Fake Thinking and Moon Landing Conspiracies

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

An article was suggested at The Question Evolution Project on Fakebook, and it was something I was able to build on. There are conspiracy theorists who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and are passionate about their opinions. I have noticed that Flat Earthers join their ranks. (The ones who infuriate me are the 9-1-1 "truthers" who say it was an "inside job", attacking the integrity of thousands of people.) There are numerous sites that refute the moon landing conspiracies, but I wanted to use this one in particular.

Conspiracy theories about the faked lunar landings have been debunked, but they have some things in common with evolutionary narratives.
Buzz Aldrin salutes the flag, image credit: Neil Armstrong / NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There is no need for me to cover all the points in the article that will be linked below. This article complements "How to Conduct Insufficient Research", the lunar conspiracy people have something in common with Darwinian thinking.

One of the first logic errors used by fake moon landing conspiracists is prejudicial conjecture. That puts a burr under my saddle. Essentially, someone has an opinion to express that is based on emotion and is not supported by facts. Most of the time I have seen it in use is when someone wants to say something negative. 

Providentially, I had stopped writing this article one evening. The next day, when what to my wondering eyes should appear but an excellent example of someone lashing out with prejudicial conjecture. No, I have no idea about the Victorian Greens or other aspects of politics in 'Straya:

Was the fact check valid, and did it have its own fallacy? You decide. Study on this: Haven't you reacted to something without checking anything, then regretted it? I know I have.

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that the Fallacy of Exclusion plays well with prejudicial conjecture. It can simply be a matter of not bothering to actually examine the facts, but the fallacy can be from deliberately ignoring or hiding material contrary to a viewpoint.

"Isn't that what a tinhorn did by saying the Umma gumma thing destroyed all of creation science, Cowboy Bob?"

First of all, Umma gumma is a species of damselfly, and Ummagumma is the name of a Pink Floyd album (which I've never heard). The damsel fly was named after the album. Second, ‘Oumuamua is an interstellar object that has baffled scientists and is not fully understood. So yes, the absurdity of claiming that all of biblical creation science is destroyed by such an object is obvious.

Looks like we rode off on a side trail. Here we are back at the main one.

One of the first things about claims of faked moon landings is that many of them defy what should be common sense. People are lousy at keeping secrets, whether because of guilty consciences, memory lapses, desires for fame, and so on. All those years of the Apollo program and none of the 400,000 or so involved spoke up? Also, saying that everyone was involved is impugning their integrity. Many of them were Christians, including astronauts.

Let's have a glance at some points in the article, then I'll send you on over so's y'all can read it your ownselves.

  • The American flag was waving in the breeze — an issue with the equipment, and the claim was debunked.
  • That's not Neil Armstrong's boot print — because it was Aldrin's print.
  • No starry background, and lots of extra shadows — light conditions on the moon, plus camera settings.
  • That lack of a blast crater after the Lunar Module took off — less gravity on the moon, so less thrust was needed.
  • We should be able to see the landing sites with telescopes — except that none are powerful enough, so you'd have to go up and look. Oh, wait. That's been done, sorta, by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's camera.
The lunar landings did indeed happen. If you've a mind to, take a look at the article that inspired this one, There's also another, telling us that technology for filming a fake moon landing on a soundstage could not happen. Mayhaps you could do some more searching, then compare reality with the fallacious logic and claims by fake moon landing conspiracists.

Even less credible but far more entertaining conspiracies include the Apollo missions searching for artefacts or even making contact with them. At least, we got interesting movies out of that stuff.

Facts are bad medicine for conspiracy theories like this, and for fish-to-philosopher evolution. In both cases, the narrative takes priority. Doubters are mocked, especially when they present contrary evidence (case in point). Proverbs 18:17 tells us that someone can make a compelling case, but when someone brings additional information, it is less convincing. Regular readers have seen many times how evolutionists make claims where pertinent information is ignored or suppressed — which is contrary to good science, and is downright disingenuous.

Scientists who are biblical creationists are definitely not nearly as bankrolled as secular scientists, but do try to find the truth. Disagree with each other? You betcha! However, they are motivated by the truth of the Word of God, not by financial interests or propping up Darwin's fantasies.


James Foard said…
I'm a Christian and a Creationist. Unfortunately your critique of those who do not believe in the Moon landing sounds so much like the evolutionists critiquing Creationism i.e. "Fake Thinking and Creationist Conspiracies". Comparing those of us who do not hold to the official story to Flat Earthers, bringing up weak arguments and propounding them as the strongest arguments that we have, ignoring the fact that we do not have the technology TODAY to reach the Moon with manned spaceflight, that we have not returned in 50 years, etc. etc. There are plenty of well educated people, among them many Christians who do not believe that we really reached the Moon. I am sorry to see you concede to popular opinion in this case. You do such a wonderful job refuting the lies of the evolutionists and standing up for the faith, and now you are going along with the crowd on this one. One site that I would suggest you visit is Aulis.com. They have a wealth of information that any reasonable person looking at would begin to question the official narrative. God bless you.
No, I am not "going along with the crowd". From your remarks, I don't think you understood my article.