I have a theory, I would like to try and explore it here. It isn’t a valid scientific test in any way, but I just want to get a feel for the phenomena of moon landing conspiracies.

I think there is a link between not believing in the moon landings and level of science education – I have yet to meet a degree or above qualified scientist (physics, chem or materials and poss some others) or engineer (and I mean actual engineering like, civil, mechanical, electrical, materials,  chem eng, aero, and some others) that believes the moon missions were fake.

This does not mean that if you don’t have any of these qualifications then you will be more credulous, I am trained as an accountant and have no formal science education beyond maths and physics at A level, and I do not think they are fake.

However I think that the higher the level of physical science education the less credulous you will be about these theories.

So do you, or do you know anyone who, meet my education criteria above and are prepared to admit that you think moon landings were real or fake, fire in your personal experience and anecdotes please.

Do you know ANYONE that believes we haven’t been to, and left stuff on, the moon?

Unfortunately yes! Aged well off relatives, he also an accountant and hairdresser wife. And numerous others skool friends on FB. workmates plenty. It is frightening.

So, they think aliens left the retroreflectors there?

I am a bit like that with religion, i believe religion was often there to explain what science could not, if you saw a meteorite or eclipse, without knowing what it was, religion helped explain these things. I feel that they are inversely proportional so as scientific knowledge increases, the need for religion decreases.

Then you often find those that don’t believe scientific findings or reality such as the moon landings often are the most religious such as bible-belt America?

There have been many credible witness to moon landings.

Wallace.

Grommit.

Tiny Clanger.

Mooncat.

Mr Spoon.

Need I go on?

Science and religion can quite happily coexist in one head… but only if the owner of said head is happy to accept that old teachings can be shown to be wrong. Religion that can’t have its teachings questioned, and updated, is anti-Science. Mind you, if you think scientific teachings can’t also be questioned, and updated, then  that is clearly anti-Science as well.

I am a bit like that with religion, i believe religion was often there to explain what science could not, if you saw a meteorite or eclipse, without knowing what it was, religion helped explain these things. I feel that they are inversely proportional so as scientific knowledge increases, the need for religion decreases.

Then you often find those that don’t believe scientific findings or reality such as the moon landings often are the most religious such as bible-belt America?

This exactly ^^^

Now, flat earthers, they are all, as thick as pig shit. I mean really, a basic education is all you need to know the earth is round. That, or just going on holiday.

I think the premise of the op is false. Lots of educated people believe in all sorts of idiotic conspiracy theories. Climate change denial is a case in point.

<p>Or Twin Towers, or flat earth or anything else…</p>

What’s JHJ’s level of education?

Science and religion can quite happily coexist in one head… but only if you’re happy to accept that old teachings can be shown to be wrong.

In the same way that fact and fiction can exist in a library.

With regard to the retro reflectors the argument goes like this:

NASA baddies discovered that the moon had zones of very high reflectivity some time in the 60’s, and used this knowledge to fake the existence of retro reflectors. Is there any proof those zones were not highly reflective before we “left” them there?

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many professionals that don’t believe the moon landings happened.  My colleague believes that Obama’s birth certificate was fake, climate change is fake and the Nazis were actually a left wing political party.  That’s a Chemical engineer with about 30 years of work experience and an otherwise very intelligent man.  All the result of confirmation bias if you ask mE.

Edit:  then there is the World Trade Center 7 conspiracy that he also believes.

Lots of educated people believe in all sorts of idiotic conspiracy theories. Climate change denial is a case in point.

Lots, does not mean significant numbers. Eg 99% of climate scientists believe in climate change, only 1 % do not. ergo the higher your level of climate edumacation, the more likely you are to believe in climate science.
I am sure there are some astrophysicists that do not believe the moon landings were real, but the vast majority of them do.

Excellent.

In the same way that fact and fiction can exist in a library.

Religion was created not as an alternative view to science but as a method of controlling large populations of uneducated and illiterate peasants before the rule of law and police and social structure was created. Peasants who had too much time on their hands and spent most of their time starving, freezing, dying of horrible desieses and basically living pretty miserable lives. Nothing like putting the fear of the bogey man (god) up them to make sure they don’t rise up agains their landlords and bishops who were lording it up feasting on banquets of meat and wine warmed by roaring log fires. And nothing like confession to make sure the bishops knew what the peasants were upto and more importantly thinking – what a master stroke, and thow in the odd witch trial to keep the womenfolk in check.

When societies began to form and people lived under a rule of law and no longer needed the church for moral guidance, in order so survive religion needed a new nemesis to get the people all riled up against, and the emergence of science provided just that.

i’d love the flat earthers to explain how it is a shorter distance for an aircraft flying from London to New York to fly north and arch over Scotland, Iceland and approach NY from the NE instead of flying west direct in a straight line, just as i’d love for moon landing deniers to explain how NASa was able to keep 8 missions Secret with all the many thousands of people who would have to be involved a secret all these years when the President can’t even keep a liaison with a porn star secret.

yep, I know a woman educated to Doctorate level who firmly believes the Moon landings were faked. She doesn’t, however, believe the earth is flat or the Twin towers was an inside job, but Moon landings as far as she’s concerned happened in a Hollywood studio.

a few of us had a semi drunken argument with her once after a boozy lunch, it got heated-ish, until we backed down as it just wasn’t worth perusing. It’s really odd to have a discussion like that (face to face) with some-one who is outwardly intelligent and holds down a successful teaching career at a Russell Group University. (her course is arts based, so goes nowhere near the subject you’ll all be no doubt relived to hear)

Religion was created not as an alternative view to science but as a method of controlling large populations…etc etc

whilst I’m the least religious person in any room, to be fair, this is bollards.

So she doesn’t meet my criteria then? Not a real scientist?

educated to Doctorate level …..her course is arts based

Thing is I don’t thing anyone said this – religion was science, and many enlightenment scientists came from religion anyway.

Religion was created not as an alternative view to science

sure…But the research elements to any doctorate are reasonably equivalent. ie, you need both analytical, critical thinking skills etc etc…

I fully believe that man has landed on (and returned from) the moon.

I also find it entirely feasible that footage of moon landings may have been faked due to political pressure for the mission not to fail.

sure…But the research elements to any doctorate are reasonably equivalent. ie, you need both analytical, critical thinking skills etc etc…

I totally disagree with this hence my theory requiring science education. Arts and social “science” require no understanding of logic and proof, they do logic, but many don’t get it.
When you argue with any social “scientists” who are conspiracy theorists about moonlandings/911/anything  they always resort to postmodernism as a get out clause.

I’ve joined in a similar discussion on here before ..and got slated .

I don’t have the required level of intelligence to be able to disprove anything ..but I remember watching this on tv in 1969 as a 12 year old boy while on a family holiday in the Lake District and it just struck me back then that the whole thing looked false ..but that’s just it ..an ingrained feeling with no facts to back it up other than the level of technology back then doesn’t  lead me to believe we had enough to land on let alone  put a man on another planet ..but that’s just me and having heard arguments for and against ..I doubt anyone will change my mind …sorry !

Oh ..on the other side of the fence I do truly believe that there is life on other planets somewhere out there ..

I am not going to slate you nor make any assumptions about your intelligence, science education attainment only partially depends on intelligence level and I am sure you are much smarter than you claim to be/think you are. So my only answer to this is how can you not believe in something if you don’t understand it? Why not educate yourself with some physics and then see how you feel about it?

In an effort to drag this thread away from descending in to another name calling religion one,

I think there is a huge difference between believing that no one has ever been to the moon, flat earther etc etc and people who believe the first USA moon landing was faked. My, fairly loose, understanding of the theory of the latter is that it’s more a political thing. That is that the USA desperately needed to get the first man on the moon to prove supremacy over the USSR in the space race. However, the USSR had comfortably beaten the USA to every significant milestone in space exploration, and continued to do so after the first moon landing. Using that as a starting point people began to ‘see’ inconsistencies in the narrative of the first USA landing.

I think most people with that view believe that space travel has happened and that lots of people have been on the moon, but that the first man on the moon was faked.

That might all be complete nonsense of course.

If the moon landings were faked in hollywood, the film crew would have had to have been massive. So are people trying to say, that with all the cocaine and alcohol consumed in the last fifty years, no one blabbed? Not a single one of hundreds of people, got shit faced and bragged? Come on.

5plusn8

I would never say never ..and maybe I will one day..but it is not really a priority at the moment ..

Nice reply though ..thanks

Arts and social “science” require no understanding of logic and proof

Don’t know where you got that idea from. How do you propose writing any thesis with conclusions without basing it on logical and critical thinking, proof and research? I mean, even if your trying to write a theory on Gothic literature, you still have to “prove” it, you still need to research and document your findings…It’s the same skill set.

I think there is a link between not believing in the moon landings and level of science education

I think there is a link between not believing in the moon landings and being an utter cretin.

All other things aside, if the US had faked the moon landings then the USSR would’ve been all over them like a tramp on chips.  I can – with a considerable suspension of disbelief – just about entertain the notion that NASA might fooled the US public back in 1969.  But to not be subsequently exposed by any other nation in the succeeding half century?  No way in hell.

I am a bit like that with religion, i believe religion was often there to explain what science could not, if you saw a meteorite or eclipse, without knowing what it was, religion helped explain these things. I feel that they are inversely proportional so as scientific knowledge increases, the need for religion decreases.

Then you often find those that don’t believe scientific findings or reality such as the moon landings often are the most religious such as bible-belt America?

I’m  sure if that’s true. Or if its anything more that a coincidental overlap. I.e. the bible belt doubts the moon landings because that’s what people around them do, just like they believe in god for the same reason.

I know a lot of scientists and engineers who are practicing religious, not just a bit of iconographic jewelry and a tickbox on a form. Proper church/mosque/temple/synagogue going people.

I’m not religious personally, but I’ve no problem with peoples assertion that physics still doesn’t really adequately explain how the universe started.

If anything its the other way around, its those with a little scientific knowledge that jump up and down shouting “but science” whenever religion is mentioned.

Nickc, what you say makes total sense, but I challenge you to read a PHD written by, or argue with one, who is a conspiracy theorist and not realise they have no idea what logic or proof is.

Religion was created not as an alternative view to science but as a method of controlling large populations…etc etc

whilst I’m the least religious person in any room, to be fair, this is bollards

I’m sure that “god(s)” was initially imagined/invoked to provide comfort to people terrified of or even just mystified by the unknown stuff in their experience but I do believe that organised religion was at the very least hijacked to become exactly this and may well have developed with that in mind

Sure, but even the most intelligent are not immune from cognitive dissonance. Plus “conspiracy theorist” is also a very loaded term, many people who identify as “not believing the moon landing happened” would baulk at the idea that they are conspiracy theorists, they would suggest that they haven’t been persuaded by what evidence there is. Or like Hodgynd up there; “have a bad feeling about it”

If anything its the other way around, its those with a little scientific knowledge that jump up and down shouting “but science” whenever religion is mentioned.

I think that is true, but then religion can’t answer it either. At least science is able to answer most things and seems an awful lot closer to the truth. EG we can test it. You can’t test religion as it is not falsifiable.

nickc, I don’t disagree with that, I am still however happy to assert that many non science PHD’s do not require proper rigorous thought.  I would ask what experience you have with reading and understanding them or are you working on the assumption that you just cannot get a PHD unless you are scientific and rigorous? Because my friend that is utterly false. I hate to be the one to disabuse you of this fallacy but in post modernism you can say what you like..
Most famous example I can think of is Judy Wilyman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy

The excuse given boils down to the fact her PHD is a social science PHD so she deserves to get it, despite the fact that it is demonstrably not true. It is a “cultural study”, which she and her supervisors are using as an excuse that a PHD makes her work scientifically valid.

I’m not sure it is necessarily science education that is important, it’s the ability to think critically, and having the self confidence to constructively challenge what other people tell you, and to be challenged in return, without covering your ears and shouting “La, la, la”

A lot of conspiracy theory is about making the theorist feel special, because they are privy to special knowledge that all the other “sheeple” just can’t see. There have been a couple of stories in the Guardian about flat earthers recently, and a recurring theme was that many of them had become believers in the aftermath of difficult personal experiences. Uncovering the “truth” about the earth gave them some focus, a community, and a feeling of being in control of something.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/may/27/is-the-earth-pancake-flat-among-the-flat-earthers-conspiracy-theories-fake-news

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/the-universe-is-an-egg-and-the-moon-isnt-real-notes-from-a-flat-earth-conference

Nesbitt shared what he called the “Flat Earth Addiction” test – seven questions Flat Earth proponents should ask themselves, including “Have people said that you are pushy or obsessive about Flat Earth?”, “Have you thought that if only everyone knew about Flat Earth the world would be a different place?”, and “Have you noticed that you spend less and less time with your family and friends and more and more time talking to Flat Earthers?”.

Looking around the room, I could see knowing nods, as people recognised themselves in each question. The questions, Nesbitt explained, were taken from a checklist used to determine whether someone is in a cult. The implication seemed lost on the audience.

I’ve never met anybody with a basic knowledge of Latin who believed that the earth is flat. Bring back Latin, I say, and to hell with those flat-earthers.