For reference, I have already told them why the sky has no stars (it’s because of camera exposure, the moon surface is very reflective so lower exposure is used to not overexpose the image) and why the flag wasn’t drooping down (there was an extending arm in the stand to hold it upright, as a flag drooping down is a sad flag). I have also explained that the videos of the moon landing were upscaled/remastered when they asked why the video quality of the clips were so good.
Currently, their main argument is the fact that the U.S. were able to do the moon landing in the mid 20th century while are experiencing delays for the current moon mission. They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon. They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.
I have argued that NASA’s budget is a fraction of what is used to be, and that the addition of new modern technologies introduces additional parts that could break and thus need to be tested. I have also mentioned that the Soviet Union would immediately call out the US if they faked the moon landing, and that samples of moon rocks were sent to Soviet scientists to study and verify. They insist that the Soviets were scared of what the US would do if they spoke out against a fake moon landing, which I didn’t agree with (given they were both nuclear superpowers)
They then argued that it’s impossible to tell whether the moon rocks are actually from the moon landing, they could be samples collected by rovers. I responded that no rovers had successfully collected moon rocks at the time, and then they switched to arguing that it’s impossible to verify the rocks are from the moon. I followed up by saying there are methods of doing that (through the composition of the rocks and such). They then asked how anybody knows what moon rocks look like if nobody else has been to the moon, and I got kind of stumped. I tried to explain that there are models to how the moon formed, how we know the rocks aren’t from Earth, satellites that map out the surface, etc., but they reiterated that no one can “prove” that they were from the moon without going there in the first place.
One interesting thing they also mentioned is that, if the US really did do a moon landing, why the Soviets (during cold war era) or Chinese (in modern era) didn’t do what they do best and copied their designs to land on the moon. Given that the US and China are having a new space race with the goal of being the first to establish a lunar base, they argue that China could just copy the Apollo program designs if the US really did do a moon landing.
To summarise, their main points/questions right now are: a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn’t given them a good impression…) b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like? c) Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)
They say that there isn’t strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that “we will see” once someone else lands on the moon)
And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn’t faked?
edit:
Another thing, they also can’t believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!
No technical rational explanation will ever get to them.
Most are there because they want to belong to a community, and because they like the idea of being right where everyone else is wrong, so that they’re the important ones for once.
That’s how you get to them: feed their need to belong, and their need to find enough self-esteem some other way.
Aren’t there reflectors in very specific places on the moon that will respond to high powered lights shown at them?
There are indeed. I think at least 1 mission laid out 3 reflectors in a triangle so the distance to the moon could be calculated?
You don’t, the same as “flat earthers” they’re too far down the rabbit hole
I might spend time explaining to flat earthers why earth is not flat because it is important to know especially if you work in large construction projects and other jobs that require taking into account earth’s curvature.
Proving moon landing on the other hand is totally pointless. It makes no difference to you or the person you’re arguing with if the landing was real or staged so I’d second avoiding this kind of discussions.
Unless your friend is a scientist studying the moon rocks or a US astronaut that is
Ask what proof would change their mind and show them. Then when their mind is not changed, you will understand
This is it.
There’s a movement post-BLM where it’s not their job to explain racism to the ignorant. Very often, ignorant people refuse evidence. They waste everyone’s time and energy.
My go-to is to just beg them to play Kerbal Space Program
They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon.
In the 1960s, getting to the moon was the most important thing in the solar system. The Soviet Union and the US spent ungodly amounts of money and risked uncountable lives in this endeavor. We did the thing, and now we’ve done the thing. We aren’t willing to risk those lives or spend that money anymore. New missions have to be much, much cheaper and much, much safer.
Technology has definitely improved, but there is a physical limit to the amount of energy that you can pull out of a given mass of kerosene and liquid oxygen. Getting to space hasn’t gotten any lighter, and fuel mass has always been the biggest hurdle. Again, play KSP. It will brand the tyranny of the rocket equation into your soul.
They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.
They could, in the same way that we could start sending children underground to mine for coal again
To summarise, a) Been there, done that. Anything new will involve sending more mass than the Apollo missions had to deal with. Tyranny of the rocket equation: more mass means more fuel means more thrusters means more mass means more fuel…
b) I could do some research and come back, but there is no answer to this that will satisfy a moon landing denier, because any explanation would require a baseline understanding of chemistry and also trust in the institutions that examine these moon rocks.
c) The answer to a also applies here
Don’t waste your time. At this point it’s willful ignorance.
I always felt that the most compelling argument that we did it was that faking it was too risky. If America faked it and the USSR went up and found no evidence that America got up there then that would have been impossible for America’s position on the global stage. Remember the Apollo missions happened during the Cold War. Irrefutable proof that America pretended to go to the moon would have been deeply damaging to idea that the might of capitalism was greater than the communists.
America left lots of stuff up on the moon with the idea that someday someone would go back up and see it.
It’s also not really a big deal if your friend doesn’t believe we went to the moon. What is their ignorance harming, really? They’re another cog in the great machine of capital and neither their intelligence nor wisdom is required to keep it spinning
As an aside for anyone interested in this particular conspiracy theory, check out the great black comedy mockumentary Operation Avalanche
I think the most convincing evidence that we did go to the moon has to do with the dynamics of the moon dust in the original Apollo footage. If you look at the footage you’ll see the dust gets kicked up pretty high, higher than what you’d expect given Earth’s gravity, and it falls at a slower rate too.
So the question is: if they faked this footage then how did they get the dust to behave like this?
One possible explanation is that the footage was filmed underwater. The issue with this, though, is this is not at all how you’d expect dust to behave underwater. (you can go to the beach, kick up a bunch of sand underneath the water and see for yourself).
Another possibility is suspension cables. I guess you could explain the astronauts perceived lower gravity with suspension cables, but for pieces of dust? You can’t have suspension cables for individual pieces of dust.
So the simplest explanation is that this footage really was actually taken on a lower gravity environment, such as the moon.
If someone is denying the moon landing, I doubt pointing out the mechanics of dust particles in low-g environments will do the trick.
The strongest evidence is the fact that modern equipment can see the actual tracks the A11 astronauts left while hiking and driving on the moon.
If that’s not enough, it’s probably best to drop the matter. You can’t use evidence to convince someone who does not want to be convinced.
The strongest evidence is the fact that modern equipment can see the actual tracks the A11 astronauts left while hiking and driving on the moon.
The problem with this is that if you’re someone who thinks the moon landing is fake then you’re simply just going to dismiss this as yet another example of NASA propaganda. Because though those tracks are there, no one can actually see it for themselves (unless you happen to have a really high powered telescope, which is unlikely). The moon dust thing though, that’s something you can reason through and examine for yourself
Oh that is a good bit of evidence!
The moon landing was faked, but they hired Stanley Kubrick to direct the shoot, and he insisted that they film on location.
Yay, it’s catching on, I don’t have to type it every time.
You can’t use logic to talk someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to decide on in the first place.
Those kinds of people should get nothing but scorn from the rest of us. No conversation, no attempting to change their minds.
Just pure, unadulterated scorn and derision. Nothing else. Fucking morons aren’t useful for anything other than diluting the gene pool anyway.
In the current age of the Internet that doesn’t work. It used to be people were afraid of being shunned by their community as then they would have nothing. Now with social media there are echo chambers that amplify views deserving of shunning and give refuge to those who would otherwise be shunned.
But deprogramming people like this is hard, and won’t always work. So I won’t blame anyone for shunning people like this, but just know it’s not really solving anything.
Then let them. What does it matter to you? People are allowed to be complete morons if they wish.
It matters to me because the sheer number of these morons who are being exploited by the rich are actively making my life and the lives the people I care about worse. To do nothing about it is to admit defeat and accept this as the way of the world. I don’t want to do that, I’d rather at least try something, even knowing the likelyhood is low.
And I don’t think pure doomerism is helpful either. By encouraging against any kind of deprogramming, you tacitly make it easier for the morons to spread without resistance.
That type of thinking is no different than the christians who believe that unless everyone else believes as they do then they ALL go to hell.
That ype of “enforced community” bullshit is exactly that. Bullshit.
People spend way too much of their time worrying about everyone else. Yes, helping when you can is a good thing.
You, however, are the one professing all the doom here. If not everyone believes the right things then we are all doomed.
Except who decides what those right things are, and what will happen when you teach society to think in that way, and then some demagogue takes control, and decides to subtly start changing what those right thoughts are?
Why, you get what we’re going through right now, don’t you…
So no, group think is never a good idea even if the thoughts are the “right” ones.
There is a mirror left on the moon you can shoot a laser at and have it bounced back to you, no other celestial object can do that. Its also foundational knowledge for gps.
Their answer to that is “the mirror was placed by robots. We had the tech to get robots there, but not living people.”
I’ve had to deal with these people before.
The answer my friend gave to that was “well have you tried this yourself? No? Well why do you believe there actually is a mirror there? It’s just another NASA lie”
The response to that is to tell them, ‘I thought you did your own resesech but now you balk at the idea of doing a resarch project to verify a claim, you don’t want to do your own research, you want to believe lies.’
And you think that’ll convince them?
Either that or it will make them mad so its a win-win
Yep, the laser array is the definitive answer.
One would think, but like I just said in another comment, my conspiracist ex-friend’s reply was “well have you tried this yourself? No? Well why do you believe there actually is a mirror there? It’s just another NASA lie”
You can do tours at Long Range Laser places. There’s two in the US and one on France. Take your idiot friend to one.
Oh they’ve since fallen even deeper into the conspiracy rabbit hole and they hit the flat Earth at the bottom, at which point I stopped wanting to spend time with them since listening to them really fucking tedious.
Frankly I’m not entirely sure they even believe in the Moon anymore at this point, considering how flat Earthers usually evolve
Wait, what is the moon to flat earthers, if not the moon?
Ask them what type of evidence would convince them and go from there. If what they say is reasonable, present it. If not, then there’s nothing that will convince them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
An interesting take on the technical hurdles it would have taken to even be able to fake what we saw during the moon landing.
tl;dw: It might have just been easier to go to the moon instead.
This is why my go-to is to tell them that the moon landing was faked, but NASA hired Steven Spielberg to direct it and he demanded that they shoot on location on the moon
You cannot argue with stupid, dont bother.
This’d be my answer. A friend (former at this point) of mine fell down a conspiracist rabbit hole, and at one point started insisting the moon landings were faked. Now, I happen to know a lot (or more than most, anyhow) about the Apollo program, and absolutely nothing I could say helped. Either they pivoted to some new bullshit argument they’d heard on some YouTube video, or just dismissed things as lies when convenient.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Even better, one up them. “You think the Moon is real?!?”
You believe in the concept of a moon?
I like my moons like I like my plans: in concept form only.
The flat earth people often say it’s a hologram
The flat earth people
Use GPS navigation to drive around.
To add to that: You can’t reason someone out of an argument they didn’t reason themselves into.
