Actually it's a yellow cheese, as this documentatry shows.

I don't understand why someone with Mensa in their screenname doesn't seem to grasp or at least apply the concept of "preponderance of evidence". The idea you propose seems to rest entirely on "the concrete" - "If I wasn't there, didn't see it with my own eyes, it doesn't exist or didn't happen" which is much further from "proof". The only absolute proofs I know of are either in Mathematics or involve past events (Yesterday happened and the Earth didn't fall into the Sun) or in the immediate Locality (I am here now and typing on my PC in this forum). Everything else is Probability with varying degrees of confidence.

I categorically reject the concept of mere belief since it never seems to come with any regard for confidence of probability. It is a meaningless term to me. I wouldn't try to prove Bigfoot does or doesn't exist, in the former case because I don't care enough and in the latter since there is no solid evidence at all. I would attempt to prove in the evidentiary context of that term that real zombies (walking, brain eating dead) don't exist since dead and alive are contradictions in terms except in thought experiments like Shrodinger's Cat, where again, until the box is opened, we have no evidence.

In this specific case of the Apollo Moon Landings there really are only two major possibilities. We either did land there or we faked it. The linked video provides extremely high probability that going there was likely while faking it was not. To accept the "hoax hypothesis" is to accept anachronism. Therefore I have confidence that we did go and did place items that have since been photographed by third parties or have had lasers bounced off them available to anyone with the means to hire observatory time. It may not qualify as absolute proof but it does have the preponderance of evidence. I will bet on that just as I will bet that tomorrow, the Sun will appear to rise yet again, and the odds are, I'm right.

I find "rational faith" an oxymoron. I don't gamble unless it's "with the House" ie: where the odds are substantially in my favor. How much I gamble is in direct proportion to the odds. The odds in the case of Apollo Moon Landings are overwhelmingly in favor of it being true. The odds that Stanley Kubrick or anyone else faked it on a movie set are nearly non-existant. How does that possibly correlate to religious faith which not only has no evidence at all but can likely never have any?

In my experience, conspiracy theories are never "crushed." They instead become more twisted as their true believers attempt to pretzel their way around the reality that they have chosen to deny.

If persons want to believe a lie, facts won't deter them.

That is a valid statement and solid appraisal, but also a decent definition of "insanity"

Well, a lot of conspiracy theories are nuts!

What fuels "conspiracy theories" is this kind of thing:

Destruction of the original footage:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...56F5MK20090716

Waiting 50 years before opening rock samples with much "50th anniversary" fanfare:
https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/news/t...%3d&i10c.dv=12

While the hoax is still a possibility and all of the "data" and evidence comes from within the US or it's allies, the murmuring will continue.

It's also worth considering that while the vast majority of pseudo scientific theorising on the web may be complete and utter nonsense, much of it "viral" misinformation, that still doesn't entirely rule out a hoax/staging whatever you want to call it.

For some, particularly US citizens, a hoax is incredible, but for the rest of the world it becomes more plausible. The US have contemplated "false flag" operations during the Cold War after all, particularly with regards to Cuba and also with CIA involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950's - all in the era of Cold War anti communist hysteria and fear mongering. These were once "conspiracy theories", now proven to be fact - previously the "facts" were whatever your government were telling you.

My take on the moon landings is that we will probably never know either way, or it may take another 50 years for the truth to come out.

Excellent documentary but they only looked at sites on the near side. As the late Stan Lee pointed out, "the cheese is always greener on the other side of the moon."

Yes, this is an example of confirmation bias, belief perseverance and the backfire effect. The more that other people attempt to win an argument, especially online and in the face of contradictory evidence, the more they are pushed further into supporting their own beliefs. This is because, theoretically, people tend to become emotional and more interested in winning an argument rather than looking at themselves objectively, critically and examining both sides of the argument assertively and with neutrality. There are particular arguments [the moon landings among them] which are essentially 'unwinnable' because of this.

You mention the U.S. twice as if no one here denies the moon landings. In point of fact MOST of the people I've known of that denied it were in the U.S.

Enorbet:
You seem to be taking the position that anyone who challenges your "proof" is:
a) A denier of the moon landing. I made it clear I am not and I don't see any of the others saying they are.
b) Is an idiot for suggesting "belief" trumps what you call "evidence". Unless you were there when the "evidence" was gathered you're "believing" someone else gathered it. If one was able to "fake" the moon landing then they of course could "fake" a documentary explaining why the landing couldn't have been "faked".

If things were as simple as you suggest then there would be no anti-vacination movement, no pro-anorexia movement, no debate about abortion, no debate about climate change. I take it on "faith" that others before me have done the science and are generally correct in their conclusions but until I do all the science myself I understand that it is my "belief" rather than my certain knowledge that things like evolution, a round earth and quantum mechanics are valid.

One of the things I like about science rather than religion is that it is the only thought system we have that includes the possibility that it could be wrong. When it is, although senior people might reject its findings for a time eventually the scientific community at large will come to accept it mainly because either the experiments or mathematics that lead to the theories are repeatable or additional experiments and mathematics help to confirm the conclusions. When Einstein came up with relativity Newtonian physics were proven to not have the complete answer. However, Einstein himself balked at later findings that are key to quantum mechanics. To pretend that you "know" because of science is as bad as those who "know" because "God told them so".

That was not the intent and I'm well aware of that. As you're from the US, it makes sense that most of those you've encountered who believe the hoax theories are from there. Over here it's not so polarised. There are lots of people who just keep an open mind, but have not outright discounted the possibility of a hoax.

In the US, there is always going to be less (not an absense of) skepticism about the authenticity of the Apollo missions, because it was the US who launched those missions after all and regard them as a point of national pride / heritage. However, elsewhere in the world, ordinary people will be more willing to lend an ear to "conspiracy theories", entertain the idea of a hoax and will be less likely to be condemned/heckled for doing so.

Actually, Mensawater, I have yet to see a challenge to "my proof". My evidence is that in 1969 I was 23 years old and had been designing and building amateur rockets in my parent's basement since I was 12 and I'm talking about machined metal not cardboard kit model rockets, some containing cameras and I was old enough and schooled enough to know something of the level of technology available in cameras, film and television. I voraciously studied every rocket launch I could find in the news and in the library. It was 1966, iirc, before my family had bought it's very first color TV. I can relate to Mr Collins' assessment of video technology in 1969. I was there and I was aware. I wanted to be Wehrner von Braun.

Naturally even to this day I don''t have the level of knowledge and experience that filmmaker S.G. Collins who made that linked video has gained over 50 odd years but I know enough from both then and now to see he is telling the truth about what technology was available and how much longer it would be before anything like what it would have taken to create "the hoax" would exist. His case is as solid as "proving" Caesar didn't actually avoid his assassination by jumping in his Ferrari and speeding off.

So for someone to challenge what you are calling "my proof" they would have to address the points Mr Collins has made about available technology, not simply regurgitating a litany of skepticism about what liars the gubmint/miltary/NASA is. The salient point is that even if they are all psychopathic liars and desperately wanted to fake it, they couldn't. They couldn't fake the video, the film, the now photographed tracks on the moon, the radar images collected not only by friends as some here have stated but by enemies, and last but certainly not least, the laser reflectors that had to be placed precisely requiring a human in 1969, since the robotics that could do such a thing didn't exist for another 20+ years.

I am not assuming your position on the veracity of Apollo Moon Landings. I am questioning your standards of evidence and arguments. I too respect and love the entire concept of "falsification" but I equally oppose pseudo falsification because "it doesn't suit my world view". Please, someone, prove Mr Collins wrong. Falsify his claim for example that continuous "slow mo" for hours at a time was impossible in 1969. Falsify recent Chinese orbiter photos of the landing sites. Falsify albedo readings from the precise locations NASA published publicly for the laser reflectors. Falsify any one or all of them or better yet and more likely show some other means to fake the landings than a Hollywood studio since that was clearly impossible without something even wilder like Time Travel.

That is simply erroneous. During the height of The Cold War Russia tracked all US launches it could and would've given anything to be able to prove such a massive US lie.

Since so much of the "I call foul!" guy's "evidence" rests on photographic and video fakery, the point of the video is that the technology did not exist yet to fake it. It would still be difficult but possible in 2019... just not a half century ago. So if the landing was fake, how would or even could that be done if all of the photographic and video evidence checks out, as it does?

I realize that though I wish it were not so it is nevertheless true that very often political issues infect every issue, even what the main proponents saw as an effort by Mankind, not one country, for the advancement of human exploration. I know the politicos saw it differently but please do note that all of even Cold War Era NASA launches were announced ahead of time and public, even the catastrophes. Whatever anyone else also thinks, that should be factored in.

Are you unaware of laser reflectors publicly available or all of the Third Party evidence?

Here ya go ====>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-..._Moon_landings

Incidentally, current NASA plans include manned flight to the moon in 2023. I think I may live to see that.

Devils advocate time: Given that the USA made it to the moon in 1969 with technology from 1969 and over the past 50 years NASA et al. have promoted all of the benefits of space travel/moon landings etc... Why haven't the USA or any other country gone back to the moon since (other than rovers) and why are we reverting back to 1969 space pod technology with newer electronics to make this return voyage? Surely, if we were there in 1969 we would have returned numerous times, set up bases, research labs etc... Why were samples shelved/stored away for 50 years without thorough research?

I think those are the main points of those "doubting" that it happened.

PS: this is also the 50th anniversary that Ted Kennedy got away with murder (chappaquiddick incident).