17-11-2010, 12:01 AM
Peter Presland Wrote:Peter Dawson Wrote:.... Why should I trust the reasoning of people who can't figure this sort of thing out for themselves before they submit it to us as evidence that the moon landings were faked?I'd like to know just what that is intended to add to the two pieces of evidence critique that preceded it, both of which stand quite validly on their own.
If you are going to use science and reasoning to persuade the scientific community that they have been duped about a particular controversial issue, and to convince the world at large that the scientific community has it wrong, then you really should expect to be held to the highest of standards, at all times.
There are some claims made by moon hoax proponents that aren't easily dismissed - how can I state with certainty that NASA didn't fake the landings and murder any people who wouldn't go along with the plan? Not being a geochemist, how can I speak to claims about there being tell-tale signs that moon rocks from the Apollo missions aren't what they're claimed to be? But when easily dismissed claims are made by hoax proponents, alongside not so easily dismissed claims, I don't see why hoax proponents should be given the benefit of the doubt.
(While writing this post I notice another inconsistency with the moon hoax argument. On the metapedia page they raise some sensible sounding concerns about inconsistencies regarding the accuracy of splashdowns, but to explain the details of the Apollo splashdown they ask that we "assume that the crew did not fly" at all - yet most other moon hoax theories claim that the astronauts were in the Apollo crafts, but never left earth orbit.)