Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[Ludwig]

It's a question of which position is more likely to be true.

Did NASA and it staff and contractors conspire to fake the moon landings or did they just get on with it and actually go there?

That's a disingenuous way of putting it. "Just get on with it and actually go there" implies that the task was straightforward, and that the only feasible reason for a hoax can have been laziness.

On the now-disappeared Web sites I read, it was suggested that the big technical problem was not getting machines to the moon, but keeping astronauts alive for weeks in space, particularly given the huge exposure to radiation.

To me it seems the entire Apollo mission run of early low orbit craft, unmanned moon shots and the eventual landing of 12 astronauts on the surface (including the Apollo 13 nightmare) is a technical marvel and formed the basis of the careers of countless engineers and scientists. To suggest that the USGovt faked it on the basis of an odd photo and that everyone involved was duped seems to me to be a madness.

But then how do you explain that odd photo? Just assume you hallucinated it? At work here we see the eternal human tendency to disregard anomalies, as though their being anomalies makes them insignificant. It's like the police interviewing a murder suspect who answers all questions except one with complete credibility, and deciding on the basis of the statistical balance that they'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Just to reiterate - I'm not saying the moon landings were definitely faked, I'm saying that some of the anomalies, at least as I remember them, are so significant that to reject them out of hand seems to me self-deception.

On the plus side I do suspect that there might be a small 9/11 conspiracy but only insofar as to cover up incompetence in the White House.

That's what I thought originally. Even at the start, I wasn't convinced that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. I assumed it was because it had been shot down elsewhere, and the US Govt. didn't want to admit that it had killed the passengers for reasons of national self-defence.

It was only after hearing about Peak Oil, and reading Matt Savinar's suspicions, that I perceived a motive for a much bigger cover-up, and started to look at the conspiracy theories in detail. On reading about the truly magnificent scale and scope and of the apparent incompetence, I found it hard to credit that it wasn't co-ordinated, and I still do. For me, accepting so many spectacular coincidences, and completely illogical behaviour from the top level of US government and security forces, within the space of a couple of hours, involved a far greater suspension of reason and common sense than invoking a conspiracy. Dozens of high calibre officials, who'd managed their critically important duties impeccably for their whole careers, lapsed into irrational decision-making and complete disregard for regularly rehearsed emergency protocols, as though they were subject to some kind of mass brainwashing exercise.

[Ludwig]

Was it a conspiracy ? I don't know. - actually I do know that a lot of people conspired to blow up the world trade centre and succeeded. However, I have no idea if anyone in power in the US either helped facilitate it or deliberately let it happen by not reporting their knowledge of the attacks, etc. Such things have happened in the past, if it didn't happen on this occasion then it wasn't because of the moral qualities of the US leadership at the time.

Quite. What most people find difficult to accept is not the evidence, but the hypothesis that the US Government was involved in the murder of thousands of its own people.

It is taken as read that no American government, not even the Bush regime, could be that cynical and callous. Well, it could certainly be cynical and callous enough to conduct the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html). Other examples of abound (testing drugs on unwitting soldiers, etc.) - if I had the time I'd dig out the references, but I have other things to do and frankly I've spent too long in this debate as it is.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

That's a disingenuous way of putting it. "Just get on with it and actually go there" implies that the task was straightforward, and that the only feasible reason for a hoax can have been laziness.

Just to reiterate - I'm not saying the moon landings were definitely faked, I'm saying that some of the anomalies, at least as I remember them, are so significant that to reject them out of hand seems to me self-deception.

My effort was to get you to consider which proposition contained less effort for the stated goal. Given the amount of scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo for so long would it not be more self-deceptive to believe that they were either all in on a political fraud or were themselves all duped?

It then follows than any anomalies must be the product of our own ignorance rather than that of conspiracy.

With reference to the Van Allen Belts, they form a doughnut of mostly highly charged protons (inner) and electrons (outer) which if passed through directly would have long term health implications. However, the lunar journeys arced over (or under depending on your viewpoint) the majority of the belt minimising exposure to man and machine.

All this was dealt with as part of the earlier Gemini missions after the belts were confirmed by the Explorer missions in 1958.

There are several excellent primers on this on the web...try Clavius when you have the time.

[Ludwig]

My effort was to get you to consider which proposition contained less effort for the stated goal. Given the amount of scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo for so long would it not be more self-deceptive to believe that they were either all in on a political fraud or were themselves all duped?

I don't know. Only a small number of them would need to be in on it. On such a huge project, scientists and technicians would be used to working on their own isolated tasks, and not necessarily considering the bigger picture.

Still, it is an interesting question how you shut people up, especially in America which has had no equivalent of the Official Secrets Act (although the Patriot Act makes up for lost time ).

I agree that the problem of keeping people quiet is one of the most persuasive arguments against conspiracy theories in general. Nevertheless, I don't think it can be used to dismiss them out of hand, if the evidence for a cover-up is strong enough.

Immediately after 9/11, many eyewitnesses came forward to say that the official account was innaccurate. Almost all of them either went quiet, or changed their stories, or in some cases died.

Threats? Brainwashing? (Don't underestimate what a real expert in hypnosis and psy-ops can do to your head.) Did they look at what most other people were saying and assume they'd been wrong? Or did they just get depressed at being called loonies wherever they went?

I don't know if there is any evidence that anyone tried to blow the whistle on a moon landing hoax. I'm more familiar with the 9/11 evidence, and although it's now several years since I read it, there were certainly, at first, numerous people who claimed to be whistleblowers.

It then follows than any anomalies must be the product of our own ignorance rather than that of conspiracy.

No, that does not follow at all. As I said, for me there was a single piece of evidence for a moon landing hoax that I felt no extra knowledge could explain away, and that was the same mountains apparently in two completely different locations. I will try and resurrect that evidence. If it's true, and I'm not claiming I'm remembering perfectly, then I don't see how any amount of ignorance on my part could explain it away.

Anyway, I'm clearly not the only one with doubts:

With reference to the Van Allen Belts, they form a doughnut of mostly highly charged protons (inner) and electrons (outer) which if passed through directly would have long term health implications. However, the lunar journeys arced over (or under depending on your viewpoint) the majority of the belt minimising exposure to man and machine.

All this was dealt with as part of the earlier Gemini missions after the belts were confirmed by the Explorer missions in 1958.

There are several excellent primers on this on the web...try Clavius when you have the time.

OK, well I'll go back and read them.

What I'm sceptical of more than anything is my own original instinctive reaction to the suggestion that the landings were a hoax. My thought was, literally, "I KNOW they were real." Then I thought, with shock, "F***ing hell, actually I really DON'T know they were real, I just assumed they were because everyone said they were." I didn't know at all. I was 3 months old when they happened and I certainly wasn't on the moon to witness them.

Realising that the basis of many of your beliefs is "I JUST KNOW" is very unnerving and humbling at first. But to recognise and go beyond this basic human tendency should be behind all pursuit of knowledge.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Sadly that 'I don't know 'cos i wasn't there' reasoning can be used for anything.

Elvis is apparently alive and well, millions weren't slaughtered by gas chambers that didn't exist and our Sun has a sister star that is always just out of sight.

I understand doubt and sceptical reflection but there are limits. Not that I'm suggesting you give any credence to the above absurdities but I'm sure you follow my reasoning.

As regards lunar mountains...all that money, all those professors duped, delays inserted into radio transmissions from lunar relay stations and they forget to proof check the damn photographs? Really? You can believe that?

I'd have to see the original photos (or in an original context) and reference where they were on the surface to be even mildly interested. With no atmosphere and no perspective then it's impossible to work out if any given grey lump is 1 mile away or 50 and I certainly wouldn't trust any hoax site to not simply Photoshop whatever they need just for the lolz.

[ziggy12345]

My thought was, literally, "I KNOW they were real." Then I thought, with shock, "F***ing hell, actually I really DON'T know they were real, I just assumed they were because everyone said they were."

Doesnt that apply to everything?

[clv101]

...impossible to work out if any given grey lump is 1 mile away or 50...

With a diameter of 2159 miles we can be fairly certain no grey lump is 50 miles away.

[kenneal - lagger]

...impossible to work out if any given grey lump is 1 mile away or 50...

With a diameter of 2159 miles we can be fairly certain no grey lump is 50 miles away.

Unless it's very tall.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Well if we're into to Pedantry Hour then we are very certain that many grey lumps are 50 miles away, it's just that we can't see them.

[Ludwig]

Sadly that 'I don't know 'cos i wasn't there' reasoning can be used for anything.

Elvis is apparently alive and well, millions weren't slaughtered by gas chambers that didn't exist and our Sun has a sister star that is always just out of sight.

I understand doubt and sceptical reflection but there are limits. Not that I'm suggesting you give any credence to the above absurdities but I'm sure you follow my reasoning.

I don't believe Elvis is alive, no. But that's not because I consider the idea totally impossible, it's because the quality of the evidence (as far as I know, I haven't looked into it) is lousy.

I've looked into numerous theories that seemed off the wall. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I took some ideas seriously at first, but when I considered the evidence more deeply, I abandoned them. (One of them is the idea of a global ancient civilisation, expounded by Graham Hancock.)

I'm interested in what goes on beneath the surface of things, historically, psychologically and metaphysically - I always have been. I think to arrive at any kind of understanding of deep subjects, you have to be prepared in the first instance to be led by your imagination, and then see if the facts justify an idea. More often than not, they don't. But it's better to arrive at that conclusion having looked into the subject seriously, rather than rejecting it from the start. Because some of the things I have looked into have proved genuinely fascinating and have changed my view of the world (and the universe) fundamentally.

"In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it." - John Archibald Wheeler, physicist.

And another quote from V S Ramachandran, the neurobiologist, that in turn references some other memorable quotes:

"I'd also like to say a word about speculation, a term that has acquired a pejorative connotation among some scientists. Describing someone's idea as "mere speculation" is often considered insulting. This is unfortunate. As the English biologist Peter Medawar has noted, "An imaginative conception of what might be true is the starting point of all great discoveries in science." Ironically, this is sometimes true even when the speculation turns out to be wrong. Listen to Charles Darwin: "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science for they often endure long; but false hypotheses do little harm, as everyone takes a salutory pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path toward error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened." Every scientist knows that the best research emerges from a dialectic between speculation and healthy skepticism. "

Of course, people's interests differ. Some people like to know how engines work, or the chronology of the English Civil War, but have no interest in psychology or quantum mechanics. To somebody of a more practical, pragmatic turn of mind, looking into conspiracy theories is just not that interesting. Fine.

As regards lunar mountains...all that money, all those professors duped, delays inserted into radio transmissions from lunar relay stations and they forget to proof check the damn photographs? Really? You can believe that?

I'd have to see the original photos (or in an original context) and reference where they were on the surface to be even mildly interested. With no atmosphere and no perspective then it's impossible to work out if any given grey lump is 1 mile away or 50 and I certainly wouldn't trust any hoax site to not simply Photoshop whatever they need just for the lolz.

I've made clear that I don't believe 100% that the landings were faked. At the time I was intrigued by the evidence, but I didn't look into it deeply because, even if they were faked, it's not something that interests me as much as, say, 9/11. At some point I may spend a couple of hours looking for the sites I read and get back to you, but I'm busy right now.

I'll say this, however. I used to think pretty much all conspiracy theories were crap. I've come to the conclusion, however, that our governments are capable of lying to us on scales I never used to believe likely - not because I thought it was impossible, but because it didn't fit into my view of how democratically elected governments behaved. In the case of 9/11, I feel the evidence speaks for itself, regardless of how "likely" one believes the basic premise. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.

[2 As and a B]

Deleted

[JavaScriptDonkey]

When did our governments start performing these deceptions on us? Has it always happened, in which case what are the ancient exposés? If it is a new phenomenon, how was it able to start?

I think historically that deceptive governments started when governments governed with sole regard to the ultimate well being of those involved in government.

That subsequent politicians have lied is variously documented in the press. By example how about Mr Blair's famous Iraq WMD claims?

Probably best to never trust a career politician, ever.

[DominicJ]

Regarding 9/11
I'm fairly confident in the "official" story.

I wasnt at first, the "truther" points about steels melting point seemed reasonable, so, one bonfire night, at the end, I placed a steel rod on the fire.
The next morning, I checked it. The steel was not melted, but under its own weight, it had bent, twisted and deformed.

The fire may not have been hot enough to melt the steel, but I have little reason to believe it was not hot enough to weaken the steel.

Back to the Moon
As I said, we know the rockets were launched, and almost every nation in the world tracked them. What we dont know, is if they were manned.
That doesnt require tens of thousands of people, it requires tens of people.
If you werent on the shuttle, you dont know, even if you were the commander of the ground station, you could easily be deceived.
I'm not saying we didnt visit the moon, I'm saying I remain to be convinced.


In General
I'd also like to point out, its funny how many of the people laughing at "conspiracy theorists", have themselves raised "confessions of an economic hitman" to near biblical status.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Regarding 9/11
I'm fairly confident in the "official" story.

I wasnt at first, the "truther" points about steels melting point seemed reasonable, so, one bonfire night, at the end, I placed a steel rod on the fire.
The next morning, I checked it. The steel was not melted, but under its own weight, it had bent, twisted and deformed.

The fire may not have been hot enough to melt the steel, but I have little reason to believe it was not hot enough to weaken the steel.

Indeed. Apart from maybe covering up incompetency in security the worst I could see would be covering up the use of substandard building materials. Frankly I doubt many buildings of that vintage could withstand those impacts for long.

Back to the Moon
As I said, we know the rockets were launched, and almost every nation in the world tracked them. What we dont know, is if they were manned.
That doesnt require tens of thousands of people, it requires tens of people.
If you werent on the shuttle, you dont know, even if you were the commander of the ground station, you could easily be deceived.
I'm not saying we didnt visit the moon, I'm saying I remain to be convinced.

There have been 24 people sent to the moon in 8 (?) Apollo missions over 4 years. That's a lot of people to STFU for 40 years.

[DominicJ]

There have been 24 people sent to the moon in 8 (?) Apollo missions over 4 years. That's a lot of people to STFU for 40 years.

But it brings our secret keepers down from tens of thousands, to under 100.

When did our governments start performing these deceptions on us? Has it always happened, in which case what are the ancient exposés? If it is a new phenomenon, how was it able to start?

Its probably always happened.
From turning the minor skirmish that was Rawkes Drift into an almost david and goliath like world changing clash, to hidfe the disaster at isandluana, to flat out lies, like "all our aircraft have gun cameras" during the blitz when the RAF kill figures are questioned. The kills were at least double counted and the cameras equiped less than 10% of the fighter fleet.

The UK was still insisting Nazi Germany carried out the Katyn Massacre AFTER Russia had accepted responsibility!!!

Thats before we question "The NHS is the envy of the world" and "there are no plans for a european carrier group" as Fleet air arm pilots learn to speak french and fly Rafeles.


http://thedaysofglory.blogspot.com/
Dr Norths blog on the Battle of Britain, scary stuff