New Moon photos , do they really show the Apollo landing gear ?

[mr_bojangles]

the rocket was tracked by countless universities, and a reflective panel was left on the moon that can still be used today by bouncing off a laser or strong light


it can be proved that a rocket left earth, went to the moon, landed, dropped something off, and came back

what cannot be proven is whether or not a human was actually there,

what also cannot be proven is the validity of the videos, people faking a fake moon landing and saying it is real, or slapping a piece of paper in front of the camera that happens to have the words "NASA top secret" in giant letters on it, but why would NASA save any evidence they faked it? it seems they would be smart enough to destroy it, let alone put a title card at the beginning of the video that tells everyone they did

[WilbyInebriated]

One, do you think the moon landing was faked?  I am just curious if you have an actual position, or if you are just here to accuse me of logical fallacies.

no i don't. what's with the paranoia? it's not an accusation. an argument is either logical or it is not. yours was not.

I know, I know, irrelevant, right?

correct.

You hold no positions, you just look for random logical fallacies.

incorrect. i do have personal opinions, they are however, irrelevant to whether or not the video is genuine or faked.

Two, an unpopular video is a sign of the video not being interesting to people.  If the video was genuine, it would be very interesting, but if most people regarded this as a fake, they would not bother linking to it, as it is not noteworthy in that sense.  So there is the logical tie in.

a video may be unpopular (assuming the definition of unpopular as having few 'hits', relatively speaking) for numerous reasons, yet still be interesting to people. what is 'interesting' from one indivdual to the next is completely subjective, there will be certain people who will be interested in it either way. what is 'noteworthy' from one individual to the next is completely subjective also... case in point this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlYCVpPo1WQ
13,527,520 views and it's not interesting, at least to not to me and i would bet it's not interesting to stefan either. it's a logical fallacy tie in.

But thank you for your vigilant eye for logical fallacies.  Not on Wilby's watch!!!

you're welcome, you may find this of use.

"In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true. "

the above quote as well as a list of logical fallacies can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

[utilitarian]

13,527,520 views and it's not interesting, at least to not to me and i would bet it's not interesting to stefan either. it's a logical fallacy tie in.

I think you are committing a logical fallacy of your own by changing around the situation and assuming I am alleging the converse of my position.  It is not my position that a popular video is necessarily good evidence of something.  Furthermore, it is unfair to twist the definition of "interesting" beyond the context in which I presented it.

My position, which you could have easily gathered from context, even though I did not spell it out as I am about to do, is that a video that is unpopular, but which contains subject matter that is crucial to the resolution of a highly controversial topic, is more likely to be unpersuasive and not "interesting" to the discussion, for whatever reason (in this case, because it is likely not genuine).  If this particual video is to be taken at its face value, i.e. it is a legitimate NASA video of the purported lunar landing that contains in frame a person without a spacesuit, then it is pretty much proof positive that NASA faked at least some of the Apollo missions.  And this is a pretty devastating information.

So why does this video languish in obscurity, even among the most vocal proponents of the moon landing hoax theory?  I am not saying that all unpopular videos are fake.  I am saying that the fact that this video is unpopular, despite its apparent newsworthiness, tends to indicate that it is fake, because otherwise it would be very big news indeed.

Lastly, I think this is a good example of your needless nitpicking, which does little to further the discussion.  Whether or not I committed a logical fallacy is a matter of debate.  This is without question true, as we are currently debating it, and say whatever you want, I have a defensible position.  Unfortunately, debating it does not further the discussion one iota.  The topic at hand is whether the moon landings were faked or not.  Perhaps more specifically, is the video Stefan linked genuine or fake.  By your own admission, you do not believe in the moon landing hoax, and by extension, you must believe this video to be a fake, since if it were genuine, you would not hold the position you do regarding the moon landing.  So seriously, why nitpick here?  Are you some kind of logical fallacy police?  Even my responding to you derails this topic, so I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future, but I wanted to say my piece before I start ignoring you.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

what would you concider solid evidence that man went to the Moon in 1969?

[utilitarian]

what would you concider solid evidence that man went to the Moon in 1969?

I do not know if this is directed at me, but I think it's a totality of the circumstances type of situation.  Not one particular piece.  Some items:

1.  There are movies taken of the astronauts driving for miles in the rover.  If this was a closed set, this would mean that it would have to be the largest building ever made.  If this was not a closed set, but in a desert, then there would be normal desert type fauna being observed, or at least some wind and dust from the tires hanging in the air, which we do not see in the footage.

2.  The moon rocks and the dust carried off by the astronauts has been examined by top scientists all over the world and has been confirmed to not be of earth origin.

3.  There have been recent photos of the lander module, albeit from too far away to see details, but you can make out foreign objects on the moon's surface.

4.  Not a single soul has fessed up about this massive conspiracy.  Can you imagine the publishing rights to such a story?  Or if people are really that scared of the MiBs, at least a deathbed confession?  And really, how well do you think the government can keep something like this under wraps?  "Don't talk about the faked moon landing!"  Please, is the war on drugs working?

5.  Wouldn't the Russians have pulled the alarm on the fraud?  Surely they were tracking the mission all the way to the moon.

6.  Why fake it six times?  Seriously.  If you get away with it once, why push your luck?  Just do it once and say we got there and then shut up about it before you screw up and make a mistake. 

And finally, there is no real evidence that we did fake it.  Everything that has ever been brought up has a refutation.  So at this point, it is up to the conspiracy proponents to prove up their case.  "What if it was faked this way or that way" does not cut it.  Show evidence that it was actually faked.  Get some testimony or hard evidence.  There is none.