What kind of fallacy makes invalid assumptions about key players?

Interesting. I would argue that even 18,000 is a greatly inflated figure. Then again, it says that many would have been "involved," and it's possible to be involved without known exactly what you're involved in.

I have to go back and look at my original question, but I meant to focus on the number of people who could be classified as conspirators - in other words, the people who actually knew they were plotting a conspiracy. In a military operation, that number might be limited to a handful of generals and admirals, with a few dozen subordinate personnel having a vague idea that some sort of conspiracy is under way without knowing the details.

Again, I'm not saying any of the moon landings were faked. Maybe we'll get a final verdict when the U.S. or China lands on the moon - hopefully by 2030. ;)

If you go through each of these categories and think about the roles of each, it becomes clear the level of involvement would require knowledge of the conspiracy. For example, the film industry... special effects artists, stagehands, lighting guys...etc. The biggest one is the Soviet Union - our competitors at the time had all the technology to monitor the event. For me, this is the nail in the coffin to any moon landing hoax:

(Help from AI)

The Soviet Union had the capability to monitor the moon landings and would likely have known if the United States had faked them. Here are some key points:

### Tracking and Monitoring Capabilities
1. **Radar Tracking**
   - The Soviet Union had advanced radar systems capable of tracking spacecraft. They could monitor the trajectory of the Apollo missions from Earth to the Moon and back.

2. **Radio Communications**
   - The Soviet Union could intercept and analyze the radio communications between the Apollo spacecraft and NASA's Mission Control. This would include telemetry data, voice communications, and television broadcasts.

3. **Optical Observations**
   - The Soviet Union had telescopes capable of observing the Moon and could potentially detect the Apollo landers and other equipment left on the lunar surface.

4. **Space Probes**
   - The Soviet Union had sent its own space probes to the Moon, such as the Luna series, which could have provided additional data and observations.

### Reasons the Soviet Union Would Have Known
1. **Intelligence and Espionage**
   - The Soviet Union had a robust intelligence network, including spies within the United States. They would likely have had access to insider information about the Apollo program.

2. **Scientific Collaboration and Competition**
   - As the main competitor in the space race, the Soviet Union closely monitored American space activities. They had a vested interest in verifying the authenticity of the US moon landings.

3. **Technological Parity**
   - The Soviet Union had similar technological capabilities and expertise in space exploration. They could independently verify the feasibility and execution of the moon landings.

### Potential Consequences of a Hoax
1. **Cold War Context**
   - During the Cold War, exposing a major US deception would have been a significant propaganda victory for the Soviet Union. If they had evidence of a hoax, they would likely have publicized it to discredit the United States.

2. **Lack of Evidence of a Hoax**
   - Despite their capabilities and motivations, the Soviet Union never claimed the moon landings were faked. This suggests they found the evidence consistent with the US actually landing on the Moon.

Yes, the lack of criticism by the Soviets is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence I've found so far. However, there are a few things that still make me skeptical . . .

How is it possible that we are struggling to get back to the moon more than half a century after the first landing, when our technology is far more advanced? Other advanced nations have been routinely crash-landing unmanned spaceships on the moon.

I thought a dynamite piece of evidence would be an authentic "moon rock" found only on the moon. In fact, such a rock was discovered . . . but, if I remember correctly, it was also discovered on Earth a year or two later. I believe there was a second moon rock that was subsequently discovered here on Earth. (Don't quote me, though; I can't remember the details offhand.)

The third puzzle is the goofy arguments used to attack the moon landing hoax advocates. If the landing was genuine, then they should just stick to the facts. When they claim such a stunt would have required 400,000 conspirators, they make themselves look ridiculous. One physicist claims he even invented a formula that can predict when one of those conspirators would have blown the whistle - with an accuracy of approximately one week. Sheez.

However, it's possible the moon landings were all genuine, but the propagandists are making up goofy stories just to play with people's minds.

How is it possible that we are struggling to get back to the moon more than half a century after the first landing, when our technology is far more advanced? Other advanced nations have been routinely crash-landing unmanned spaceships on the moon. 

I would word this differently... I don't think we are "struggling," it is just the resources have not been allocated to the goal, which is expensive. Back in the 60s, it wasn't about exploration; it was about winning the space race and showing our dominance over the Soviets. This is what motivated both leadership and the American public to support this effort. Since then, we won the space race, and public interest and support waned.

Another point that I considered when I was skeptical about the moon landings is the five other missions to the moon in the following years. If it were a conspiracy, these would not only be unnecessary but increase the chances by 5 that at least one of the alleged hoaxes would be discovered.

... goofy arguments used to attack the moon landing hoax advocates

We see this everywhere. Some people are just bad at arguing and make horrible arguments. It is important to remember that people's arguments do not make that for which they are arguing more true or false. It is like when I read horrible atheist arguments I cringe, but it doesn't make me believe in theism any more.

Wow, that's the quickest response ever. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying the burden of proof lies with people who are suspicious of conspiracies. But then you say "The burden of proof is upon the person who presents a proposition as true . . ." If that means the burden of proof lies on both sides of an argument, then I agree.

If, however, you're saying the people who support the "mainstream narrative" don't have to prove their case, then I disagree. Just because the government or the mainstream media say something is true doesn't make it so. On the contrary, they're the biggest liars on the planet. (See 9/11 as a blazing example.)

Looking at it from another perspective, we need to distinguish between a conspiracy THEORY and a proven fact. Proving that the moon landing was faked would obviously require some convincing evidence and/or logic. Proving it was not faked would also require some convincing evidence and/or logic. Both sides have what appears to be some convincing evidence, making it difficult to make a final judgment.

However, a conspiracy theory that questions the mainstream narrative doesn't have to pass some magic burden of proof test in order to qualify as a credible theory. It may never be proved, but the mainstream version may never be universally accepted, either. Just because millions of people think they watched the moon landing on TV doesn't mean it actually happened. Just because the Soviets or Russians supposedly monitored it and never cried foul doesn't really prove anything, either. I'm not aware that they publicly confirmed that they actually "witnessed" the moon landing. There are a lot of other epic events that national governments don't comment on, for some strange reason. In other news, it isn't just the U.S. that is having a hard time getting back to the moon. Several countries - all very technologically advanced - have managed to do no more than crash land on the moon in recent years. (India succeeded on its second try, and China made an even more exciting landing.)

When the Chinese put astronauts on the moon, they will shed a lot of light on the debate.

The burden of proof lies ONLY upon the proponent of a proposition. 

In the world of arguments, there's no free ride. We have two propositions here . . .

Proposition #1: The moon landing was real.

Proposition #2: The moon landing was faked.

Proponents of both propositions have to wade through that burden of proof gauntlet. If you want to excuse one side or the other from backing up their argument with facts, evidence, or logic, then you're giving free reign to corrupt politicians and media whores on the one hand and conspiracy kooks (or propagandists masquerading as conspiracy theorists) on the other hand.

I'm not ready to give Bill Gates and Facebook my unquestioning allegiance.

The burden of proof lies ONLY upon the proponent of a proposition. If you start with Prop 1, then, before further discussion, the proponent must adduce evidence to support it. Same with Prop 2. Take them one at a time. 

If you're saying both parties have to prove their theories or statements, then I agree. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "take them one at a time." There are usually at least two sides in an argument, and it doesn't make much sense to focus on just one side.

9/11 is a slam dunk. The government and media lied, and their lies were as obvious as they were numerous. They failed miserably at the altar of the burden of proof.

The moon landing hoax theory is what I call a fringe conspiracy theory. Both sides have some pretty convincing arguments, but the mainstream narrative raises a few red flags.

I don’t know how to make what I am saying more clear, I am saying any proponent of a proposition bears the burden of providing evidence of the truth of the proposition. 

By "take them one at a time," I am saying you must examine each of the two propositions separately, not as a pair. 

It sounds like we're in agreement . . . all parties involved in an argument must support their claims with facts, evidence, and/or logic if they want people to believe them. Furthermore, it makes sense that one has to examine the various arguments one at a time. After all, it wouldn't make much sense to have two people sitting on the witness stand simultaneously. ;)