The Apollo program is a matter of historical record ï¿½ extensively documented with paperwork, equipment, training, witnesses, photographs, films, moon rocks, and mission telemetry (the signals from the spacecraft). Taken together, this forms a consistent historical narrative.
So if someone suggests that it (or any other historical event) was faked, then substantial evidence and a counter-narrative is needed. That's the way this works. An ad hoc list ï¿½ even if a mile long - of ignorant, inconsistent or just plain wrong assertions is not
evidence. The moon-hoaxers have many narratives, making it look more like a fishing expedition than an analysis.
I see that Steven's example of the flag still seems to be a major hoaxer objection, even though it's a pretty simple bit of physics.Moon-hoaxers say:
The flag moved because it was blowing in the breeze. Since there's no wind on the Moon, they were actually on Earth.The only fact
in this objection is ï¿½the flag moved,ï¿½ as the rest is interpretation.The scientific explanation is
that because they were on the Moon, the flag moved for awhile after the astronauts put it in place because there was no air resistance to slow it down. This was demontrated in a vacuum chamber on the link I gave.
The moon hoax narratives are based on the US faking the Moon landings in order to win a propaganda victory over the Soviets during the Cold War. So as a little test of the consistency of this narrative, if you were making the moon landing film and an Earthly breeze blew your flag, would youA. ignore it because no one else would notice;
C. reshoot the scene.
I sure know which I'd do!
A second example of non-evidence is the assertion that the Soviets couldn't check up on Apollo because they couldn't track in deep space. By 1969 they had several successful Moon probes and a Venus probe. Do you actually think they sent off all these probes and couldn't track them? How were they expecting to get the data back?
it's funny that you're closed minded that it could've been faked I think, it's ironic at least.
Oo. Oo. Ouch. Hard ball.
Being open minded involves a willingness to accept new evidence - this is what learning is. But I'm afraid that I'm still waiting for some actual evidence.