Did the Eagle Ever Land?

The trouble with school-going kids is that they have homework, and sometimes that can prove a serious distraction to parents or grandparents. Take this simple project of Rs dealing with the history of space exploration: 

After duly admiring it, I wondered idly if they had resolved all the Conspiracy Theories claiming that the Moon Landing had never taken place. I looked it up. What a minefield! Any number of these theories leap eagerly out at one from the Internet. There are those going way-back-when. There are those right up to a few months ago. All have apparently compelling evidence for and against. Some deal in cold scientific facts like the danger of serious radiation from passing through the Van Allen belts, and proof that space-suits are not radiation-proofed. Some do deal in these, but then also add various wild scenarios of alien intervention and control. Counterweighing some of the more imaginative fantasies in this area are a number of remarkably facile, incomplete and unconvincing arguments offered by the Yes, we have landed on the Moon brigade to counter some of the accusations, thus harming their own cause.

Ultimately, I tuned into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

People may sneer at Wiki, but actually it is a fine source of quick reference and the constant peer evaluation and insistence on quoted sources and references mean that it has a pretty good standard of accuracy. This is why I not only use it regularly, but also contribute towards funding, writing and editing it.

Taken together with other links it provides, the article proved the most comprehensive of all arguments or videos I came across, and left a fairly comfortable conclusion that the landings did, indeed, take place. I suppose, given the scale of NASAs budget, it is feasible that all the outside corroboration could have been bought or cooked, but it seems highly unlikely. Yet the controversy rages on

At least it is a bit better than the Climate Change dispute where the more one researches the more confused one gets. If you think that one is straightforward, then you simply havent come across all the arguments and counter-arguments, or the downright distortion of data, misrepresentation and lying on both sides of the question that clearly appear to be in evidence.

Owlingly Funny Talepiece (featuring Rufus from Tabika)

© August 2017 Colonialist

About colonialist

Active septic geranium who plays with words writing fantasy novels and professionally editing, with notes writing classical music, and with riding a mountain bike, horses and dinghies. Recently Indie Publishing has been added to this list.
This entry was posted in Grandchildren, History and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Did the Eagle Ever Land?

  1. I know what you mean about all these conspiracy theories.. the climate change confusion and to-ing and froing is even worse now we’re up against the infamous Irma… reading a raft of flat-earther comments in the Daily Telegraph on the subject, I was still left with the fact, that though they all denied global warming, no-one mentioned the melting of the ice caps both ends of the earth and the resultant starvation of polar bears swimming exhaustedly from one iceberg to the next vainly seeking a meal…


  2. What strikes me as strange is that it’s mostly the Americans that come up with the UFO’s Alien invaders, whatever, and they came up with we didn’t land on the moon stuff!
    They believe that there is a god, in some sort of heaven, and that they’e all going there, and there’s a hell for the rest of us.
    They believe that Jesus did all the things that are accredited to him by people that weren’t even there at the time.
    Yet they have doubts about something that they watched and saw in real time.


  3. equinoxio21 says:

    Well, er… I saw it. On B&W TV. Even still have the photograph.
    Of course, it may have been shot in an L.A. studio, right after a Star Trek episode…

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Calmgrove says:

    Some interesting discussion here, for and against a manmade global warming hypothesis, but also about the scale of the human disaster being worsened by changing population densities in at-risk areas as well as by climate change per se.

    Liked by 1 person

    • colonialist says:

      Glad you say, ‘interesting’. I find it all downright confusing!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Calmgrove says:

        I meant to include this link but must have pressed Send before pasting it in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41082668


        • Lizzie Ross says:

          Thanks, Calmgrove, for reminding us of Hurricane Harvey. Although the short- and long-term financial consequences will be dreadful, we’re lucky in the US that so few died this time. 12 years ago, during and as a result of Katrina (and government incompetence), nearly 2000 people died. Right now, in Nepal and India, deaths from this year’s monsoon floods have risen above 1000 and will likely go higher; millions of people have been displaced (41 million, according to one report [https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/30/16226054/india-flood-bangladesh-monsoon-nepal-41-million-1000-dead]; in comparison, Texas population affected by Harvey might reach 8 million).
          So, I have no patience for the deniers. The Eagle DID land, the earth IS round, and WE are the cause of global climate change that is killing people and animals and further destroying the environment around the world.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Calmgrove says:

            When these “once in a hundred years” or “once in a lifetime” events happen with more frequency, the worst we can do is say there’s nothing to be done. When certain groups of people say it’s God’s will or signs of the Last Days (how many times has this been falsely predicted?) I have no patience with them. They need to take the time to look at the scientific evidence, even the contradictory stuff, and rationally decide on the balance of evidence what’s more likely and what’s just guesswork or moonshine.

            And here’s the thing: the nature of the evidence keeps changing because more of it is brought to light as scientists refine their research. I’d rather put my faith in that evolving assessment than on the basis of priestly documents composed 2000 and more years ago…

            Sorry, all, rant over.

            Liked by 2 people

You have the right to remain silent - but please don't!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s