This page is hard to find credible for a couple of reasons... One, there are quite a few spelling errors. Two, the entire text is based on this man, Rene's, opinion whose credibility on the subject is never really stated. Though his credibility is not really clear, he uses simplicity in his arguments to make them convincing. He gives examples of the ways that NASA could have "made it look like" the astronauts landed on the moon without actually doing it. The article uses weaselers throughout the article to give it more credibility, one example being the “growing number of astrophysicists” who are said to be “starting to agree” with Rene.
Testability: This article is based on opinion. There are ways to test certain aspects of this man’s hypotheses, however, based on what he is claiming. One example of a hypothesis that could be tested in the article is that he believes the specimens brought back from the moon were made up in a science lab. To test this would take experts in the field to see if the specimens could actually be composed with the resources on earth.
Fruitfulness: The points made by this man open up new ideas as for how NASA managed to fake the landing and why certain aspects of the filming were so questionable.
Scope: The only prediction is that the moon landing was faked with simple explanation.
Simplicity: The way this man, Rene, explains everything going in to faking the moon landing, is somewhat more complicated then just believing that the moon landing occurred. The simple way out would be to believe the observed video footage of the landing, but this article explains how that was faked - therefore, lacking simplicity.
Conservatism: This goes against the majority of the populations beliefs and therefore lacks conservatism.
____________________________________________
(Source: http://libproxy.nau.edu:2122/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4731FH3-12R&_user=9250612&_coverDate=11/30/1970& valid=1337115331&_ rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6821&_sort=r&_st=4&_docanchor=&_ct=40&_acct=C000112687&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=9250612&md5=abbc0a5512742e3c5a6007c857ce4164)
This article written in 1970 mainly focuses on the evidence brought back from the Apollo landing. This is a relatively good piece of evidence because the article actually discusses proof of the evidence that the astronauts brought back from the moon, and considering that the evidence is researched by the Earth Observations Branch of the Laboratory for Meteorology and Earth Sciences. This article doesn't discuss the conflicting belief that the moon landing was a hoax, it just simply discusses what they found in the samples brought back from the moon. The analysis of their samples doesn't really prove anything, (because people who believe it was a hoax suppose that the samples were made up in a lab somewhere) but it's still evidence discussed by people with high credibility, considered expert testimony.
Testability: This is testable by having other experts in the field of meteorology and earth sciences test the specimens as well and compare data with that found in this article.
Fruitfulness: This evidence can provide proof that the landing took place. Actual specimens from the moon can actually be solid proof unlike video footage that can easily be faked. Proving that these specimens are actually from the moon gives the most successful prediction that the astronauts actually landed there.
Scope: This explains what the specimens discovered about the moon and what the crust of the moon had undergone, along with that of which it is indeed made.
Simplicity: This hypothesis makes few assumptions and simply proves what the common belief that man actually landed on the moon. Therefore, it has simplicity.
Conservatism: This evidence goes along with common beliefs. The majority of the population believed that man actually landed on the moon, therefore discussing what they found in the specimens brought back from the moon isn’t going against common belief.
_________________________________________
(Source: Percy, David S. [ARPS], DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. Aulis, 1999. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from Carlsbad City Library, Carlsbad, CA.)
This book was written to “expose the truth” behind the moon landings, saying that there was an elaborate hoax or “sting”. The publication also covers topics such as the similarities between Earth and Mars, mysteries surrounding the Egyptian Sphinx (and their answers), and lots of information on the Moon. Utilizing alleged expert testimony, namely that of photographer David S. Percy, ARPS (the author) and of physicist David Groves, Ph.D., the book points to various inconsistencies in the Apollo photos which, say Percy and Groves, are proof that the moon landing was indeed a hoax. What’s more, they state that these “errors” in the photographs were purposefully placed as “clues” that the event was faked.
Testability: The background theory here is that the Apollo missions resulted in multiple successful moon landings by NASA astronauts. The above source predicts – or, proclaims – that this theory is a sham and that film of the “landings” was produced by the U.S. for political gain. While this is not an ad hoc hypothesis, it does seem more than a little farfetched. Testability is not a major problem for our claim.
Fruitfulness: While our chosen claim may explain some discrepancies in a couple of photographs (which, by the by, were pointed out solely by conspiracy theorists), it does not explain why 41 years later, the vast majority of human beings believe that the Apollo moon landings did happen – including many eyewitnesses such as astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Alan Bean, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, John W. Young, and other real-life moon-walkers.
Scope: The hypothesis stating that the moon landings were a hoax has a very limited scope. Sure, it explains some photographical mysteries and a political agenda, but it also leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
Simplicity: There are a TON of assumptions made with this hypothesis, among them being 1) our nation felt the need to “beat” the U.S.S.R. to the moon so much that it would lie to its own people; 2) the government and NASA convinced hundreds of astronauts, scientists, and others to go along with this “sham” of a moon landing; 3) no man has ever been on the moon; 4) all of the evidence – moon materials, etc. – brought back from the Apollo missions was constructed scientifically and is artificial/fake; and 5) human beings cannot tell the difference between a moon landing and a video.
Not only are many of these assumptions incorrect, but they are insulting. The hypothesis completely lacks simplicity.
Conservatism: The hypothesis does not fit with ANY established beliefs - except that the United States and the U.S.S.R. were in a time of rivalry, extending even to their respective space programs.
_______________________________________________
The following are some clips from a documentary on the subject of the “moon landing hoax”:
_______________________________________________
(Source: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)
Unless the 1969 Apollo landing took place in a film studio, there is no explanation for the above picture. In the picture above, one can see that the shadow of the astronaut to the right is much taller than the astronaut to the left. They are only standing a few feet away from each other. One might say that the shadows can be caused from reflections on the ground; however this does not describe the difference in height of the shadows for each astronaut.
Testability: This can be tested by placing two objects of similar height and distance in an open space and putting a light behind them. The test will show that shadows are produced. The findings will show either a) that the shadows will be similar sized (proving the hypothesis) or b) the shadows will be different sizes disproving the hypothesis.
Fruitfulness: This can predict many different outcomes. It can range from multiple light sources, to the positioning of the individuals.
Scope: This can also explain different phenomena because if these shadows are from multiple light sources, then that means that it was really not taken on the moon. Therefore, this can falsify many of the other pieces of evidence against this claim.
Simplicity: This is a little more difficult to explain because math (angles) and science (lighting) would have to come into play to determine the truth about this photo.
Conservatism: This goes against established beliefs.
______________________________________________
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b309_YspwMk&feature=channel)
This video explains that the photos of the moon surface from the 1969 Apollo landing was actually taken in the heavily guarded area 51 in Nevada.
Testability: This theory can be tested by taking the satellite pictures of area 51’s craters and the pictures from the moon landing that have the craters, having expert geologists examine both to find the similarities.
Fruitfulness: This theory can only have one outcome, whether or not the footage shown as the moon landing was actually of the Nevada desert.
Scope: The amount of additional phenomena that can be explained by this theory is great. If the lunar shots were done on earth in the Nevada desert, it would also explain why the American flag was flapping when there is no air or wind to push the flag as well as other inconsistencies of the moon landing.
Simplicity: The simplicity of this theory is great. It only considers this one aspect of the inconsistency and has only one area it could have been shot from here on earth.
Conservatism: Once again this theory goes against most claims regarding the 1969 moon landing.
____________________________________________
The following is a video which attempts to prove that the landing of Apollo was actually filmed before the date that the "live" landing had aired. Also, when watching this video, one can see that the window uncovers and blue sky is revealed. This would seem to indicate that instead of landing on the moon, these astronauts were orbiting the Earth.
Testability: We cannot test this evidence because 1) it would be too costly, 2) the means to test this are unavailable and 3) technological advances would make this difficult to replicate.
Fruitfulness: If in fact, this footage was pre-recorded, then this predicts that the events following did not occur. This is based on the time order theory in which event B cannot happen unless event A occurred.
Scope: The amount of diverse phenomena related to this landing that can be explained by this evidence is large. If this event were to be videotaped before the date it aired on national television, then there could not have been lunar rocks, vehicles on the moon, Americans on the moon, flags flowing on the moon, or pictures of the moon.
Simplicity: The example is simple but it is not necessarily able to be generalized. This is based on one event which is the lunar landing of 1969 and not all lunar landings.
Conservatism: Unfortunately, this evidence goes against many of the beliefs that have been established by the American people.
________________________________________________
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc&feature=channel)
This video discusses the errors in the different photos taken from the supposal moon landing. One of the biggest faults that they discuss is the lighting. In the pictures taken at the moon landing the shadows do not run parallel. This is said to disprove the moon landing because the one source of light the astronauts had was the sun. If this were true all the shadows would have been going in the same direction. As well as the photograph of the astronaut that is in the lunar module shadow, yet his entire body is lit and visible which suggests additional lighting.
Testability: This theory can be tested by creating the environment in a sound stage and then use different lighting sources to tests whether it is possible or not possible to come out with these results with one single source of light.
Fruitfulness: This theory can predict new phenomena and lines of research. It can explain why some of the other pictures were so clear yet were taken from had to operate camera as well as why the video footage was so static filled.
Scope: This can explain many of the inconsistencies that skeptics have about the pictures of the moon landing.
Simplicity: This is a very simple theory that one questions one aspect of the pictures taken.
Conservatism: This theory goes again most common beliefs about the moon landing.
________________________________________________
This video does not prove evidence for or against the claim that the moon landing was fake, but it discredits NASA as a source against the claim. In this video, Ms. Donna Hare, who worked for the Disclosure Project for Philico Ford/ NASA interviews Sergeant Karl Wolfe from Langley Air Force Base, VA Tactical Air Command. Sergeant Wolfe, was the individual who witnessed NASA airbrushing out anomalies on the moon's surface before sharing the images with the public. This is proof that cannot be a source of information against this claim based on a lack of reliability.
Testability: This is considered expert testimony due to the fact that the individuals speaking both have some type of NASA/Air Force association. Unlike your average Joe, these individuals have actually interviewed and witnessed the phenomenon they are talking about.
Fruitfulness: This source of data makes a prediction that NASA should not be trusted. Two experts testify that NASA was trying to hide something from the public. If they are trying to hide one thing, then they are probably trying to hide another.
Scope: This does not really explain a large scope of information, however it does seem to disprove a source.
Simplicity: This example is simple because it is testimony. There is no complex formula that needs to be calculated.
Conservatism: It is hard to determine whether this goes for or against already established beliefs because this is very specific information. It is hard to find supporting evidence for or against NASA removing parts of their photographs.
_________________________________________________
(Source: http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/moon.html
In the above picture, one can see that the night sky is completely free of any stars. It is said that with nothing blocking the view the sight would be magnificent. The only explanation for this is that the picture was taken in a studio where it would be impossible to fabricate the stars in such a way that even professional astronomers would not be able to tell the difference.
Testability: This can be tested by comparing pictures from other space expeditions to this picture and comparing the differences between them.
Fruitfulness: This can predict only predict one outcome.
Scope: This once again can only explain the one outcome.
Simplicity: This theory is has only one assumption.
Conservatism: There are many background claims that go against this claim.
_________________________________________________
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/17/moon.landing.hoax/index.html)
Twenty-five percent of respondents to a survey in the British magazine Engineering & Technology said they do not believe humans landed on the moon. A handful of Web sites and blogs circulate suspicions about NASA's "hoax."
In addition, Google searches this week for "Apollo moon landing hoax" yielded more than 1.5 billion results.
Bill Kaysing, a technical writer for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for NASA's Apollo program, published a 1974 book titled We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He said that 1) NASA lacked the technology in 1969 to land humans safely on the moon, 2) the Apollo astronauts would have been poisoned by passing through the Van Allen radiation belts that ring the Earth and 3) NASA's photos from the moon contained suspicious anomalies.
A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.
Testability: Opinion polls can be testable because they can be replicated. I would say that they can also be falsified by looking at the reverse side of the statistics. The above noted information is more statistical rather than experimental.
Fruitfulness: Statistics make successful predictions because they are based on quantitative and not qualitative data. This data predicts that there are many individuals who believe the claim our group is supporting. That is a novel prediction.
Scope: The above data explains a wide range of information. First, it shows that there are many supporters of this claim. Second, an expert rocket builder proves that America was not technologically advanced enough to travel to the moon. Finally, it shows a growth in support for this claim even after many years of fighting against it has occurred.
Simplicity: Political polls are simple. Individuals can answer based on their opinions. Unlike a test in high school, there is no penalty for marking your true feelings, therefore we know these are valid.
Conservatism: This evidence goes against many of the beliefs that have been established by the American people.
________________________________________________
(Source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/conspiracy-theorist-convinces-neil-armstrong-moon,2796/)
In this piece, it is explained that Neil Armstrong announced that the landing of Apollo in 1969 was a hoax brought forth by the United States government. After watching YouTube videos and reading a few blogs, he realized that he had been living a lie. He even admitted that makers of this footage forgot that some of the "lunar rocks" had the letter C imprinted on them. He was supposed to turn those over but forgot. Instead of taking giant leaps on the moon, he was taking small steps backwards which were later slowed down and reversed.
Testability: In order to test this evidence, one must be able to gain access to all aspects of Apollo and the moon landing mission, which would be impossible. Since the articles main body is of an observer testimony there is no way to test what is said.
Fruitfulness: Could this make successful predictions? Well according to the newspaper, this is testimony from an individual who was present during the activity. Therefore, if he was present, he would know the details about the events and would be able to make more accurate predictions about other aspects of the mission. This testimony could also open new lines of research as to how the hoax was actually accomplished.
Scope: The only outcome this article can have is that the moon landing was indeed a hoax. This explains the entire claim because it is verbal responsibility for the activities discussed in this claim.
Simplicity: This theory has only one assumption. Confession of a claim is very simple. There is no math equation needed.
Conservatism: There are many background claims that go against this claim.
This evidence goes against many of the beliefs that have been established by the American people.
The reliability of this piece of evidence would be hard to justify. The Onion is a newspaper that operates on satirizing events in America. However, the evidence (such as it is) does support our claim.
