Haven't found the Essay You Want?
For Only $12.90/page

Moon landing hoax fallacy Essay

After 45 years, the moon landing hoax is still a prominent debate. On July 20, 1969 America changed forever. This remarkable event had not taken not because of any event that took place here on earth, but a remarkable event that happen in the heavens, when man first walked on the moon. At this time our world was changing in leaps and bounds and it was a time of endless opportunity. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, theorists say the moon landing was stage The U.S. government, desperate to either beat the Soviets in the space race or distract from Vietnam, put Neil Armstrong under lights on a secret set somewhere in the desert. Despite theorists’ claims that man never landed on the moon, their supposed evidence contain black and white fallacy, circular reasoning, non sequitur fallacy, and straw man fallacies. Scientists have proven that these claims are invalid with explanations of the discrepancies that theorists have failed to acknowledge. Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that when the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Clint Rainey of New York Times argues, “Old Gloey’s slo-mo ripple effect is the original proof Armstrong and Aldrin were just overeducated actors, The moon has no air, cynics point out, hence no breeze”(Rainey1).

This ridiculous claim is a black and white fallacy because he is implying that there is only two reasons that could make the flag move. As NASA points out it is the lack of friction, “The flag was rippling because when the astronaut put the flag in, he might have pushed it a bit and because of the law of action and reaction (3rd Newton’s law) and law of inertia (1st Newton’s law), it continued to ripple” (NASA This evidence in the moonlanding hoax is misleading and inaccurate. Perhaps the oldest and most favorite argument is the absence of stars in the background of any Apollo photographs on the lunar surface. Without an atmosphere to diffuse their light, the star’s light should be plainly visible to the moon. Rainey argues, “Why in NASA’s photo is the sky a jet-black void?” This argument is circular reasoning because theorist are not showing evidence as to why there are no stars. National Geographic scientifically explains why there are no stars, “the moon’s surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light. Believers of this hoax need to examine the evidence before they fall for the hoax.

Many things have been supposedly brought back from the moon, but theorists claim that they are not real. One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foreground, with what appears to be the letter “C” engraved into it. The letter appears to be almost perfectly symmetrical, meaning it is unlikely to be a natural occurrence. It has been suggested that the rock is simply a prop, with the “C” used as a marker by an alleged film crew. A set designer could have turned the rock the wrong way, accidentally exposing the marking to the camera. This claim is ridiculous and is a non sequitur fallacy because the theorists is trying to connect two facts that have nothing in common. There were 845 lbs of moon rocks brought back from the mission and to claim that because of one rock with C shape on it is stage prop is preposterous. NASA states, “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere… like the Moon.” I am baffled that followers believe this hoax.

Followers also believe that Apollo was faked because there were no blast craters. The module is shown sitting on relatively flat, undisturbed soil. According to skeptics, the lander’s descent should have been accompanied by a large dust cloud and would have formed a noticeable crater. The lunar-module rocket had a thrust of 10,000 pounds—“It could blow a Cadillac into the next county!” writes Bill Kaysing, the moon-hoax patriarch—so it should have blasted dust everywhere, made a considerable dent in the moon’s surface, even torched the ground. Photos of the module on the moonscape, he says, have “no trace whatsoever of any disruption of the surface.” This is a false analogy fallacy because they are comparing physics on the moon to physics here on earth. They are not the same. Physics are different on the moon. The fact of the matter is the lander’s engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust. This is a distorted and shallow argument. On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun.

So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this must mean multiple light sources are present -suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a film set. Shadows in photos aren’t dark enough or uniform, skeptics say, even though the sun is the only light source. In one, the sun is at Aldrin’s back, yet on his front is a “hot spot,” lit by something. Seeing that, the Apollo camera engineer said, “Seems like he is standing in a spotlight.” there were multiple light sources, Launius said. “You’ve got the sun, the Earth’s reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface.” It’s also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat, he added. “If an object is in a dip, you’re going to get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface.”

Essay Topics:

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email. Please, specify your valid email address

We can't stand spam as much as you do No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own