The folly of conspiracy theories

By Andrew Hobbs

For many, many years, ever since their happenings in 1969, the space landings have been the source of outrageous conspiracy theories and accusations, made by outrageous people and theorists, going out of their way to prove the moon landings never happened and, in some cases, they are completely absurd and clearly have not been thought through like they should have been. On the other hand, some of the theories and conspiracies these unique individuals have come up with seem like the theorist has spent their whole lives devoted to arguing that the moon landings never happened by completing crazy, unneeded calculations and arguments that, while they are impressive and persuasive at first glance, have some pretty obscene weaknesses.

In November 2018, Stephen Z. Nemo from Communities Digital News wrote an article regarding a poll run in Russia, The United States, and Britain. The poll says that of the American population, 7% of people do not believe that men landed on the moon in July 1969. That percentage seems relatively small, however, the poll was also conducted in Britain and Russia. In Britain, the poll states that nearly 52% of citizens do not believe that the United States put men on the moon, and that percentage climbs to 57% in Russia, that percentage including Vladimir Putin himself, Russia’s current president. What theories and conspiracies have been created and presented that, when looked into by the average citizen, persuade them that the moon landings were faked?

An example of one of these outrageous buffoons is the late Bill Kaysing, a scientist and person in charge of calculations at RocketDyne Rocket Engines, as well has holding security clearances with the United States Air Force and the Atomic energy Commission. Kaysing held this position up until a few years before the first manned landing on the moon when he resigned in 1963. Mr. Kaysing is seen as the father of the moon landing hoax theory, and is worshipped as a god in the eyes of moon landing conspiracy theorists. Kaysing wrote and published his book, We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, in July 1976, less than 4 years after the last manned landing on the moon. In that book, Kaysing makes ridiculous claims attempting to back up his thesis, being that America wasted the money and never actually landed on the moon.

One of Kaysing’s biggest shortfalls in his claim, however, is that, despite having an entire 206 page book to fill with empty thought and evidence, he relies on one claim, and that is that America, nor the rest of humanity, possessed the technology needed to land men on the moon. Now, most people might look back and be like, “Yeah, that is a good point, we were not very technologically advanced in the 60s and 70s”, but let us look deeper into this empty claim. Humanity as a whole as advanced hundreds of thousands of miles in the last present decade in terms of technology and new ideas. Kaysing resigned in ‘63 and the first launch for a man to land on the moon was not until the middle of ‘69. Kaysing also relies on a calculation that he conducted in early 1962, where his math shows that there was a 0.02% chance of humans landing on the moon when they did, but how come that could not have changed? When Kaysing resigned in 1963, away went his security clearances, causing him to not ‘be in the loop’ any longer with what was going on, so how come a lot of different advancements could not have been made in that 6 year time frame? Or even the seven-year time frame from when he produced his original calculations of the probability of landing on the moon? While Kaysing was a brilliant man in his field, he did not quite think through his reasonings of why, “there is no way we landed on the moon,” when writing his books on the topic.

For an example of a theorist with too much time on their hands, presented to you is The author of ocii.com’s, Various other Apollo Image Anomalies, where the unnamed author and an internet alias named NiteCaty TRY to say that the moon landing footage, along with the pictures, were faked and were actually filmed/taken in a studio in Hollywood. Now, there are a lot of theorists that believe this statement is true, however this unnamed author and NiteCaty are truly, with all sincerity, a new breed of buffoon. This pair of moon hoax theorists take the reported angle of the horizon on the moon, (recorded by the International Space Station), and the angle of the horizon from Earth, and compare it to the pictures take of the sunrise by Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong while they were on the moon, and attempt to say that the horizon of the moon is actually 0.1 degrees off, stating that the moon landings, and the corresponding pictures, were faked. 0.1 degrees. An opinionated statement on what NiteCaty did in their calculations, and what the unnamed author double-checked, is not even necessary to explain how absolutely bogus their statements are. In their joint article, there are some other calculations that give slightly more leniency, however they are all done with the same process. The same bogus process.

Let us just assume that these two are onto something in their research and highly extensive calculations. In order to be able to make these kinds of calculations, they needed some background information, and some of the needed information was included in their findings, but not one of the biggest: they never took into account the curvature of the lens, or, the time of year that the pictures were taken. Those are arguably the two most important pieces to the research, and they are completely overlooked. If one does not already know, the cameras sent to the moon with the astronauts were, obviously, not the cameras that are available to the public today, but instead had a very large curvature on the lens, providing a larger field of view, allowing the astronauts to acquire larger photos in order for scientists to more easily analyze in the labs. Also, depending on the time of year, the Earth and the moon are in different positions in relation to each other, this alone, rendering the research done by these two theorists practically useless, and just like their predecessors work, an empty thought.

Now, while these are only two examples of the many, many, conspiracies and conspiracy theorists surrounding the moon landings from 1969 to 1972, they are perhaps the strongest in terms of claim on one hand, and who created it on the other. The basis of all of the theorists work, and all of their findings, seem to always be the same; that being, the largest pieces of evidence and/or pieces of their overall research, being left out and merely overlooked. It always seems that every conspiracy theorist is not a theorist at all, but merely a producer of empty thoughts and research, just hoping to find a way to argue on part of their behalf.

(source: https://www.tdn-net.com/opinion/editorials/60967/the-folly-of-conspiracy-theories )

Lewis Hamilton asks NASA astronaut whether the moon landings were faked

Yahoo News UK•March 19, 2019

Well, did they fake it?
In America, 21 million people believe that the moon landings were faked – despite pictures from NASA space telescopes clearly showing flags left by the Apollo missions.

This week, Formula One champion Lewis Hamilton asked astronaut Doug Hubley directly if the landings were faked.

He said, ‘I guess it’s a touchy point, but the big question is … there’s the theories that you didn’t land on the moon. So… why would people have that theory?’, Jalopnik reported.

Hurley said that it would been harder to fake the landings than to actually do them.

He said, ‘I’ve always maintained that it would’ve been harder to fake it and hide it.

‘It just takes one person to go spill. … I had people in my own family that thought we faked it and then they came and watch me go fly in space.’

The idea that the moon landings were faked actually came from rocket expert, Bill Kaysing, a technical writer who self-published a book called ‘We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.’

Many of the supposed ‘giveaways’ still touted by moon truthers today come from Kaysing’s book, according to author C Stuart Hardwick.

Hardwick says, ‘The first person to give real voice to moon hoax conspira-nonesense was Bill Kaysing, a technical writer who had worked for Rocketdyne until 1963.

‘Why? It’s unclear. He was not obviously insane, but he was obviously unqualified to express the opinions he was expressing. My guess is, technical writing with objective criteria didn’t suit him, and pretending expertise to a bunch of ignorant sycophants fuelled his ego.

Kaysing misused his ‘expertise’ as a technical writer to create the impression the missions were faked, Hardwick says – but ignored any facts that got in the way.

Hardwick says, ‘He made a large number of idiotic claims that in fact only demonstrated his ignorance and paranoia. For example, he claimed (without evidence) that the mighty F1 engine was wholly unreliable and so NASA was forced to cover that up by welding clusters of proven B-1 engines inside the F1 engine bell in order to simulate a lunar mission by launching a (presumably mostly empty) Saturn V that could never leave orbit.

‘The F1 engines from some of the missions he was talking about (including Apollo 11) have been recovered from the sea floor, and are clearly unmodified F1 engines.’

“Apollo 11”: New doc features never-before-seen footage of moon mission

The first manned trip to the moon was a milestone in human history. Now, a brand new documentary is taking people aboard the Apollo 11 mission like never before. “Apollo 11” features never-before-seen footage drawn from NASA’s archives. Director and editor Todd Douglas Miller joins “CBS This Morning: Saturday” to discuss the making of the film.

Watch “CBS This Morning” HERE: http://bit.ly/1T88yAR
Download the CBS News app on iOS HERE: https://apple.co/1tRNnUy
Download the CBS News app on Android HERE: https://bit.ly/1IcphuX

Like “CBS This Morning” on Facebook HERE: http://on.fb.me/1LhtdvI
Follow “CBS This Morning” on Twitter HERE: http://bit.ly/1Xj5W3p
Follow “CBS This Morning” on Instagram HERE: http://bit.ly/1Q7NGnY

Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! http://bit.ly/1OQA29B

Delivered by Norah O’Donnell, Gayle King, John Dickerson, and Bianna Golodryga, “CBS This Morning” offers a thoughtful, substantive and insightful source of news and information to a daily audience of 3 million viewers. The Emmy Award-winning broadcast presents a mix of daily news, coverage of developing stories of national and global significance, and interviews with leading figures in politics, business and entertainment. Check local listings for “CBS This Morning” broadcast times.

Damien Chazelle’s ‘First Man’ to open Venice Film Festival

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/FirstManCover.jpgDamien Chazelle’s space race drama First Man will open the 75th Venice Film Festival, it has been confirmed.

Chazelle returns to the Lido after La La Land opened Venice in 2016 and kicked off a triumphant awards season that saw him become the youngest winner of the best directing Oscar.

First Man will have its world premiere on August 29 in the Sala Grande at the Palazzo del Cinema on the Lido di Venezia. It will be in competition at the festival.

Ryan Gosling stars as Neil Armstrong, the former US Navy test pilot who became the first man to walk on the moon in 1969, marking the climax of the Apollo 11 mission and closing an intense chapter in the space race between the US and the Soviet Union.

Starring alongside Gosling are Claire Foy as his wife, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, and Ciarin Hinds.

Universal will open First Man in the US and UK on October 12. The 75th annual Venice Film Festival will take place from August 29-September 8.

Chazelle said: “I am humbled by Venice’s invitation and am thrilled to return. It feels especially poignant to share this news so close to the moon landing’s anniversary. I eagerly look forward to bringing the film to the festival.”

(Source: https://www.screendaily.com/news/damien-chazelles-first-man-to-open-venice-film-festival/5131022.article )

Here’s where the moon landing hoax conspiracy came from (and why it’s rubbish)

By Rob Waugh, Monday  23 Jul 2018

In America, 21 million people believe that the moon landings were faked – despite pictures from Earth-bound telescopes clearly showing flags left by the Apollo missions.

Moon hoax conspiracy theories are often the ‘entry level’ conspiracy which guides people to the really weird ‘hard stuff’ like believing the Earth is flat.

But where did the idea come from? Here’s where the moon landing hoax conspiracy came from (and why it’s rubbish)

Was it all faked? (Picture Getty)

We can blame one rocket expert, Bill Kaysing, a technical writer who self-published a book called ‘We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.’

Many of the supposed ‘giveaways’ still touted by moon truthers today come from Kaysing’s book, according to author C Stuart Hardwick, writing on Quora.

Hardwick says, ‘The first person to give real voice to moon hoax conspira-nonesense was Bill Kaysing, a technical writer who had worked for Rocketdyne until 1963.

‘Why? It’s unclear. He was not obviously insane, but he was obviously unqualified to express the opinions he was expressing. My guess is, technical writing with objective criteria didn’t suit him, and pretending expertise to a bunch of ignorant sycophants fuelled his ego. - FILE PHOTO 16JUL69 - On July 16, 1969, American astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins lifted off from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, in the mammoth-sized Saturn V rocket on their way to the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. Cmdr. Armstrong and pilot Aldrin landed the spacecraft, Eagle, on the moon's Sea of Tranquility on July 20. The 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission is July 16 (launch) and July 20 (landing on the moon). - PBEAHULTGAK

Much of the book centred on the rockets used in the launch (Getty)

Kaysing misused his ‘expertise’ as a technical writer to create the impression the missions were faked, Hardwick says – but ignored any facts that got in the way.

Hardwick says, ‘He made a large number of idiotic claims that in fact only demonstrated his ignorance and paranoia.

- FILE PICTURE 16JUL69 - The Apollo 11 Saturn V space vehicle lifted off with Astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin E."Buzz" Aldrin, Jr., aboard at 9:32 a.m. EDT, July 16, 1969, from the Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39A. The 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission is July 16 (launch) and July 20 (landing on the moon). - PBEAHULTGAL
No, it wasn’t faked (Getty)

‘For example, he claimed (without evidence) that the mighty F1 engine was wholly unreliable and so NASA was forced to cover that up by welding clusters of proven B-1 engines inside the F1 engine bell in order to simulate a lunar mission by launching a (presumably mostly empty) Saturn V that could never leave orbit.

‘The F1 engines from some of the missions he was talking about (including Apollo 11) have been recovered from the sea floor, and are clearly unmodified F1 engines.’

(Souece. https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/23/moon-landing-hoax-conspiracy-came-rubbish-7747784/ )

The housing shortage in California is creating a state of crisis

written by Laurie Edwards-Tate Jul 10, 2018

SAN DIEGO. California, with its attractive cities such as San Francisco and Hollywood, plentiful parklands, expansive Pacific Ocean and desirable year-round climate — can mesmerize vacationers and snowbirds alike. Wishing to escape harsh weather conditions or simply seeking a change of pace, the Golden State soon becomes a serious consideration for many who are desiring to relocate.
California dreaming? Not so much if you consider the state’s ginormous housing shortage. That shortage is so bad in California that it is creating a state of crisis.

THE HIGH COST OF HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA

But what is oftentimes overlooked by California dreamers is the state’s high cost of living. Overlooked as well: the high prices for housing and apartment rentals, some of the highest in the nation.
California wannabes might be determined to find a way to live the California lifestyle. But they are very possibly ignoring the underlying facts influencing what it might cost them to qualify to buy or to rent

The housing shortage in California is creating a state of crisis.

LOW HOUSING SUPPLY CAUSES ESCALATING HOME PRICES

For those who currently own a home, the increase in housing values is highly desirable. But for first-time home buyers, however, the California real estate market makes it nearly impossible for many to afford a home. Only around 29 percent of Californians today can afford a median priced home of about $518,500.00.

Qualifying for a median priced home requires a total household annual income of $81,690.00. The estimated monthly loan payment is $2,720.00 (depending upon loan terms, down payment and the effective interest rate), according to the California Realtors Association.

In 2017, California Housing and Community Development Department estimated 3.5 million new homes would be needed to meet population growth.

SOLVING THE SHORTAGE OF CALIFORNIA HOUSING

The California Housing and Community Development Department estimates that the state needs 180,000 new homes each year to keep pace with housing demand. It follows that California should be a builder’s paradise. With millions of new homes needed over the next 20 years, the building industry could also be a positive source for creating new jobs.

However, the supply of new housing is falling dangerously short. The reasons for this are many.

For example, in 2017, approximately 110,000-115,000 building permits were requested or granted permitting the building of new California homes, according to the Construction Industry Research Board. However, estimates report approximately 70,000 fewer homes get built each year than are actually needed.

An a recent interview with a member of the California Building Industry Association, revealed a surprising multitude of barriers which prevent building badly needed new homes in California. This is especially true for those within a range of affordability.

THE COST OF OVER-REGULATION AND OTHER BARRIERS

California’s current list of regulatory barriers and cost-drivers includes

Slow permit processing
California Environmental Quality Act
Law suits from private citizens
Lumber shortages creating increasing costs
Rising materials costs
Increasing labor costs

( Source: https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/housing-shortage-crisis-california-104294/ )

NASA Kills Lunar-Resources Mission Despite Push to Return to the Moon

NASA’s Resource Prospector rover would have scouted the lunar surface for subsurface water, hydrogen and other volatiles. A drill would have allowed the rover to sample the lunar soil down to a depth of 1 meter.
NASA’s Resource Prospector rover would have scouted the lunar surface for subsurface water, hydrogen and other volatiles. A drill would have allowed the rover to sample the lunar soil down to a depth of 1 meter. Credit: NASA

NASA has canceled a mission to assay the resources that may be available to humans on the moon, even though President Donald Trump’s administration made it a priority to send humans back there, according to media reports.
The Resource Prospector mission would have sent a rover to the moon’s polar regions to learn about water and other deposits on and just beneath the lunar surface. Scientists have sent an open letter to new NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, urging him not to shut down the agency’s only current moon mission, which has already been in development for four years, according to a report by The Verge.
The Resource Prospector mission consisted of a lander and a solar-powered rover equipped with a drill. The rover would have scouted the lunar surface, digging up soil for analysis. Scientists know that water ice exists on the moon, but the Resource Prospector would have provided scientists with a more complete understanding of these deposits.
Such knowledge is crucial to expanding a human presence on the moon. Lunar ice can potentially be melted and split into oxygen and hydrogen, providing a local source of water, oxygen and rocket propellant, The Verge reported. This would not only help make human activities more self-sustaining but also dramatically reduce launch costs, because many of these vital resources could be produced on-site.
“If we can demonstrate that we can access the water on the moon, then we can start to design the equipment that will mine it and deliver it to the outpost,” Phil Metzger, a planetary physicist at the University of Central Florida who is part of the science team for Resource Prospector, told The Verge.
Although it was not yet fully funded, the Resource Prospector mission had gotten well past the drawing board. Engineers had been working on the project for four years, and prototypes were tested on Earth in 2015 and 2016, according to The Verge. Plans had the mission launching in 2022. “It’s far enough along that it’s a real mission,” Clive Neal, an engineering professor at the University of Notre Dame and Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) emeritus chair, told The Verge.
Issues likely started when the mission was transferred from one directorate within NASA to another, according to Metzger. Originally, it was funded with money allocated for human exploration, The Verge reported. However, it was moved to the section that funds scientific missions. Although Resource Prospector was a robotic mission, it didn’t fit as well within the Science Mission Directorate’s priorities or budget, which is likely why it was canceled, The Verge said.
As for why the mission was moved, “I don’t really know what the motive was, but I’m guessing it was probably budget-related,” Metzger told The Verge. NASA’s human exploration program is currently working on the massive Space Launch System rocket, which accounts for a sizable portion of the program’s budget. Given the recent growth of private launch companies, a number of people have criticized NASA’s decision to continue developing this costly rocket.
Several scientists at LEAG, which advises NASA on lunar exploration, wrote a letter to Bridenstine, urging him to re-evaluate the decision to cancel the mission. In their letter, they explained the mission’s importance in current plans to return humans to the moon and expand the nation’s lunar presence overall.
The decision to cancel the Resource Prospector mission is peculiar given the current administration’s plans for NASA. Trump has repeatedly called for NASA to return humans to the moon and even signed Space Policy Directive 1, ordering NASA to return astronauts to the moon ahead of crewed missions to Mars and beyond. As of now, “there are no other [NASA] missions being planned to go to the surface of the moon,” Metzger told The Verge.
The Resource Prospector also fit in nicely with the Trump administration’s desire to foster NASA’s partnerships with the commercial space industry, as there’s been increased interest in lunar exploration from private companies. Several businesses have plans to send their own spacecraft to the moon, and some would like to set up commercial operations there. The moon could even serve as a space port for longer-distance missions, like those to Mars, The Verge said.
“Of course, it could turn out that the water [on the moon] isn’t easily accessible at all, and that could change a lot of plans within the industry,” The Verge wrote. The Resource Prospector mission was critical to answering this question.

(Source: https://www.space.com/40431-nasa-cancels-moon-mission-resource-prospector.html )

Hunger And Homelessness Are Widespread Among College Students, Study Finds

A new study from Temple University and the Wisconsin HOPE Lab found more than a third of college students can’t always afford to eat or have stable housing.

As college students grapple with the rising costs of classes and books, mortgaging their futures with student loans in exchange for a diploma they’re gambling will someday pay off, it turns out many of them are in great financial peril in the present, too.

More than a third of college students don’t always have enough to eat and they lack stable housing, according to a survey published Tuesday by researchers at Temple University and the Wisconsin HOPE Lab.

Overall the study concluded 36 percent of college students say they are food insecure. Another 36 percent say they are housing insecure, while 9 percent report being homeless. The results are largely the same as last year’s survey, which included fewer students.
National Survey Shows High Rates Of Hungry And Homeless Community College Students
NPR Ed
National Survey Shows High Rates Of Hungry And Homeless Community College Students

The 2018 numbers are even higher when broken out to include only community college students. Forty-two percent indicated they struggled the most to get adequate food, as measured by the researchers’ scale. Nine percent said they had gone at least one day during the last month without eating because they lacked the money. And 46 percent said they had difficulty paying for housing and utilities.

Sara Goldrick-Rab, professor of higher-education policy at Temple University and the lead author of the report for the past three years, told NPR that while conditions remain dire for students from low-income families, the burden of covering these basic necessities is spreading into the middle class.

For poor students, she said, “It really undermines their ability to do well in school. Their grades suffer, their test scores appear to be lower, and overall, their chances of graduating are slimmer. They can barely escape their conditions of poverty long enough to complete their degrees.”

Whereas, middle class students “wouldn’t be going through these issues if they weren’t in college” because “their resources pale in comparison to those high college prices.”

For those students facing food insecurity, it means they have trouble getting enough to eat on a daily basis, often leading to skipped meals, weight loss and limited access to nutritious foods.

Housing instability can mean a student is at risk of eviction, behind on utilities payments, or actually homeless, although according to the researchers, homelessness can take on different forms. For instance, it may include students living in a shelter, as well as anyone “couch surfing” — staying with friends — or roaming across campus at night, catching short windows of sleep as they move from one empty building to another.

The report focused on 43,000 students at 66 institutions — 31 community colleges and 35 four-year universities — in 20 states and Washington, D.C. Students volunteered to participate and researchers say it is a non-random sample.

However, Goldrick-Rab and her colleagues have touted it as “the largest national assessment of basic needs security among four-year students.”

While the survey did not include any University of California respondents, most of the findings in the current annual study parallel those found by researchers with the UC Berkeley’s Basic Needs Security Work Group, which, in 2016 determined 42 percent of student in the UC system were food insecure.

Other notable findings in Goldrick-Rab’s study include:

More than 60 percent of former foster youth who completed this survey were food insecure and housing insecure, and almost 1 in 4 had experienced homelessness in the last year.
21 percent of homeless students said they felt unsafe where they live.
37 percent of community college students and 29 percent of four-year students reported the food they’d bought just didn’t last and they didn’t have money to buy more.

Among the most surprising findings in the survey, Goldrick-Rab said, “Is that homeless college students devote as much time to the classroom and to studying as do college students who are not homeless. However, they also work more, they commute more, spend more time taking care of other people and they sleep less.”

That is why she is urging higher education institutions to double down on providing services to help financially strapped students graduate. “Because these people have clearly exhibited a resilience that almost any employer would benefit from.”
(source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/03/599197919/hunger-and-homelessness-are-widespread-among-college-students-study-finds )

Say goodbye to the information age: It’s all about reputation now

Gloria Origgi

Editor’s note: This column is excerpted and reprinted with permission from Aeon.co. Aeon is a registered charity committed to the spread of knowledge and a cosmopolitan world view. Read the full article  HERE.

A paradox plays a pivotal role in our advanced hyper-connected democracies: The greater the amount of information that circulates, the more we rely on so-called reputational devices to evaluate it. Increased access to information and knowledge does not empower us or make us more cognitively autonomous. Rather, we become dependent on other people’s judgments and evaluations.

We are experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift in our relationship to knowledge. From the “information age,” we are moving toward the “reputation age,” in which information has value only if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented upon by others. Seen in this light, reputation is the gatekeeper to knowledge, and the keys to the gate are held by others.We rely on the inevitably biased judgments of other people, most of whom we do not know.

REPUTATION IS THE GATEKEEPER TO KNOWLEDGE, AND THE KEYS TO THE GATE ARE HELD BY OTHE

Some examples of this paradox are:

  • Climate change: In the best-case scenario, you trust the reputation of scientific research and believe that peer-review is a reasonable way of sifting out “truths” from false hypotheses. In the average-case scenario, you trust newspapers, magazines or TV channels to summarize scientific findings for you. In this latter case, you are twice removed from the sources: you trust other people’s trust in reputable science.
  • Moon landings: One of the most notorious conspiracy theories is that we didn’t send a man to the moon in 1969; instead, the entire Apollo program — including six landings on the moon between 1969 and 1972 — was a staged fake. The initiator of this conspiracy theory was Bill Kaysing, who worked in publications at the Rocketdyne company – where Apollo’s Saturn V rocket engines were built. At his own expense, Kaysing published the book “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s $30 Billion Swindle” in 1976. Afterward, a movement of skeptics grew and started to collect evidence about the alleged hoax.

According to the Flat Earth Society, one of the groups that still denies the facts, the moon landings were staged by Hollywood with the support of Walt Disney and under the artistic direction of Stanley Kubrick. Most of the “proof” these conspiracy theorists advance is based on a seemingly accurate analysis of photos of the various moon landings. The shadows’ angles are inconsistent with the light, the U.S. flag blows even if there is no wind on the moon, the tracks of the steps are too precise and well-preserved for a soil in which there is no moisture. And so on.

The great majority of the people — myself included — will dismiss these claims as absurd, although there have been serious and documented responses by NASA to these allegations. Yet, what I personally know about the facts mixes confused childhood memories, black-and-white television news, and deference to what my parents told me about the landing in subsequent years.

My reasons for believing that the moon landing took place go far beyond the evidence I can gather and double-check about the event itself: In those years, the U.S. had a justified reputation for sincerity.

Whenever we are at the point of accepting or rejecting new information, we should ask ourselves: Where does this information come from? Does the source have a good reputation? Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities? These questions will help us to get a better grip on reality than trying to check directly the reliability of the information at issue.


Gloria Origgi is an Italian philosopher and a tenured senior researcher at CNRS, the French National Centre for Scientific Research, in Paris. Her latest book is “Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters,” translated by Stephen Holmes and Noga Arikha.
(source: http://www.hiltonheadmonthly.com/columns/last-call/5056-say-goodbye-to-the-information-age-it-s-all-about-reputation-now )