Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[UndercoverElephant]

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.)

Hancock's ideas aren't totally without merit. It is true that most human settlements are coastal and it is also true that everywhere which was coastal a few tens of thousands of years ago is now under ten or twenty metres of water. It follows that most of the evidence for the existence of pre-the-last-ice-age civilisations would now either be destroyed or very hard to find.

However, he is also a bit bonkers and many aspects of his theories are about as believable as the moon landings having been faked...

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.

Which is all well and good, but I think you've got your calculations wrong in this case.

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.

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

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.

The evidence of what, exactly? 9/11 was an Al-Qaeda attack and the Bush administration wasn't capable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

[goslow]

As well as the fact you can see all the apollo landing sites by telescope (with flags, set up equipment, even footprints), we also have all the rock samples that were brought back that have been studied by thousands of people. Moon rock is rather different to any rock on earth, at least AFAIK.

The Russians did some automated sample return with their robot probes in the 1970s but this was just a few hundred g in total.

For me its a bit strange to even discuss the possibility of faked moon landings.

[DominicJ]

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

Of course they are.

[Ludwig]

As well as the fact you can see all the apollo landing sites by telescope (with flags, set up equipment, even footprints),

I wasn't aware of that. But who is this "you" - anybody with a telescope in their shed (which I find incredible but am willing to be persuaded otherwise)? Or US government agencies with telescopes?

I'm not digging my heels in here. You may be right, but all you've given are unqualified assertions. I don't see why I should take unqualified assertions that the landings weren't faked any more than unqualified assertions that they were.

I'm not going to ask you to supply sources, although if you've time, I'd be interested. As I've said, the problem is that it's hard now to find non-debunking Web sites on this subject.

we also have all the rock samples that were brought back that have been studied by thousands of people. Moon rock is rather different to any rock on earth, at least AFAIK.

As I said previously, I know of no reason to doubt that we sent machines to the moon and probably brought back rock samples.

It is, of course, illegal to sell moon rock samples, which presumably makes independent analysis of them difficult. I'm not saying that proves anything, but it's a counter to the argument that "everybody knows".

For me its a bit strange to even discuss the possibility of faked moon landings.

I'm willing to listen to both sides of any debate, but the first argument I reject, every time, is "To doubt this you must be a moron".

[JavaScriptDonkey]

It's okay, I phoned NASA and they say they don't believe in Ludwig so everyone is now happy.

[Ludwig]

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

Rubbish.

A relative of my (abortive) PhD supervisor used to work as a research chemist at Oxford University. So appalled was he at the constant fiddling of results that he quit the job to go and work in what he described as a "more ethical" field. That field was advertising.

In any job, when the stakes are high, pressure is put on workers to bend the rules and cover up contentious information. The main pressure to be honest comes not from personal or institutional integrity, but from the fear of being found out.

Have you ever seen the documentary about why the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded? It was because engineers with reservations about safety - a couple of whom actually predicted the accident - were pressured into keeping quiet.

Never underestimate the power of the desire to keep one's job. A scientist's career can be ruined by telling the truth. The more important or secret the project, the more this is the case.

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.

The evidence of what, exactly? 9/11 was an Al-Qaeda attack and the Bush administration wasn't capable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

That shows how much you know about the Bush administration, i.e. apparently F--k-all. There was one single idiot among them, and that was Bush. If you're not averse to having your mind changed, read "The Shock Doctrine" and "Crossing the Rubicon".

[Ludwig]

It's okay, I phoned NASA and they say they don't believe in Ludwig so everyone is now happy.

Hilarious - a very incisive contribution to the debate.

[UndercoverElephant]

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

Rubbish.

Well, if you say so...

[Lord Beria3]

That shows how much you know about the Bush administration, i.e. apparently ****-all. There was one single idiot among them, and that was Bush. If you're not averse to having your mind changed, read "The Shock Doctrine" and "Crossing the Rubicon

Ludwig - we may not agree on public services but I certainly agree with you here old chap!

[vtsnowedin]

That shows how much you know about the Bush administration, i.e. apparently ****-all. There was one single idiot among them, and that was Bush. If you're not averse to having your mind changed, read "The Shock Doctrine" and "Crossing the Rubicon

Ludwig - we may not agree on public services but I certainly agree with you here old chap!

An American administration numbers in the several thousands of people and you suggest the Bush was the only incompetent in his whole appointed government? His mothers rolodex was quite extensive but even that had to contain the names of a lemon or two.

As to the faked moon landings question. I have to ask if it was all faked how did they build on that fake and get to where we are now? Using just the evidence I can see with my own eyes we can and do quite a bit in space and at least some of it is manned.
I can look up at night and see satellites orbit overhead horizon to horizon at speeds far too fast for any jet to mimic. I can turn on the hand held GPS unit here on my deck and it receives signals from four or more of thirty plus SVs and it computes my position to within a few feet. (Outdated unit I know). This post will travel from me to you via the satellite dish on my porch roof out some 23,000 miles and back. The Hubble telescope produces pictures we could not imagine from our observatories here under the atmosphere and when it was first launched it was near sighted and humans had to go up and fix it. The computer I am sitting at is the end result of miniaturisation work started to deal with the space limitations of a Mercury capsule. My cell phone has computer capacity measured in gigabytes.
If this is what comes from a faked program imagine what they could do if they really sent manned missions to the moon!!!

[Pepperman]

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

Rubbish.

A relative of my (abortive) PhD supervisor used to work as a research chemist at Oxford University. So appalled was he at the constant fiddling of results that he quit the job to go and work in what he described as a "more ethical" field. That field was advertising.

Being humans, individual scientists are of course capable of lying, but the rest of science will eventually establish that they were lying.

The idea put about by the extreme fringe of climate change denial that an entire field of science is perpetuating a hoax in collaboration with shadowy government operatives is impossible.

[goslow]

I wasn't aware of that. But who is this "you" - anybody with a telescope in their shed (which I find incredible but am willing to be persuaded otherwise)? Or US government agencies with telescopes?

I'm not digging my heels in here. You may be right, but all you've given are unqualified assertions. I don't see why I should take unqualified assertions that the landings weren't faked any more than unqualified assertions that they were.

Well Ludwig you're right I don't have time to really provide a lot of sources, and my knowledge of these points is second hand. There is a nasa report debunking the moon landing conspiracy theories plus you can see all the apollo landing sites on google earth. Have you read the nasa report or do you automatically discount such things as obvious propaganda?

I thought the point about the quantity of moon rook bought back by Apollo vs the far smaller amounts bought back by Soviet robotic missions quite a strong point. This moon rock is available for study by scientists worldwide.

[caspian]

A relative of my (abortive) PhD supervisor used to work as a research chemist at Oxford University. So appalled was he at the constant fiddling of results that he quit the job to go and work in what he described as a "more ethical" field. That field was advertising.

That sounds like hogwash to me. He was so "appalled" that he simply left the job? What about reporting this supposed fraud to the authorities? You're using this third-hand story to smear all scientists based on a single data-point. Was that really the reason why he left? Why not go to another research establishment where the ethics are more sound? Why not report the fraudsters if he was going to leave anyway? Too many unanswered questions, so the story is meaningless until more information is known (and even then it's still meaningless until you can prove that research fraud is endemic).

[Ludwig]

A relative of my (abortive) PhD supervisor used to work as a research chemist at Oxford University. So appalled was he at the constant fiddling of results that he quit the job to go and work in what he described as a "more ethical" field. That field was advertising.

That sounds like hogwash to me. He was so "appalled" that he simply left the job? What about reporting this supposed fraud to the authorities? You're using this third-hand story to smear all scientists based on a single data-point. Was that really the reason why he left? Why not go to another research establishment where the ethics are more sound? Why not report the fraudsters if he was going to leave anyway? Too many unanswered questions, so the story is meaningless until more information is known (and even then it's still meaningless until you can prove that research fraud is endemic).

<Bandidoz: removed offensive language and invective>

For the record - and you seem unable to grasp this - I was not trying to "prove" anything. I was presenting a counter-argument to UE's blanket statement that scientists are incapable of lying on a big scale. My argument is that self-deception, ambition, pressure from above and - probably least often - pure cynical dishonesty can stop the truth from getting out in science. Less often than in politics, certainly - although you don't seem to think it happens very often in politics either.

<Bandidoz: removed offensive language and invective>

[Ludwig]

I wasn't aware of that. But who is this "you" - anybody with a telescope in their shed (which I find incredible but am willing to be persuaded otherwise)? Or US government agencies with telescopes?

I'm not digging my heels in here. You may be right, but all you've given are unqualified assertions. I don't see why I should take unqualified assertions that the landings weren't faked any more than unqualified assertions that they were.

Well Ludwig you're right I don't have time to really provide a lot of sources, and my knowledge of these points is second hand. There is a nasa report debunking the moon landing conspiracy theories plus you can see all the apollo landing sites on google earth.

Well, without claiming to know one way or another, those wouldn't be difficult to fake. If the moon landings weren't real, NASA wouldn't be so stupid as to omit the sites from its images, would it?

For the sake of the Caspians reading this: I'm not saying the images of the moon were faked, I'm saying that they hardly constitute irrefutable proof.

Have you read the nasa report or do you automatically discount such things as obvious propaganda?

I don't assume it's propaganda - I'm open to persuasion that the landings were real - but it's not exactly a neutral source, is it? If I were investigating police corruption, I wouldn't take statements by the police officers under investigation at their word.

I thought the point about the quantity of moon rook bought back by Apollo vs the far smaller amounts bought back by Soviet robotic missions quite a strong point. This moon rock is available for study by scientists worldwide.

If you're right, then fine. When I can be arsed I may look into it again; unfortunately my inabilty to keep my mouth shut about what interests me has once again got me embroiled in a pointless debate with militant sceptics. (Not yourself I hasten to add - your responses show that it is possible to disagree with someone without lapsing into arrogant hectoring, a la Caspian.)