A different look at it

[Noldi400]

I still say that not all 400,000 would have had enough information to work out that it was a hoax.  That number includes everyone who worked on the program, no matter what function they served.  I do believe that at bare minimum tens of thousands would have had to have known, but the women who did the actual fabrication of space suits probably didn't know if they would work or not.  The people who designed them, yes, but not the people who made them.  All they could say for sure was that they made what they were told to exactly as they were told to, and it met the standards they were given. I don't think they knew whether that would create a working suit.

Depend, too, on which scenario an HB subscribes to. Some of them claim the Apollo crews were in low earth orbit the whole time, so they would have wanted to have working suits.  Not that the Playtex ladies would have known their final destination in either case.

The thing that always gets me, though, is that AFAIK no HB has ever put together a complete account of how the missions could have been faked, start to finish. (I think Jay alluded to this the other day.) All they ever seem to do is try to poke holes in the historical account, either by trumpeting complete nonsense - "Deadly VABs" - or picking at the little anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in any venture involving human beings.

[gillianren]

Right.  And the people who made the jumpsuits wouldn't even have had to know that much.

[Bob B.]

The thing that always gets me, though, is that AFAIK no HB has ever put together a complete account of how the missions could have been faked, start to finish. (I think Jay alluded to this the other day.) All they ever seem to do is try to poke holes in the historical account, either by trumpeting complete nonsense - "Deadly VABs" - or picking at the little anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in any venture involving human beings.

I think that's because the HBs all subscribe to the "house of cards" theory.  They falsely think that finding one piece of fake evidence means everything comes crashing down.  In their minds they don't have to come up with a complete account; they just have to find the one piece of damning evidence.

[smartcooky]

I think that's because the HBs all subscribe to the "house of cards" theory.  They falsely think that finding one piece of fake evidence means everything comes crashing down.  In their minds they don't have to come up with a complete account; they just have to find the one piece of damning evidence.

This is the same approach taken by "truthers" and "birthers" and JFK CT's, and Pearl harbour CTs and.......

I wonder why that is?

[Noldi400]

I think that's because the HBs all subscribe to the "house of cards" theory.  They falsely think that finding one piece of fake evidence means everything comes crashing down.  In their minds they don't have to come up with a complete account; they just have to find the one piece of damning evidence.

This is the same approach taken by "truthers" and "birthers" and JFK CT's, and Pearl harbour CTs and.......

I wonder why that is?

I dunno, but at least those folks do actually accept that JFK was shot and Paerl Harbor was attacked.  Unless there are fringe groups which deny the whole thing - which wouldn't surprise me, sadly.

[ka9q]

The mind boggling effort of designing and making all the stuff to fake going to the Moon is so great (especially when no one at the time or later can be allowed to see through the fakery by determining something wouldn't really function properly), why not just go there?

Because that would mean having to accept the standard "gubmint" story. I don't think the hoaxers know or even care what really happened, provided it's something other than the official story. That's why we never get a complete alternate narrative. It also explains the strange subgroup of hoaxers who believe we went but that (at least some of) the photos were faked.

Creationists do much the same thing. In every case the goal is to simply to delegitimize some recognized authority (the government, the scientific and engineering professions, mainstream historians, etc) whose influence they resent and crave for themselves.

[Noldi400]

Creationists do much the same thing. In every case the goal is to simply to delegitimize some recognized authority (the government, the scientific and engineering professions, mainstream historians, etc) whose influence they resent and crave for themselves.

I'm not sure I totally agree with that. At least creationists present a coherent, complete alternative scenario. OK, it requires that you stipulate (literally) supernatural intervention, but at least they have a version. Growing up in the rural southern US, everyone you meet is by default a creationist.  They see the teaching of "evolution" as an attack on their religion, but are otherwise sane, normal individuals.

[Echnaton]

At least creationists present a coherent, complete alternative scenario.

I understand the differentiation you are intending, but at the fundamental level, "God did it," does not qualify as significantly different that saying, "The government faked it."  Creationism has a long history of being just as equally a reflexive antiestablishmentarianist idea as any other form of denialism.

[ka9q]

Exactly.

One difference is that creationism used to be the establishment. Then it got brushed aside by one of the main products of the Enlightenment -- modern science -- and they've been trying to recover their past glory and authority ever since.

[Echnaton]

Exactly.

One difference is that creationism used to be the establishment. Then it got brushed aside by one of the main products of the Enlightenment -- modern science -- and they've been trying to recover their past glory and authority ever since.

I think the characterization as recovering past glory is simplistic.  Enlightenment thought also produced "Social Darwinism" which led to the eugenics movements .  Eugenics embodied establishment prejudices to "enlighten" the oppression of poor rural southern people.  Much of our anti-scientific problems today stem from a reaction to pseudo-scientific oppression that told people science had declared them unfit.

[Valis]

  Much of our anti-scientific problems today stem from a reaction to pseudo-scientific oppression that told people science had declared them unfit.

Perhaps you could offer some evidence for this claim. A new thread (or using the old one) in a suitable section or even a PM would probably be right course of action; it's just that in the several years that I've spent following the science vs. religion debates, I've honestly never before seen this argument. And from what I know about the situation in the US, at least the more vocal parties wanting to introduce creationism into biology classes seem to be rather of the "better" demographic as judged by eugenics.

[Echnaton]

The main point is that creationism has a long and multifaceted social history as both a positive assertion and a reaction to social situations.  Per my earlier post at 09:13:21 AM, that doesn't make it intellectually defensible. 

ETA many people have not heard that the Scopes trial was a publicity stunt and John Scopes had not taught evolution.  But that is true also. 

[Noldi400]

The main point is that creationism has a long and multifaceted social history as both a positive assertion and a reaction to social situations.  Per my earlier post at 09:13:21 AM, that doesn't make it intellectually defensible. 

There are, I guess, militants within any belief system.

But what I'm saying is that almost everyone I know personally would qualify as a creationist. And that's simply because that is what they are taught literally from the cradle. If you spend the first several years of your life with the (usually) King James Bible treated as simple fact -- and I'm not talking about Santa-Claus-Easter-Bunny seasonal myths, but about church services a minimum of three times a week and hearing adults seriously discuss religious trivia for hours on end -- well, that kind of indoctrination is extremely hard for even an intelligent, reasoning adult to shake off.  I can testify to this personally.

[Echnaton]

The main point is that creationism has a long and multifaceted social history as both a positive assertion and a reaction to social situations.  Per my earlier post at 09:13:21 AM, that doesn't make it intellectually defensible. 

There are, I guess, militants within any belief system.

But what I'm saying is that almost everyone I know personally would qualify as a creationist. And that's simply because that is what they are taught literally from the cradle. If you spend the first several years of your life with the (usually) King James Bible treated as simple fact -- and I'm not talking about Santa-Claus-Easter-Bunny seasonal myths, but about church services a minimum of three times a week and hearing adults seriously discuss religious trivia for hours on end -- well, that kind of indoctrination is extremely hard for even an intelligent, reasoning adult to shake off.  I can testify to this personally.

I understand.  The narrative we have developed over the years to support the Bible has a great deal of appeal thanks to the unquestioned embedded assumptions and cultural reinforcement.  For many people it becomes a significant part of their identity that is not easily cast off.  It took me a long time also. 

[raven]

You know, the Bible and the Big Bang theory both agree on at least one fundamental. The first 'thing' in the universe was light. Science is silent on the cause, while the Bible posits it was an extrauniversal being.
I still believe this being exists, and call Them God, but do not believe you can prove Their existence through rational means. I like to call this position 'believing agnostic'.