1. The Science of Conspiracy Theory

2.  Space Race and the Cold War  United States VS. Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.)  Power by who had the best weapons  NUCLEAR WEAPONS!  Space – ultimate advantage point for setting up missiles  Who was winning?  Space Race Music Video Space Race Music Video  More Formal Video More Formal Video

3.  Russia was Absolutely winning Space Race  First Satellite  Sputnik  First Animals in Space  Dogmonauts  First Cosmonaut  Yuri Gargarin  First Woman in Space  First Moon Walk  President Kennedy Raises the Stakes  Sets a Mission to Land Men on Moon  Sets End of Decade as Deadline  July 20 th, 1969  Neil Armstrong  Video of actual Moon Landing Video of actual Moon Landing

4.  Good Science: FFlag is Waving SShadows CCross Hairs RRadiation LLight in Shadows SStudent Examples BBad Science: LLike the Movie “Capricorn 1” MMysterious Deaths AArea 51 SStudent Examples WWHAT NOW? CCritical Thinking & Analysis WWho made this? RResearch

5. FLAG WAVING The fact of the matter is... "the video you see where the flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving," said spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian'sNational Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. National Air and Space Museum

6. SHADOWS Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three- dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. … Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. … if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving.

7. CROSS HAIRS What's happening here is the intense light reflecting off the white surface is bleeding in around the crosshair and saturating the film, thus obliterating the crosshair. This phenomenon is commonplace and is in no way evidence of fraud.  What do these two pictures have in common?

8. RADIATION Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but the radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Although low-intensity solar flares are common, they posed no real threat to the astronauts. High- intensity solar flares could have endangered the astronauts' health, but these large eruptions are infrequent. … No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts was very low. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem  This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. …It took Apollo only about an hour to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. …  The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two- dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut- shaped region centered on Earth's magnetic equator. …Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts, greatly reducing the exposure.

9. LIGHT IN SHADOWS The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. … Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

10.  OTHER ARGUMENTS?  Websites:  Debunk Article Debunk Article  Bad Astronomy Site Bad Astronomy Site  Many More Arguments Explained Many More Arguments Explained  CONCLUSION – They are all BAD SCIENCE  JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING CLAIMS TO BE SCIENTIFIC DOES NOT MEAN IT IS  Medicines, diets, cosmetics, learning tools … etc.  BE AWARE THAT SOME CLAIMS ARE USING ….