A question for Margamatix

[hubcapdave69]

I've been reading your stuff here, and I have a burning question for you.

You say that is your opinion that we didn't send men to the moon. What would it take to change your opinion? What proof do you require to make it irrefutable in your mind that the landings weren't faked?

[margamatix]

Hello Dave and welcome along.

I have said before that I would take the word of an astronaut for it and I am going to ask Buzz Aldrin when he visits the UK later this year if I can.

But if this projected Russian mission happens, I will accept that Apollo was for real too.

What would it take to convince you that it did not happen?

[JayUtah]

Given that it's impractical for Apollo astronauts to personally assure everyone on Earth that they are not liars and frauds, what practical standard of evidence would you accept?

Let me phrase the same question differently. I think we can be reasonably sure that no one who participated in the Wars of the Roses is still alive. What proof would you accept that the Wars of the Roses actually took place? And be aware that I plan to make you apply the same standards of evidence to Apollo.

What would it take to convince you that it did not happen?

All of the following:

1. a major, recognizable, verifiable participant in each of the major sectors of operation of Apollo admitting and disclosing his role in any alleged hoax in a national or international venue;

2. verifiable documentary evidence in each of the above cases that the operations in which the individual alleges to have participated actually took place;

3. a full, scientifically verifiable, and verified-documented explanation for each of the parcels of evidence currently accepted as proof of Apollo's authenticy including how it was produced, when, where, and by whom.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Here is the rationale. There has to be an admission, a "whistle-blow", in order to avoid the problem of interpreting documentary evidence. In evaluating documentary evidence alone, there will always be an inductive leap. Thus there must be someone who can be accepted as able and qualified to verify the interpretation. The stature of the "whistle-blower" must be sufficiently high that his involvement with Apollo is beyond reasonable question. This is because there are people like Bill Kaysing and Maurice Chatelain who claim to be important Apollo "insiders" but who actually had a very minor, tangential role.

Conversely, a mere admission or confession is not sufficient because there is always the possibility of the "hoax hoax" -- someone falsely claiming that he was part of a hoax. Hence documentary evidence establishing the nature of his claims must be presented for inspection so that the skeptics can validate the claims.

Any hypothesis offered to explain some set of observations must show what is wrong with other hypotheses that also purport to explain the observation. It's not enough to show that your hypothesis seems to be right; you have to show that other hypotheses are wrong and give defensible reasons why. The burden of proof for a hoax includes explaining such things as the radio transmissions, the moon rocks, the LRRRs in terms more robust than mere speculation. Too many people try to satisfy this burden of proof with only "possibility" -- e.g., "The moon rocks could have been fabricated in the lab." Well, yes, and they could have been picked up from the surface of the moon. Looking at all available observations and evidence, which of those two is mostly likely?

[Count Zero]

hubcapdave69 said:

You say that is your opinion that we didn't send men to the moon. What would it take to change your opinion? What proof do you require to make it irrefutable in your mind that the landings weren't faked?

In case you missed it, Margamatrix answered that question here on reply #19. He is referring to this event in October. I'm glad to hear he's going. It's a brave thing to confront ones own beliefs.

I remember when I was in the fifth grade. We saw a film where someone was arrested for a crime. The class broke into two groups debating whether he was innocent or not. After a while, I changed sides. This was as shocking to my classmates as if I had changed teams in the middle of a football game. One of my friends only half-jokingly called me a "traitor" (but my teacher beamed).

Changing an opinion is easy... well, not easy, but it's easier than changing a belief. Once someone expresses a belief, and digs in his heels, it can be very hard for him to say he's change his mind without feeling that he has lost face.

We see this all the time in politics: We often admire/detest a leader for his strong principles/fanatical intransigence, but if he changes his mind, people dump on him from all sides; calling him weak, indecisive, a "waffler".

Margamatrix has an incredible opportunity to meet three of the surviving moonwalkers (Al Bean & Charlie Duke will be there also) and ask them about their experiences. Though them, this cynical guy has a chance to learn about Greatness. Not just (or neccessarily) the greatness of men, but of the Greatness of Mankind. That is the beauty of Apollo. That is its triumph: The simple yet awesome statement that, through bravery, boldness, ingenuity, determination and hard work, we as a people can actually achieve the most amazing of dreams.

That's what really ticks me off about Hoax Believers: They don't just deny the evidence of moon landings; they deny the evidence that mankind is capable of that sort of aspiration.

[margamatix]

I think that's reasonable criteria.My personal belief is that scenario 1 will occur at some stage.

[JayUtah]

Those are not three separate scenarios; they are the three requirements I impose upon a single scenario that would have power to convince me. It is not sufficient simply to issue a confession. Confessions too can be hoaxes themselves.

Writing in Metropole (March 2003), I noted that if Eisenhower had "admitted" that D-Day in 1944 was simply an elaborate hoax, that would not be sufficient to disprove it. There is simply too much other evidence that would not be explained away by a confession, even if the confession were to come from exceptionally eminent authority. The parsimonious conclusion in that case would be that Eisenhower somehow flipped his lid.

Historians have to do this all the time. History is not a tidy mosaic of well-fitting pieces that together create a recognizable image. It is full of inconsistency and contradiction, as well as fabrication. Historians have rhetorical and analytical tools that they use to evaluate conflicting evidence and draw conclusions from them.

My personal belief is that no such revelation is forthcoming any time soon, or ever.

[margamatix]

Well, I think scenario 1 will start the ball rolling and then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor!

[hubcapdave69]

margamatix said:

Hello Dave and welcome along.

I have said before that I would take the word of an astronaut for it and I am going to ask Buzz Aldrin when he visits the UK later this year if I can.

But if this projected Russian mission happens, I will accept that Apollo was for real too.

What would it take to convince you that it did not happen?

A lot more than what the the pro-Hoax camp is using as evidence!

I would need evidence that was irrefutable, and had withstood all attempts to successfully debunk it. Quite frankly, most of the evidence I have seen put forth by the pro-Hoax websites essentially relies upon the ignorance of the reader to be persuasive. Take the Van Allen Belts for example. Most people are largely ignorant of what radiation is. Therefore it is easy to get people to believe that there's all sorts of "deadly radiation" that makes it impossible to traverse space.

www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Click the link to see an FAQ on a "deadly chemical" known as Dihydrogen Monoxide. The joke behind it is that "dihydrogen monoxide" is a fancy name for water! But for someone who has an ignorance of chemistry, it could be easy to convince them that "dihydrogen monoxide" is dangerous and must be banned!

[JayUtah]

Personally I would expect aspect #3 to lead the process. There would be no need for NASA to admit to anything unless there were credible objective and/or scientific arguments that its Apollo evidence was fake. There have been a few attempts to provide that argument, but it generally only serves to demonstrate the abysmal ignorance of the proponent.

[PhantomWolf]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Click the link to see an FAQ on a "deadly chemical" known as Dihydrogen Monoxide. The joke behind it is that "dihydrogen monoxide" is a fancy name for water! But for someone who has an ignorance of chemistry, it could be easy to convince them that "dihydrogen monoxide" is dangerous and must be banned!

One of our parlimentarians actually fell for this and called for its banning on Public TV. I believe that page you linked to still links to that Party's webpage.

That's the thing about the Moon Hoax, it really is all based on people's ignorance about the sciences involved. Worse, those that spread the Hoax almost always claim to have the qualifications required to instruct their readers in the science when it can be quickly shown they don't. They thus lie about their qualifcations, then lie about the sciences and hope that most of their audience is too blinded by the same ideology and ignorance to bother doing any reseach into the truth.

I also think that margamatix has fallen int their trap of the Hoax having to be proved wrong before Apollo can be proved right. That Apollo has to be able to stand without any doubt and as long as anyone can claim that it didn't happen, the evidence that it did, isn't sufficent.

This is totally the wrong way about. The evidence (Rocks, Photos, Film footage, artifacts, documentation, eye witness testimony, radio tracking, and recorded conversations) all say that it did happen. To show that it was indeed a Hoax, the hoax believers have to show how each if these were more likely faked than done. It's no good pointing at photos of the landing pads taken right after landing and saying there's on dust on them and then ignoring the science that shows that there shouldn't have been any (there likely would have been dust on them later due to the astronaut activity, but close up photos weren't taken later, only directly after the landing.) All of the "Whistle Blower" claims of the HB Authors fail when put under honest scrutiny and none of them come even close to explaining the evidence so they shouldn't be taken at anywhere near the same value of the evidence for Apollo.

[Obviousman]

I'm wondering if I'm right about something I said today: that there has been no person verifiably involved at a senior level who has ever admitted it was a hoax, and no 'whistleblower' has ever come forward.

[PhantomWolf]

obviousman said:

I'm wondering if I'm right about something I said today: that there has been no person verifiably involved at a senior level who has ever admitted it was a hoax, and no 'whistleblower' has ever come forward.

Not that I know of. There have been a few claims that people were going to, then died, but no actual proof that they were, or that the deaths were really suspicious.

[scooter]

Were I of the mind that a large number at NASA conspired to actually murder people to cover the hoax, it seems that having one of the three topmost conspirators look me in the eye and tell me it really happened wouldn't carry much weight...

But that's just my supposition...I don't understand the mindset.

Dave

[margamatix]

I have read statements on the Net about the deaths of Grissom, Chafee and White, suggesting that their deaths were deliberate. I do not agree with this, and find these statements distasteful.

I have also read statements suggesting that the Apollo landings were real, but were manipulated in order to conceal the presence of aliens from another planet, found on the moon.


I hope we can all dismiss the fantasists who cling to our shirt-tails and that we can carry on debating Apollo in an adult manner.

[echnaton]

margamatix said:

I have read statements on the Net about the deaths of Grissom, Chafee and White, suggesting that their deaths were deliberate. I do not agree with this, and find these statements distasteful.

I have also read statements suggesting that the Apollo landings were real, but were manipulated in order to conceal the presence of aliens from another planet, found on the moon.


I hope we can all dismiss the fantasists who cling to our shirt-tails and that we can carry on debating Apollo in an adult manner.

Really?

I find these two assertions about equally credible with the notion that the Apollo missions were faked. Once one decides to through away rational thought, no one conclusion can really be all that more fantastic than any other.