1 edit
I have come across this argument SO many times and in the process, I found that the best site in debunking the conspiracy theorists can be found here:
http://www.clavius.org/
I find that the arguments that moon hoax conspiracy theorists have are incredibly weak.
EDIT: In terms of technology, I have linked directly to save a little time.
http://www.clavius.org/technasa.html
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobSo he has doubts about the moon landings. That does not destroy whatever credentials he has as some kind of scientist. If he goes to the debunking sites it would answer his questions about the issue. He is just going by the evidence as he sees it. So the evidence is faulty, that is his issue to overcome.
Exactly.
My girlfriend is essentially a scientist, she has a Master of Science (MSc) degree in Rehabilitation Science. She doesn't know a thing about physics.
He is not leaping on a bandwagon and trying to force everyone to believe the moonlanding was a hoax.
There is a difference between a real hoaxter and someone who wants a couple of points cleared up.
The true hoaxter (Sp?) will find problem after problem to support his claims, just like creationists who want to destroy 200 years of science behind evolution. Same mental set. Plus the desire to make a career out of these conspiracy theories. There is a lot of money in this crap, unfortunately.
2 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI do not think they were faked.
This site's fuzzy thinkers make me so sick on the Debates Forum, I just gotta ask:
Does ANYONE here on the Science Forum really think the moon landings were faked?
Seriously?
I suggest anyone who does try to find the Myth Busters show on the moon
landing. I didn't think they were faked before the show, but that show did
reveal why some people's assumptions caused them to think it was.
Kelly
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by sonhouseActually, yes, it does. Given the massive amount of serious debunking by serious scientists, all available at the click of a web link, anyone who still maintains that there are doubts about the reality of the moon landing is dealing his own scientific repute some serious damage. Had there been the slightest evidence for a conspiracy, you would have the slightest glimmer of a point. But there isn't, and moon conspiracy believers have ipso facto no scientific standing.
So he has doubts about the moon landings. That does not destroy whatever credentials he has as some kind of scientist.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI believe he stated that he didn't doubt that we landed on the moon he just didn't know what to make of a few, to his mind, strange occurences.
Actually, yes, it does. Given the massive amount of serious debunking by serious scientists, all available at the click of a web link, anyone who still maintains that there are doubts about the reality of the moon landing is dealing his own scientific repute some serious damage. Had there been the slightest evidence for a conspiracy, you would have the ...[text shortened]... isn't, and moon conspiracy believers have ipso facto no scientific standing.
Richard
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueYou perhaps notice Basmania is not publishing this in Nature, he is speculating at a rhp forum. There is no doubt in my mind his scientific credibility will have not so much as a smudge from his opinion. Look close at his post, there is no fire and brimstone coming out. Are you a scientist? Or just someone grousing nobody should be able to express an opinion?
Actually, yes, it does. Given the massive amount of serious debunking by serious scientists, all available at the click of a web link, anyone who still maintains that there are doubts about the reality of the moon landing is dealing his own scientific repute some serious damage. Had there been the slightest evidence for a conspiracy, you would have the ...[text shortened]... isn't, and moon conspiracy believers have ipso facto no scientific standing.
Richard