Throughout the media, pseudoscience is common with the belief of man on the moon. This article (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) sparked my interest because Bill Kaysing, an advocate for the hoax theory and author of We Never Went To The Moon, insists upon delusive evidence. His claim to his belief is that, "The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place," (1). The problem with this theory is that it was reported in the late 1950s and many advances in technology have taken place since then.
Along with that theory, Kaysing adds, "The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it," (1). Kaysing made this statement without ruling out rival hypotheses. We should not automatically think that this is the only possible answer, but explore other possibilities. Using Occam's Razor we can find the simplest explanation to counterclaim Kaysing's theory of inadequate video. The poor quality of the video can simply be explained through the distance of the moon and Earth, where the Apollo 11 landing took place. The distance restricted the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted from one place to the other. The video was then forced to use a slow-scan TV camera in black and white with 10 frames per second rate. This also created complications for transmitting the scenes to television, which required the video to be converted to the commercial TV standards. This explanation is more reliable through Occam's Razor because it takes the simplest explanation and shaves off the needlessly complicated explanation.
Another one of Kaysing's claim is that, "The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs," (1). This demonstrates the 2nd scientific thinking principle, correlation isn't causation. In the above statement, Kaysing is saying if there is not a sky full of stars, then the Apollo photographs are hoaxes. This is untrue because in the 2nd principle, it clearly states that correlation does not mean causation. If I am carrying, a pencil, does that mean I am going to write? No, I may be using this pencil to poke a hole in a water bottle. In this case, a simple explanation could be that when photographing the moon, the objects were too bright, which made the stars look dull and unable to view through the picture.
Occam's Razor is the 6th principle of scientific thinking and according to this principle, if there are two theories or explanations of something, one would always takes the simplest answer. Kaysing tries to prove against this principle by stating that some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering and it should not be doing so because there is no wind on the Moon (1). A simple explanation for this is that, it is apparent in all the videos that an astronaut is holding onto the flag. If a person is holding onto the flag, it is easily twisted and bumped around causing the flag to flutter.
After proving many of Kaysing's theories wrong, the most useful principle for evaluating this claim is Occam's Razor. The author of this article tries to come up with explanations and excuses as to why the moon landing was a hoax, but thinking simply and efficiently proves his theories wrong time after time.
Reading this article made me realize that many people find comfort in their own beliefs. People believe what they want to believe and even though there are strong evidence for something, they want to believe they have control and will come up with crazy explanations that defy the six scientific principles.
Below is a link to a youtube video of the Apollo 11, Man on the Moon landing. Take note on Kaysing's claims and see for yourself if it holds up against the six principles or if it is all a hoax.
1."The Moon Hoax Debate." Www.braeunig.us. Web. 25 Sept. 2011.