Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
Why the hoax theory fails out of the starting gate
Glom:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
For all the nitpicking about things that don't exist, conspiracists fail to answer the important questions:
1) Why bother? Just because a real moonlanding would be a triumph it doesn't automatically mean it's worth faking.
2) Why is it easier to fake it than do it for real?
3) Why do the nitpicks about shadows and crosshairs imply a hoax? There could be a thousand explanations for those nits.
gillianren:
I've always wondered that. I guess logic simply isn't relevant in hoax belief.
Kiwi:
--- Quote from: Glom on February 08, 2012, 12:13:11 PM ---1) Why bother? Just because a real moonlanding would be a triumph it does automatically mean it's worth faking.
--- End quote ---
What does that mean? It's not clear -- is there a typo in it, or something left out?
Glom:
--- Quote from: Kiwi on February 10, 2012, 05:33:51 AM ---
--- Quote from: Glom on February 08, 2012, 12:13:11 PM ---1) Why bother? Just because a real moonlanding would be a triumph it does automatically mean it's worth faking.
--- End quote ---
What does that mean? It's not clear -- is there a typo in it, or something left out?
--- End quote ---
What I mean is that the risk and cost of faking a moon landing requires a very good reason. When pushed on this, HBs just point out the general reasons for wanting a moon programme. But that's not enough. There needs to be more to justify faking it.
gillianren:
I think it is a typo and should say "doesn't."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version