Fake Rocket VS Fake Moon Landing

AI Fallacy Master writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD] The student's answer touches upon several important points regarding the original question about Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument. Here’s a logical breakdown:

1. **Cherry Picking**: The student rightly points out the importance of not cherry-picking or selectively quoting. This could misrepresent the full scope of Tyson's argument if only a part of his statement is considered. By looking at the broader context of Tyson's statements, you see that he is addressing the complexity and magnitude of faking such an event with all its documentary and physical evidence.

2. **Understanding Context**: The student's comment about the broader context of Tyson's argument is crucial. Taking statements out of context can lead to a misunderstanding of the intent and logic behind the argument.

3. **Strawman Fallacy**: The student refers to the potential for a strawman fallacy, which involves distorting or oversimplifying someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. In the original question about Tyson's statement, there is no evidence that he intended to present an opponent’s view in a distorted way. Instead, he appears to be emphasizing the extent of the paper trail and infrastructure required for the moon landing.

4. **Overall Argument Evaluation**: Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument appears to be focused on illustrating the substantial and intricate nature of the evidence supporting the moon landing, which logically makes faking such an event extremely improbable. This involves not just a single rocket launch but a comprehensive and consistent set of documents, designs, and scientific accomplishments.

In summary, the student's response appropriately highlights the dangers of misrepresentation through selective quoting and the value of considering context in evaluating the logic of a claim. Tyson's argument does not seem to contain a logical fallacy but rather emphasizes the impracticality of faking a massive effort like the moon landing.

David Blomstrom writes:

Ah, I see what you're getting at. However, there's still some problems in Tyson's argument. If he said "Why go to the trouble of creating all those blueprints when it would be easier to just go to the moon," that might be a logical argument. However, he actually asked why people would go to the trouble of FAKING blueprints. No one is suggesting NASA faked a rocket or the blueprints behind that rocket. Moreover, if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators would want to minimize fakery. It would be more convincing if you had an authentic rocket, backed up by blueprints and some kind of scheme for landing on the moon.

Tyson's suggestion that it would be easier to just go to the moon is also problematic. In fact, India, Japan, and Israel all crash-landed on the moon within the last few years - more than half a century after the original moon landing. Even more bizarre is the news that another rocket crash landed on the moon - and no one even knows its country of origin. This pokes a hole in the claim that governments around the world were monitoring the moon more than half a century ago and could confirm that American astronauts were on its surface.

I'm not saying the moon landing was faked. I'm still sitting on the fence. However, I'm amazed at some of the shoddy evidence used to support the claim that the landings were authentic.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

I get it. It might be possible to create a moon mission that executes flawlessly in on paper, but not in practice. I guess in the engineering/mathmatics world, that is close to the same thing - which is what I assume Tyson's point is. But it is true that it is not the same thing.

This pokes a hole in the claim that governments around the world were monitoring the moon more than half a century ago and could confirm that American astronauts were on its surface. 

This is actually the #1 argument that has convinced me that the moon landings were not faked (I think every reasonable person should have some degree of skepticism around this topic). Here are some details on this. Feel free to dig deeper in any of the points (Google, AI, etc. - not me :)

The claim is supported by a wealth of evidence gathered through independent tracking and monitoring by multiple countries during the Apollo era. Here are the key points:

Independent Tracking Systems: During the 1960s and 1970s, governments around the world had their own sophisticated telescopes, radar installations, and communication systems. These tools enabled nations—not just the United States—to monitor space missions in real time.
Cold War Rivalry: In the context of the Cold War, rival powers such as the Soviet Union had strong incentives to verify the movements of American spacecraft. Their independent tracking and telemetry systems confirmed that the Apollo missions were reaching the Moon and that astronauts were landing on its surface.
Radio and Radar Data: The Apollo missions transmitted radio signals and telemetry data that were intercepted by ground stations across different countries. These signals provided a continuous record of the spacecraft’s journey, its orbital maneuvers, and the lunar landing, which were then independently verified.
Optical Observations: Amateur and professional astronomers using optical telescopes were also able to follow the missions. Their observations provided additional confirmation of the spacecraft’s trajectory and the landing events.
Long-Term Experiments: Instruments left on the Moon—such as retroreflectors used in laser ranging experiments—continue to provide measurable proof of the Apollo missions. These reflectors allow scientists worldwide to measure the distance to the Moon very precisely, confirming that human-made objects were indeed placed there decades ago.
Overall, the convergence of data from various independent sources, including rival governments and independent scientific communities, forms the foundation for the claim that global monitoring confirmed American astronauts were on the Moon.

For more research you can look up the following:
Declassified Tracking Data from Rival Governments: During the Apollo era, countries like the Soviet Union monitored the missions independently. Some of their records and analyses have also been made public, reinforcing that the Moon landings were observed by multiple, unrelated entities.

One good starting point is the NASA publication "Challenge to Apollo: the Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945–1974" (SP-4408). This report compiles declassified Soviet data—including tracking logs and technical analyses from the Soviet Space Transmissions Corps—that independently verified the trajectory and landing of the Apollo missions. It shows that Soviet tracking systems, from both ground stations and tracking ships (like Akademik Sergey Korolyov and Kosmonavt Yuriy Gagarin), picked up the same telemetry and orbit details as NASA.

Additionally, the third edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (translated into English in the 1970s) contains detailed entries that confirm the reality of the Apollo landings. These entries were used to publicly report the events in the USSR, even if the Soviet leadership downplayed their own lunar program.

Former Soviet officials (such as Vasily Mishin) have also later discussed how their systems monitored the Apollo missions in real time. Together, these documents and interviews provide robust, independent evidence that American astronauts were on the Moon.

David Blomstrom writes:

Thanks for your response, but I think I'll pass. Tyson said if someone wanted to fake the moon landing, they would have to fake the Apollo moon rocket blueprints. That statement simply isn't true. If it was true, why not also have fake astronauts - professional ballerinas, perhaps?