However, that does not mean it cannot possibly be a hoax. Here is how John Gideon Hartnett argues it cannot be:
NASA did land astronauts in the moon in 1969, and after that. That is a historical fact.
Well, it is at least a historical fact we were shown they did.
That even the hoax theory does not dispute.
The conspiracy theory claims that it was all faked in a Hollywood film studio.
I would, if opting for hoax, be more inclined to say it was filmed in Egypt : desert looks like moon landscape a lot (colour can be manipulated), and a pyramid could have been briefly reflected onto a face shield of some astronaut.
This hoax had developed to such a point that NASA used its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to take new photographs in 2011 from an altitude of 50 km (31 miles) of the surface of the moon that clearly show astronaut footprints, the lunar rover tracks and spacecraft scorch marks.
These could have been faked too.
The fact of the moon landing is a historical question for which there is strong supporting evidence.
Like the fact it is a historical fact?
Or ... now we come to the point:
To add to this is the testimony of probably a hundred thousand people involved in the Apollo missions.
Suppose a factory worker or head of a factory testifies something like this:
[Fictitious testimony:]"I was told to produce a plastic that could withstand the cold and keep astronauts warm in outer space, and I did, I tested it on contraptions getting down to +3 Kelvin or liquid Helium, and it isolated like a thermos, the tea was still hot"
Well, I would believe him. But that does not mean he was there when the three stepped into Apollo 3, pretty few men where there at close hand, and these could have been handpicked.
So, it could theoretically be a hoax, most of the hundred thousand people "involved" where not so at sufficiently close hand to know better than the man in the street. Same for landing on return.
Most of what they knew, they, like we, were simply told it was so.
And that would be the case with a Russian claim too. If there came one.
The point is, most employees do not act like the teens in Famous Five. Even if they see one little suspicious detail, they soon forget it, if they think it is best for keeping the job. Georgina "George" Kirrin has a real talent for being where she is not supposed to be. Those who have that tend to get sacked and most people do not want that.
Perhaps Enid Blyton herself was shut up in a mental hospital for finding out one little thing too much, and reacting emotionally, and trying to hide things by talking of the characters she pitied in terms of their fictitious names in the novels. Or the names of their counterparts as to character. By 1968, things were getting tough for characters like George or Julian. If not as much in most America as in England, at least in some areas.
And yes, space missions would be one of them.
To cover that up would take a deception of gigantic proportions.
Not so gigantic after all.
However, when it comes to Creationism, he has a point: refuting Evolution is not a question of a hoax theory, it is a question of reasoning badly about the evidence that is usually not a hoax (with some Piltdown exception, and perhaps ill mounted Neanderthal skulls as well).
CMI : Apollo moon landing hoax and the ‘Face on Mars’
Published: 25 August 2015 (GMT+10) by John G. Hartnett
And, as said, I don't need to assume Moon Landing a Hoax in order to maintain Geocentrism as possible:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : And Ibn Baz changed his mind for that ...
deretour : "Moontruth"? Why?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Pope St Zephyrinus
PS, I came across another article, where I had once again made the point that Geocentrism has no need to discredit NASA:
Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.
(on this blog)