> Carol, so you want photographic evidence of our artifacts left
> on the moon before you believe we went there, and that all the
> mountains of evidence that we went are actually true?
As I said before, I've seen plenty of evidence that we went, but on the other hand, I've seen conflicting evidence too - an example being the video of the 'wires' supporting the astronauts, which as Scott says, may well be just NASA disinformation, and the video I linked to, from NASA itself, discussing the fact that they can't go to the moon or Mars until the radiation problem is solved. This wouldn't be an issue if they had gone there. They'd have solved the problem already.
> What will prevent doubts arising about the authenticity of the
> photographs you would accept, if not by you, then by someone
> else? How could you know that ANY photograph which was
> produced by ANY agency in the world was NOT also produced by
> someone who was "in" on the conspiracy.
> Further, how could you possibly justify believing these new
> photographs, but not all of the others produced by a genuine
> mission to the moon?
Again, we have what appears to be NASA disinformation, with the ongoing discussion of the 'original' and 'tampered' photo in the "What Lunar Structure?" thread. Why are there two versions of the same photo? What's the point of NASA's disinformation? If they went to the moon, great! Why leak disinformation to plant the seeds of doubt? What's the need for that?
> It seems to me that you would simply be stopping your
> skepticism somewhere arbitrary, without any regard for facts at
> all, because a new conspiracy could be imagined around ANY and
> ALL new evidence too, effectively rendering it impossible to
> "prove" that we went to the moon to anyone who really wanted to
> disbelieve it.
Yes, that's true. It's a very valid point, and one which I was thinking of, but didn't express when I wrote earlier. I really don't have a clear answer to that.
> So that if you, as a serious doubter, at any point start to
> believe we went to the moon, it is NOT because of any real fact
> which convinced you, but because you DECIDED to let go of your
> extreme skepticism and paranoia, so that facts could start to
> appear to you.
Paranoia? I'm not paranoid! I'm sceptical, that's all!
> Extreme skepticism, whether it is about moon landings, ghosts,
> flying saucers, or Atlantis, actually PREVENTS you from seeing
> facts, it doesn't help you to see them.
No, it prevents gullibility from taking over.
> It may be that there is no greater hurdle between a person and
> a fact than extreme skepticism, and its cousin defect, extreme
There's nothing wrong with healthy scepticism. Gullibility is not on the same level as a healthy dose of scepticism.