Why do so many people fall for the obviously rubbish 'faked moon-landing' story?

Question

I mean, it's a great story, but any serious consideration of the evidence renders it utterly flawed (eg: http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/nasamoon.htm) and it becomes apparent that of course the moon landings took place. So what motivates folks to WANT to believe it so much?

You know what's funny? Some of the folks answering think that I believe it was faked. IT WASN'T FAKED, IT HAPPENED IN 1969 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, AND THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE IDIOTIC!
Misreading my question kind of helps explain how these folks selectively interpret their 'truth', doesn't it?

Answer 1

I often ask myself that - questions about the 'fake' crop up with such monotonous regularity on here that I am starting to just cut and paste my response!
Perhaps it is a symptom of the poor standards of science education in our culture, a case of a little learning being a dangerous thing; people have enough science to grasp something of the enormity of the challenge, but not enough to appreciate the solution, or consider how impossible the hoax would have been - easier to just go to the moon! It's a sort of faux scepticism - an inability to apply critical thinking to their own theories.
And of course it becomes a sort of faith, no amount of reason or evidence will shake the hard core believers in the hoax, they just say 'yeah, but...' and move on!
Such a shame. Deeply flawed though project Apollo was from a science perspective, it was a stunning a noble achievement.

Answer 2

you have been staring on the incorrect video clips then. that's a hundred% specific the six Apollo landings between 1969 and 1972 have been actual. people make the blunders of evaluating a $a million,000 pc at present to a million greenback mainframe that crammed a room in 1969 and had some distance much less computing power and say that proves technologies has more suitable adequate to make it much less complicated to pass to the Moon at present. From this they leap to the top that if it nevertheless too high priced and puzzling at present it might desire to have been impossible then. What they might desire to do is learn a $20,000 automobile at present that gets a similar MPG and has a similar precise velocity as a automobile costing $3,000 in 1969 and then comprehend that basically computers (and all electronics technologies) has enjoyed stunning advances jointly as automobiles (and all transportation technologies which contains rockets) have not. So that's merely as high priced and puzzling at present because it grew to become into in 1969 and nevertheless no longer worth to cost to maintain doing it. that's additionally why lots of great robotic missions to planets have flown considering then. via fact the small, gentle weight, and rather able robotic area craft we can build with more suitable electronics technologies might nicely be honestly sent lots farther away than the Moon with the standard inefficient and high priced rockets we are nevertheless utilising.

Answer 3

Watch the video on the moon landing and answer me this... where are the stars?

NASA's answer, we painted them all out...

My response... what on live tv in the 60's? Me no think so!

They could have or that might not have... there is also that fatal radiation belt around that Earth that kills pretty much everything that passes through it.

The Van Allen belt.

Russia's Space Program officials were quoted as saying they'd never would of made it to the moon since to make it through the van allen belt you'd need a lead hull 6 foot thick. Amasing how America made it with a few inches of aluminium...

Also answer me this... Space is vast, and that vastness spells out resources, and resources spell out money, if this was the case why did the US give up on the space program after Apollo. Because they knew you could only get into orbit and no further.

Something tells me either something is seriously messed up with space travel of the US like other nations are just plain stupid.

The only way to be sure they didn't fake it is to REPEAT it. Amasing how in 40 years since the moon landing, no one has been able to manage that. I know America is suppose to be advanced, BUT come on!?!

Answer 4

It is my belief that people fall for the flawed story because, to their immediate experience, the "Capricorn One" explanation that the government shot the whole thing in a Hollywood film studio to save money is, in fact, the simpler one. It's an easier idea for a lazy brain to digest.

The idea that a government would actually spend money to send men out to the Moon, a project uniting a whole nation in hope, is the more complex concept, and it requires that they do some actual thinking about the ramifications of the whole affair.

How did they do it? How many men actually died trying to put those things up there? How about the brave men of Apollo 13, who very nearly failed to make it home alive?

The thought that men could be willing to hurl themselves into the Void, to risk their very lives to go where no man has gone before, is unthinkable to a nation of couch potatoes. /They/ wouldn't have the courage to do it, so how could anybody else?

One more thing. If there's one thing TV and press moguls and modern politicians don't want us to do, it's exercise our brains. They like us being intellectually lazy, hooked on soaps and simplistic storylines and vacant.

Because if we start actually thinking, doing the math, reading the books that stimulate, perhaps we might start thinking about what /they're/ doing behind the curtain ...

Answer 5

There's an easy way to prove man landed on the moon.

Get a powerful telescope and fix it on the point where the shuttle naded. you will see the flag still sitting there, along with the moon buggy and the bottom of the landing craft!

They couldn't take any of it with them, so if you need proof that we were there, just take a look for yourself!

Plus, the flag did move, but it's got nothing to do with what we call 'wind'. There is no atmosphere, but there is still movement in space. It's a vacuum, not a bowl of jelly!

Answer 6

Because they believe what the American goverment tells them cos they are brainwashed. Whats with the flag blowing for goodness sake, surely people could see this was a stage and just a way for the Americans to try and convince the world that they got someone on the moon first, people want to believe it as they don't want to think that the government etc were that devious and misleading. People need to use their brains more and start thinking for themselves not what the media tries to tell us is true.

Answer 7

I think a lot of people are starting to question what "They" tell us anymore.
Everyone has a theory on the war in the mid-east, how things should be done. People lose trust in the government because of the economy, the war, taxes, etc. and government in general because of all the corruption and perverted sex scandels and it taints their thinking.
The world is messed up right now but that is no reason to doubt that the moon landing was real.

Answer 8

It seems people like to believe things they read in black and white(newspapers) and things they see with their own two eyes(TV)....

We need to realise that not everything is so simple...newspapers make stories up no matter how realistic they seem and how much can we trust our own eyesight when we are suceptible to things such as illusions....

I could not say either way what is true from what is not as ive seen too many special effects in movies that seem very realistic and insight into the airbrush industry where we really wouldnt be able to tell the difference between what is real or not...

Answer 9

Couldn't care less wether they set foot on the moon or not. Humans can't look after this planet. But then they only want others it for possible mineral explotation. Which is why they got their eyes on a Mars landing now. Loads more to pilfer there! Lmfao!

Answer 10

Because there were less factual witnesses to the Moon Landing than there were to the Roswell Crash Site. It's easy to believe it may not have happenned because there was so little proof of it's happenning.