For topic:

Reward is a feature that we hope will inspire experts to answer important questions and make their answers available to everyone. It allows a sponsor to signal that they think a question is particularly important by offering a financial prize for established arguments that contribute to the establishment or refutation of the topic. A prize winner can keep the money, apply it to reward other questions, or donate it to charity.

Reward Name :
Reward Description:
Prize:
Closing Date:
Status:

Payout Rules:
The total reward is divided among all statements that were created during the period after the reward is offered and are established at the payout date.

The total reward is divided among all save events occurring during the period after the reward is offered that add one or more statements that change the status of the root and are established at the payout date.

Half of the reward is divided among all statements that were created during the period after the reward is offered and are established at the payout date and the other half is divided among all save events occurring during the period after the reward is offered that add one or more statements that change the status of the root and are established at the payout date.



Topic:

Reward is a feature that we hope will inspire experts to answer important questions and make their answers available to everyone. It allows a sponsor to signal that they think a question is particularly important by offering a financial prize for established arguments that contribute to the establishment or refutation of the topic. A prize winner can keep the money, apply it to reward other questions, or donate it to charity.

Rewrd Name :
Reward Description:
Offered By:
Prize:
Closing Date:
Status:

Payout Rules:


Conditions:


Topic:

Reward is a feature that we hope will inspire experts to answer important questions and make their answers available to everyone. It allows a sponsor to signal that they think a question is particularly important by offering a financial prize for established arguments that contribute to the establishment or refutation of the topic. A prize winner can keep the money, apply it to reward other questions, or donate it to charity.

Test string

TOPIC HISTORY

Were the Moon Landings Faked?



Statements

Statement Type Title Description Proposed Probability Author History Last Updated
STATEMENT NASA asserts the moon landings were not fake.

Faking the moon landings would require fabricating a large amount of media, scientific data, equipment, and convincing all intimately involved in the Apollo program to lie.

1.0 Flower Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT This is not a probability 1 event, it is what the whole diagram is breaking down 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
TEST NASA lost the original video of the moon landings

NASA claims to have copied over the original high res video of the moon landings, and admits therefor that what they have now was digitally crafted based on old low res stuff.

 

I figure the odds on NASA copying over the videos if they actually landed on the moon, are about 1000:1 against.
So Likelihood Estimate F (if the Moon Landings were fake is false) I'm setting to .001

I figure the odds on NASA "copying over the videos" if they faked the moon landing, are about 3:1 for, so I'm setting Likelihood Estimate T to .7

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Reuters reporting on NASA erasing the tapes

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

 

I'm assuming Reuters is 90% believable here, because I also know other news agencies reported it, and its a little hard to see why they would make it up.

0.9 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT This fact is dominating the probability calculation in the absence of an established proof or direct refutation.

If the moon landings were real, its counterintuitive that there is no clear proof yet added or that I can see to add, and highly surprising that NASA then managed to erase the tapes, per the news stories. In fact its so surprising, that the MC engine is attributing only a 50% chance to its being correct, based on an assumption of 90% confidence in the Reuters pronouncement. If you tune the Proposed probability on the Reuters announcement to 100%, insisting that the story is true and NASA did actually copy over the tapes (which is I believe the consistent picture in the media), then it concludes the Moon Landings were almost surely fake because its so unlikely they could have lost it.

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT The moon landings were fake

Probabilities assume an unbiased prior of .5. (If you prefer .05 just adjust Proposed Probability without saving to see local recalculation of probabilities.)

0.5 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT Kubrik claimed to have faked it in interview According to internet pages cited as "proof", T. Patrick Murray interviewed Stanley Kubrick who claimed to have directed a film of the fake moon landing, but there was a stipulation that the film wouldn't be released until 15 years after his death, which is coming this Fall. PB represents my (conservative) estimate that, assuming Kubrik really claimed this, he also really did it. 0.5 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Moscow Times: Russian Official Proposes International Investigation Into U.S. Moon Landings http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-official-proposes-international-investigation-into-us-moon-landings/523799.html 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Alleged Trailer for Film "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" Allegedly to be released this Fall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ1HRkeG-v4 This PB represents my estimate that this is a real trailer for the movie and, Kubrik really did claim this as it is saying. 0.5 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT The biggest problem with this is Kubrick died in March and the trailer says the interview was in May 1999. 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT Many people have bounced lasers off the reflectors left on the moon, proving the moon landings were real.

Many people have bounced lasers off the reflectors left on the moon, proving the moon landings were real.

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT Leaving a reflector doesn't require landing and returning people. If it was fake, we can expect them to have at least made this much effort. 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT Russian officialdom challenges the story, saying they have never seen more than a few grams , and the alleged 380kg brought back is missing.

An international investigation could help solve the mystery of the disappearance of film footage from the original moon landing in 1969, or explain where the nearly 400 kilograms of lunar rock reportedly obtained during several such missions between 1969 and 1972 have been spirited away to, Markin suggested.

 

In the proposed probability, I'm giving PP .2 to weight the Russian pronouncement as 20% likely to be correct, basically according it 1/5 as much faith as the US one. This seems fairly conservative.

0.2 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Daily Mail (and others): Russia suggests America has NEVER landed on the moon and calls for 'an investigation into what really happened' Re http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT The Russians are challenging the story. 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT The Newspaper citations don't say the Russians said they were fake, just raised questions

They challenged the proofs, but not directly the claim. They offered evidence against the proofs, but none against the claim.

 

 

In terms of the probability, I'm taking this as about .5 of a nullification.

0.5 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT They proved they went by bringing back moon rocks 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0