidence - usually down to a complete and utter lack of scientific or engineering knowledge.
Fools and idiots - all of them, without exception.
Eric Mc said:
But none of that has any relevance whatsoever to Apollo. Idiots think that because someone may be economical with the truth 1% of the time, they must be lying 100% of the time.
On the whole, I ignore such cretins because to me, they are beyond redemption and it's a waste of whatever time I have left on this planet getting involved in a debate with them. However, now and then I might engage with such a fool and they invariably just run away when faced with genuine evidence and their complete and absolute capability of refuting such evidence - usually down to a complete and utter lack of scientific or engineering knowledge.
Fools and idiots - all of them, without exception.
The reason I engage with them is firstly because I love teaching physics and astro, but also because I think it's a terrible shame they'll go through life not knowing about one of mankind's greatest achievements (in my opinion, the greatest). Carl Sagan said "when you're in love, you want to tell the world", and that's how I feel about space exploration and physics.On the whole, I ignore such cretins because to me, they are beyond redemption and it's a waste of whatever time I have left on this planet getting involved in a debate with them. However, now and then I might engage with such a fool and they invariably just run away when faced with genuine evidence and their complete and absolute capability of refuting such evidence - usually down to a complete and utter lack of scientific or engineering knowledge.
Fools and idiots - all of them, without exception.
I totally get your viewpoint though
I really do!I love talking to people about space and space exploration. Indeed, I run a space themed lecture group at Farnborough U3A.
I'm talking more about rather pointless internet exchanges. I'll debate the moon hoax with people in person (up to a point) but if they are being blockheaded about it, I'll end the discussion.
I'm talking more about rather pointless internet exchanges. I'll debate the moon hoax with people in person (up to a point) but if they are being blockheaded about it, I'll end the discussion.
Eric Mc said:
I love talking to people about space and space exploration. Indeed, I run a space themed lecture group at Farnborough U3A.
I'm talking more about rather pointless internet exchanges. I'll debate the moon hoax with people in person (up to a point) but if they are being blockheaded about it, I'll end the discussion.
I'm talking more about rather pointless internet exchanges. I'll debate the moon hoax with people in person (up to a point) but if they are being blockheaded about it, I'll end the discussion.
To be honest, people like that, yep, I'm the same. There are a good number of normal people who believe it though.The filmmaker SG Collins did a brilliant piece on why the Apollo 11 footage could not have been faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
I would have thought that would have nailed it for any sane person.
jshell said:
Have you ever changed anyone's mind? I haven't so I just let it go now. It's wasted enegy and quite unwelcome to the idiots!
I've never had anyone admit to that, but I'm fairly sure I've made some of them think and put them on the path to accepting that Apollo happened, which is all I intend to do. I find that if you're civil with people you can have a dialogue (I believe being rude to these people just bolsters their position), and then of course you can start being logical about the evidence behind Apollo and the impossibility of faking it.Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 25th July 14:54
RobM77 said:
jshell said:
Have you ever changed anyone's mind? I haven't so I just let it go now. It's wasted enegy and quite unwelcome to the idiots!
I've never had anyone admit to that, but I'm fairly sure I've made some of them think and put them on the path to accepting that Apollo happened, which is all I intend to do. I find that if you're civil with people you can have a dialogue (I believe being rude to these people just bolster's their position), and then of course you can start being logical about the evidence behind Apollo and the impossibility of faking it.I often ask if they believe in Concorde...
Most of the moon hoaxers are just ignorant edgelords trying to get a rise out of people. Perennial little brother types that are better off ignored.
Love this sketch about the moon landing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
It's also 50 years today since Apollo 11 splashed down in the Pacific.
Love this sketch about the moon landing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
It's also 50 years today since Apollo 11 splashed down in the Pacific.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff