The Apollo hoax conspiracy isn't going away anytime soon. Image Credit: NASA
NASA's former chief historian is concerned that more people will subscribe to the hoax theory as time goes on.
Arguably the most notorious conspiracy theory of all time, the idea that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax is inexplicably still around despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps more unsettling however is the potential for belief in such a conspiracy to rise rather than fall over the coming years due to just how long ago the Apollo Moon landings actually took place.
According to Roger Launius, NASA's chief historian from 1990 to 2002, polls typically show that around 5% of Americans currently believe that the landings were faked.
"The thing that concerns me more and more about this is, as time passes and the Apollo landings are farther into the past and fewer people remember them, it might be easier to embrace these kinds of ideas," he said during a recent presentation.
It's certainly no surprise that the Internet - and in particular social media - has played a significant role in the proliferation of the Apollo hoax conspiracy and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.
"Americans love conspiracy theories," said Launius.
With NASA aiming to send humans back to the Moon within as little as five years however, there is at least a chance that this particularly conspiracy theory could soon be put to bed once and for all.
I think that I speak for alot of us when I say that I wont spend any money on anything that help to spread the hoax "theory". To the tag-team: why cant I be on it ?
Tag. (NEIAC, I'll send you the secwut password, and once you have paid your admittance fee, you're in.) Derek, I'll ask AGAIN - what NOW is your BEST supported evidence for fakery? And please clarify - will the free book be exactly the same as the current one, ie include the now abandoned / unsupported claims of 'John'? And if so, why did you earlier refer to reformatting/revision? Tag.
Do you not understand what it means to be at a DISCUSSION FORUM? Seriously Derek, is there anything you DO get? BTW - that post is pretty much against the rules as you are asking us to BUY the book. Reported. Oh, woops, it wasn't my turn. Tag.
Au contraire, such things can and do happen as I well know given my eldest's situation (something of which you are utterly ignorant and which I am unwilling to share with a demonstrated liar). Nevertheless, I can state that you have indeed been discussed elsewhere and it is all public. All of it. Your feeble attempt at a dodge from the facts into abject fantasy disgusts me. I value truth above all. You clearly do not becuase you ignore the material evidence of where you are wrong in favour of your imagined persecution by an imaginary cabal. Stick to the facts. You are demonstrably wrong at eve... [More]
It's anyone's turn now. For a brief while, I had his attention, but now he is batting away the attention to detail he simply did not expect. He made his own bed. Hunting season has started as far as I am concerned. Once he started insulting everyone and refusing to pony up evidence that was the end of his particular bridge.
No, you certainly cannot. You are the one making wild and stupid claims. There is no way you should be exempt from questions about such idiotic claims, that would be insanity. No. You make a claim then you defend that claim against questions. Otherwise your claim becomes yet another dismissed wingnut claim for lack of evidence. Or are you stating that you have no evidence?
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I cannot understand this post. Are you stating that we should all simply accept whatever it is you say? Are you stating that your claims cannot withstand scrutiny and therefore should not be scrutinised? Are you stating that it matters not what answer you give to whatever question is asked, we should simply meekly like you answer? What' exactly, does that post mean? Of course, as an alternative, you could look at the notion (bizarre as it might seem) of answering questions in meaningful ways.
In # 1055 I said I am having the manu REFORMATTED. That is because the formatting for an Amazon paperback has to be somewhat different to that of an Amazon kindle. I did not say I am carrying out a REVISION. So why have you used the phrase "reformatting/revision"? The text of the paperback will be exactly the same as the text of the ebook. So why are you suggesting it won't be?
The bickering this thread has devolved to is really unacceptable behavior. I enjoin everyone participating in this thread to please review the site rules, found here: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/guidelines/ Thread closed.
Please Login or Register to post a comment.