Alternative Hypotheses

1: The 1969 Apollo moon landing was indeed a hoax, but not to advance against the Soviet Union but rather to avoid losing billions of dollars of funding that would have been lost if some advancement was not made.

The same evidence presented for our original claim is used to support this one, with a few subtle differences.

How does this hypothesis compare?

Testability: This hypothesis rings similar to the first, because it predicts about the same amount of additional information as to why the moon landing was supposedly staged.

Fruitfulness: Again, this hypothesis yields about the same number of novel predictions as our original claim. The only difference is the reason behind the hoax.

Scope: This hypothesis may have a slight edge on our original claim in that it explains slightly more diverse phenomena. The idea of “one-upping” the Soviet Union is more specific and narrow than the notion of financial woes causing the United States government to resort to fraud and deceptive tactics.

Simplicity: The assumptions made with this hypothesis are 1) the U.S. was in financial trouble such that it needed to create a giant lie to feed the public, and 2) the U.S. would have lost billions of dollars in financial support for the space program if progress failed to be seen.

Conservatism: Alternative Hypothesis #1 contradicts with most of the established beliefs about the Apollo missions – namely that the United States sent astronauts to the moon. However, financial hardship is not a foreign concept and fits as well with established beliefs as the notion that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were at odds (causing the U.S. to plan the hoax.)

#2: The 1969 Apollo moon landing really did happen and was not faked by the United States government in order to triumph over the Soviet Union.

Testability: So far as the majority of society can tell, the Apollo missions were successful in sending men to the moon. The testimony of thousands of people involved in the space program strengthens the hypothesis.

Fruitfulness: This hypothesis makes the most successful novel predictions, in that it explains why we have 41 years of history, testimony and physical evidence to support the assertion that the United States really, truly put men on the moon.

Scope: This hypothesis explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena, as it elucidates all of the evidence, people, equipment, etc. involved with the moon landing.

Simplicity: This hypothesis is the most simple as it makes no additional assumptions other than that which we know to be history – three astronauts landed on the moon in 1969.

Conservatism: This hypothesis fits best with established beliefs, as it is the common belief of the majority of human individuals on this planet.