Ways to convince people that the Moon landings were real

[LordFerret]

To be fair, it's not so much them being "dumb" as them subscribing to poor logic. A conspiracy theory is just an example of circular logic wherein the claims of fact cannot be directly tested (or refuted), and every piece of conflicting evidence is rejected as "part of the conspiracy".

The only way I've found to shut down a conspiracy theory is to point out it's self- conflict, thus using it to disprove itself. They can't reject the evidence because the evidence is their own argument.

Best,

-Slashy

Very good point!

[Brethern]

The people who say it didn't happen are crazy. My Dad saw it launch and still doesn't believe it is real do to "shadows being off".

I had the exact opposite problem, my dad watched the landings on TV but was convinced John Glenn was the first person to walk on the moon. I just got through to him last week that it was Neil armstrong.

First thing avoid Ad hominum at all costs, insulting them is only going make them believe they're right, also on the inverse side most times they're going to insult you first.

Second thing once they insulted you respond with this statement.

the fact that some members of the human species look upen the moon landings and are so awestruck

by them that they cannot even believe that they are a product of their own species is that much more of a testimate to how brillant the human mind can be.

Neil degrass tyson.

Third thing is to do your homework, make sure you have the scientific evidence to back up your claims. 100% of the time they use the same arguments said differently in order to prove their point.

Most of the time none of them understand basic scientific concepts and are incapable of forming a reasonable claim.

[PakledHostage]

That certainly does not contradict what I said. I can not say more, as that would be a violation of forum rules.

Fair point. I originally had a sentence in there about Fox News, so I suspect we're in agreement.

[Duxwing]

vexx32's point about mental disease is important: some people become conspiracy theorists due to such psychological or psychiatric problems as paranoid personality disorder.

-Duxwing

[razark]

To be fair, it's not so much them being "dumb" as them subscribing to poor logic.

Ok, I'll go with them not being dumb, per se. I will say that many of them are willfully ignorant. They don't know, and they avoid any chance of learning why they are wrong. And they way I see it, refusing to learn is no better than choosing to be stupid.

I saw a video a while back, where someone was claiming that spaceflight was impossible. Their evidence included the fact that in the video of the spacewalk, you could see a diver with a scuba tank, and bubbles rising from the astronaut.

How should this be described, besides "dumb"?

[WinkAllKerb'']

To be fair, it's not so much them being "dumb" as them subscribing to poor logic. A conspiracy theory is just an example of circular logic wherein the claims of fact cannot be directly tested (or refuted), and every piece of conflicting evidence is rejected as "part of the conspiracy".

The only way I've found to shut down a conspiracy theory is to point out it's self- conflict, thus using it to disprove itself. They can't reject the evidence because the evidence is their own argument.

Best,

-Slashy

101% too if not 102% + tend too abuse of the "look in the mirror alice trick, wake up it's not wonderland" by mimetism shocking (n.m.c. due to heavy boredom worth what it worth but usually it's effective pretty faster than anithing else especially in some specific (...) case // some other kind of cost)

Edited December 6, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nikolai]

If you honestly think they're open to being convinced by some kind of evidence-based argument, perhaps it's better to turn the question on its head. To wit:

Are you open-minded enough to know exactly what kind of evidence it would take to convince you? If so, what is that evidence, and why is that level of evidence reasonable?

Because the simple fact of the matter is that there is piles of evidence out there. Pictures. Videos. Minerals that would be difficult (if not impossible) to manufacture on Earth. Congratulations from political enemies with the technological wherewithal to verify for themselves whether the missions were real or faked. Meticulous documentation of every technical detail, so that those with the plausibility can be verified by those with the proper knowledge of such things. Public revelation of scientific findings, so that they can be compared with future discoveries and checked for consistency. Countless published memoirs. And so, so much more.

This might be a little more difficult for you, since you might find yourself needing to do some homework. But if the goal is education, at least someone stands to benefit from the conversation, even if the conspiracist remains stubborn.

[rtxoff]

Nvidia debunked the conspiration theory about the moon landing. GPU's recently got powerfull enough to do so.

Just watch this:

[Whirligig Girl]

The Apollo astronauts left retro-reflectors on the moon that could reflect telescope lasers back to Earth. Experiments today still show that the reflectors are there.

Also, if there was no moon landing, then what was this doing:

Isn't it obvious? It's just going into Low Earth Orbit. Clearly it doesn't have enough fuel to actually get to the moon, despite it's great size and the fact that a rocket less than a third of it's size (Saturn I or Saturn IB) can also put the Apollo C/SM into orbit. There's no way that they actually have enough fuel to keep the engine burning all the way to the Moon! Clearly this machine is just a cheap method of making sure the Soviets really thought we went there.

Huh. Everything except that last sentence is actually technically true. The entire rocket doesn't have enough fuel to get to the moon all together, the Saturn IB can put a C/SM into orbit, and they don't have enough fuel to keep the engine burning constantly on the trip to the moon. The assumptions here are that 1: Staging isn't a thing; 2: What's a Saturn IB?; 3: Orbital mechanics work like car driving; and 4: the Saturn V was not almost the entire cost of the Apollo program.

These moon-hoaxers almost never actually understand how the Apollo program works! Heck, we can even simulate the Apollo program using the actual schematics of the Saturn V, Apollo CSM, and Lunar Module in KSP with Real Solar System, and it will all work out. We can even do it with really crappy stock parts (with unrealistic low thrust and tank mass ratios), and we can still do it!

The above video: Maccollo, using a rather old version of RSS; but still with all the proper lunar orbit/gravity/size and earth orbit/gravity/size. It's awesome.

[segaprophet]

Only one question for the conspiracy nuts -

Are you calling Neil Armstrong a liar?

[Airlock]

Here are some great pages on Apollo mission trajectories and the Van Allen Belts. Great resources if you want to back up an argument with mathematics and scientific facts.

I highly recommend these, as hoaxers commonly use the Van Allen Belts as their "trump card" in Moon landing debates.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

Apollo and the Van Allen Belts

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

Hi everyone, I just watched a video of the moon landings. They actually made me feel proud of humanity, but that feeling was completely erased when I looked at the comment section. A bunch of idiots were saying that the Moon landings were fake, and I tried to argue with them, but they just mocked me. Thus, I want to figure out how to convince at least a few of them that the landings were real. Please help me come up with ideas.

There is a laser reflector on the moon at one of the landing sites. How would it have gotten there?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

There are several observatories and labs that still shoot a laser at this site to find out how far the moon is escaping. Other countries have spotted the landing sites with their own spacecraft. Why would they lie? China for instance has seen Apollo 11's site with their own probeshttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d8_1328628079

But as far as dealing with morons... doctors can make an ugly person beautiful, a fat person skinny... but they have never been able to fix stupid.

[kerbiloid]

Until unconcerned DKRP lunar mission confirms this, you can't.

[Tw1]

This would require the Soviets being in a conspiracy to lose the space race at the height of the cold war. Without the competition with the Soviets, there would never have been an Apollo program in the first place and thus no reason to have a moon landing, fake or otherwise.

This self-contradiction invalidates the entire conspiracy theory.

Best,

-Slashy

I've heard some try to claim the Soviets were faking it too.

[PakledHostage]

While I can't recommend it, Buzz Aldrin tried this approach:

[AcidSludge]

While I can't recommend it, Buzz Aldrin tried this approach:

Hehe, I was about to post that exact video

This is exactly what I would do if I were on the moon and a friggin' numbnut call me a liar about that. This is exactly what I do if a numbnut calls me a liar about anything I've done and accomplished in my life.

[Dispatcher]

I don't know anyone who has expressed that they think the moon landings were hoaxes.

Edit: for those who do know people who think the landings were hoaxes; you won't prove anything by arguing with them. You can, however, provide them with primary links to sites (or books) which have sufficient detail to inform those ignorant on the subject.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Dispatcher

[GoSlash27]

I've heard some try to claim the Soviets were faking it too.

Wouldn't matter AFA the fundamental self- contradiction of the conspiracy theory. Without the competition, there's no reason to bother having a (real or fake) moon landing. If the Russians were faking and we knew it, it'd just be a matter of calling them out on it rather than instituting a multi- billion dollar decade long crash program. If the Russians were faking and we didn't know it, then the motivation remains the same for our side; fake the landing to fool either a) the Russians or the American People. Fooling the Russians is pointless if they're collaborating with you and already know it's fake, and the Russians would have no earthly reason to assist our government in convincing it's own citizens that democracy is superior to socialism.

Any which way you cut it, the Russian co-conspiracy angle is self- defeating.

And since they were monitoring everything, they knew that the transmissions actually did come from the moon.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 7, 2014 by GoSlash27

[BagelRabbit]

My favorite argument for men landing on the Moon is this one, in large part because conspiracy theorists haven't heard it yet.

Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin and Michael Collins blast into space aboard a Saturn V Rocket. There's a lot of people from the press looking at them and snapping pictures, and they become very recognizable figures. The press watches them climb into the elevator and ride to the top of the rocket, where they board. This is the last time people see them in person before they launch.

After the mission is over, the landing is televised. Many people watch the parachutes open and the craft splash down in the Pacific. The astronauts are now home, and the press is sure to take pictures of them as soon as possible. The astronauts look much the same after they've landed. It's obvious that they are the same people.

The problem, of course, is that in between the launch and the landing, the astronauts would have to sneak off to a soundstage in Nevada without anyone noticing. This would be tricky. They'd have to launch on a Saturn V, quietly deorbit without anyone noticing, sneak off to the Nevada soundstage without anyone noticing, launch into space again without anyone noticing, and then deorbit so that the world can see that they have landed. This would be far more trouble than it would be worth.

I don't understand conspiracy theorists.

-Upsilon

[GoSlash27]

My favorite argument for men landing on the Moon is this one, in large part because conspiracy theorists haven't heard it yet.

Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin and Michael Collins blast into space aboard a Saturn V Rocket. There's a lot of people from the press looking at them and snapping pictures, and they become very recognizable figures. The press watches them climb into the elevator and ride to the top of the rocket, where they board. This is the last time people see them in person before they launch.

After the mission is over, the landing is televised. Many people watch the parachutes open and the craft splash down in the Pacific. The astronauts are now home, and the press is sure to take pictures of them as soon as possible. The astronauts look much the same after they've landed. It's obvious that they are the same people.

The problem, of course, is that in between the launch and the landing, the astronauts would have to sneak off to a soundstage in Nevada without anyone noticing. This would be tricky. They'd have to launch on a Saturn V, quietly deorbit without anyone noticing, sneak off to the Nevada soundstage without anyone noticing, launch into space again without anyone noticing, and then deorbit so that the world can see that they have landed. This would be far more trouble than it would be worth.

I don't understand conspiracy theorists.

-Upsilon

A little sleight-of hand would solve that. One guy in a spacesuit looks very much like another, and there's no actual footage of the astronauts ingressing or egressing the capsule.

The astronauts never board the capsule, but instead change out of their suits into hardhats/ lab coats and leave with the pad crew. After filming at the sound stage, they are flown by helicopter to the recovery carrier. Then flown out on the recovery chopper, outfitted with their spacesuits, and returned triumphantly.

Not sayin', just sayin'

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 7, 2014 by GoSlash27

[razark]

The problem, of course, is that in between the launch and the landing, the astronauts would have to sneak off to a soundstage in Nevada without anyone noticing.

Nah. That's too much effort. Here's how to do it:

Launch them into space on the Saturn V. They spend several days in LEO, talking and sending pictures to Earth. At the end of the mission, they deorbit and get picked up. The trick is that during the mission, you broadcast previously recorded footage of the moon landing and EVA.

[Javster]

Nah. That's too much effort. Here's how to do it:

Launch them into space on the Saturn V. They spend several days in LEO, talking and sending pictures to Earth. At the end of the mission, they deorbit and get picked up. The trick is that during the mission, you broadcast previously recorded footage of the moon landing and EVA.

And ignore the fact that the USSR probably had telescopes/satellites capable of seeing a spacecraft as large as the Apollo one...

[razark]

And ignore the fact that the USSR probably had telescopes/satellites capable of seeing a spacecraft as large as the Apollo one...

Well, of course. Don't forget that they tracked the telemetry. Aside from any number of amateur radio hobbyists that tracked Apollo to the moon and back as well. I pointed out yesterday that any Apollo fakery must include the cooperation of the United States' worst enemy.

[r4pt0r]

Well, of course. Don't forget that they tracked the telemetry. Aside from any number of amateur radio hobbyists that tracked Apollo to the moon and back as well. I pointed out yesterday that any Apollo fakery must include the cooperation of the United States' worst enemy.

That's easy when the worlds governments are all controlled by the reptilians.

[pxi]

I know one individual who simultaneously believes that while we never went to the moon, there is a secret space program maintaining bases on mars.

My personal feeling on these sorts of things is they're rather comforting in a way - would you rather believe the world is controlled by 5 guys sitting round a table, or that no-one is really in control of anything? To me it's a kind of faith, there's only so much you can argue with it.