Ok, I think of myself as a level headed and logical person, but I've been reading a lot of stuff lately about the Apollo moon missions being a total hoax and were really just filmed somewhere in the states (some say at Area 51).

My personal opinion is that man has NEVER been to the moon. My opinion is based more on a gut feeling than factual evidence.

My question is this? If we've landed over 12 men on the moon between 69' to 72', why haven't we gone back? You would think that 30 years later we would have the technology to make these types of missions routine.

Here are just a few of hundreds of links on the subject.

http://www.zyworld.com/nasa/1.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/
http://www.aulis.com/

What do you think? :)

I don't know, it's hard to say..... the only proof would be to go there and look for foot prints.....

You've been reading stuff from the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society, a group in England that still believes that the Earth is flat.

We haven't been back to the moon because we have landed 12 people on it, have learned about as much as we will learn, and it costs a massive amount of money to get there. NASA turned its interest (and budget) towards exploring Mars and possibly building a space station.

The idea that the whole thing was staged and filmed was done as a movie in 1978 as Capricorn One http://us.imdb.com/Title?0077294

It was possible to see much of the moon shots and landings with telescopes from Earth, including by anyone with a powerful enough telescope, which shoots holes in the doubts by skeptics.

Actually, I'd have thought so too, about the telescope issue... but it's said that we don't have powerful enough telescopes to see the surface of the moon that closely, which doesn't make sense to me. If this is so, why not get some shots of the rover, the gear left there, the flag, etc. And, I heard a lot of nonsense about it, but what about the flag waving in no atmosphere? I have to wonder about that, what could be the answer?

I admit, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but true or not, that FOX program about the moon landing was very well done and I can see it convincing a lot of people. To say it's too expensive, after all these years? They spend a lot on a great many number of things, and we could easily do it. I did think about things, like the moon rover going along and they sped up the film and it looked just like a rover on Earth would. And, consider this too; Why was the "moon dust" only going up and as far as it would with Earth's gravity? Slow or fast, that was suspicious.

The fact that they had no real light source and the pictures taken by one astronaught of another, when the Sun is making the light go to the left and there's another light source from the right or top. What can explain that? No landing crater, right? Well, if they drifted down, as they supposedly did, I can understand that there'd be no blast crater... but still no dust anywhere on the landing gear? The only think I can figure that would make any sense out of some of these things, is if the conspiracy nuts doctored the pictures, etc. which you'd be sure NASA would say where done. And, does it really sound like the USA and NASA to say "Oh, we've already done it, we aren't interested anymore" in something that is an amazing feat that people will always be highly interested in? Not to me.

They (NASA) simply didn't offer any explanations, at least none that the program showed -- which means sense, because they want to make you disbelieve it and get all excited and convinced about it. Still, without doctoring, why was the flag waving? That's been in dispute since the very day that was broadcast, and that's not a new theory or a FOX gimmick to make you convinced. I've got to admit, it got me thinking, it'd be easy to fake and with the space race and everyone worried about the cold war and the race for global superiority, it wouldn't have been a bad move. Then again, these programs are definitely biased, but this is hardly comparing the doubt to the Earth being flat. An interesting, entertaining program, but it does make you wonder about some of the issues, even if it was indeed real, which I'm not doubting it (the event) didn't take place. But some things still don't see right.

I saw the same documentary the other night, it makes good sense about there is no crater from the blast shell, or how there is two light sources when there is only the sun there. I totally agree from the information and research that i have done, I got a 100 on the project I did on it, but everyone disagreed with me. Sometimes people can not think outside the box, as far as the flat earth part, that is horse hockey!!!

Better watch out someone from NASA may :uzi: me down, no need to worry I am in the Mafia, All shall revenge my death, right?

*room falls dead silent**

Just a couple days ago a friend of mine and I were discussing the flag issue. And it is somewhat fishy.

Originally posted by tabernack
http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/


I happened to open the link above... it seems that link actually contradicts what you are trying to show :)

Anyway, the reason we no longer go to the moon is because there is no need for it (US was sending a lot of missions to the moon primarily to beat the russions, but after that, what else?). All that is to know has already pretty much known. In fact, we know the universe, hundreds of thousands/millions of miles above the surface of the earth more than what we know just few hundrends miles below the earth surface. Quite ironic :)

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by Duster
We haven't been back to the moon because we have landed 12 people on it, have learned about as much as we will learn, and it costs a massive amount of money to get there.

That's a terrible reason/explanation! I need a better explanation than that. :) We've sent hundreds of Astronauts into orbit, but yet we continue to send them up. You'd think (according to that explanation) that we would have learned all we needed to years ago. So why continue to do it? Why build the ISS?

The answer to me is pretty simple -> we don't have the technology to do it (send a man to the moon), we never have.

Originally posted by dektong
I happened to open the link above... it seems that link actually contradicts what you are trying to show :)


Actually I wanted to post links for and against the theory. It wasn't a mistake :)

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
The fact that they had no real light source and the pictures taken by one astronaught of another, when the Sun is making the light go to the left and there's another light source from the right or top. What can explain that?

I won't address the rest of your points because, frankly, I'm not a scientist and I couldn't give a really good explanation. But as to this particular point - well, this one I know.

There *was* another light source other than the sun. Think about it for a minute. There are two light sources on Earth, right? The sun during the day, and... the moon at night. And, actually, it's not all that uncommon that here on Earth the moon shines during the day as well (if the 3 things are aligned correctly).

So, when you go to the moon, you now have the sun, and you have... Earth, of course! Just as the moon shines a good amount of light on Earth, Earth must then shine a tremendous amount of light on the moon.

Think about it - during a "full moon" on Earth it can sometimes be light enough to walk around in and see things. Not as bright as the sun, certainly, but bright enough to take a picture with on a clear night with a full moon. And the moon is a fraction of the size of Earth. So when Earth comes up over the moon's horizon, Earth must be absolutely huge - dozens (erm... well, not dozens, really - but you get the idea) of times larger than the moon is, and as such reflecting a whole lot more light onto the surface of the moon than the moon reflects onto Earth.

So all those pictures you see with more than one shadow, or with the sun in the background - those were most likely taken below the light reflected from Earth.

Jason

But the earth and the moon are always aligned, the moon never rotates, it revolves, so technically we never say the earth reflection, we always saw the earth and behind it the glimpse of the sun.

I am real "iffy" on this situation. I remember reading Kunal's post about it a while back, and I taped the show on FOX and watched it yesterday. It is quite convincing ... it was done very well. So many points were addressed ... the flag waving, speeding up the astronauts to show them running, different light sources, precision pictures, etc.

The one that hit me the most was a picture of the astronaut standing next to the American flag saluting. The sun was behind him. The LEM was next to the flag. You could clearly see "United States" on the LEM, and you could see even the smallest detail on the astronaut. How is this possible, if the only light source was behind him?

These are all good points. But I am sure there are several logical explanations behind all of them. I mean really ... think about it. If the moon landings were TRULY a hoax, and NASA had $40 billion to spend on it, would they leave any traces of mistakes behind? I highly doubt it. Why would they even want to risk it?

Landing on the moon has got to be one of America's best accomplishments. It was a race between the Russians and America to see who could get there first. The U.S. won. Did we fake it? Yeah, we could have. But I really doubt it.

But I will say this. If it WAS a hoax, we will never find out the truth.

in 2 years to survey the moon's surface. This was mentioned in the same program.

The facts should be self evident at that time.

No telescope on earth, but how about the Hubble telescope?'

Franc

Originally posted by Jason Ellis
Originally posted by Tim_Greer
The fact that they had no real light source and the pictures taken by one astronaught of another, when the Sun is making the light go to the left and there's another light source from the right or top. What can explain that?

I won't address the rest of your points because, frankly, I'm not a scientist and I couldn't give a really good explanation. But as to this particular point - well, this one I know.

There *was* another light source other than the sun. Think about it for a minute. There are two light sources on Earth, right? The sun during the day, and... the moon at night. And, actually, it's not all that uncommon that here on Earth the moon shines during the day as well (if the 3 things are aligned correctly).

So, when you go to the moon, you now have the sun, and you have... Earth, of course! Just as the moon shines a good amount of light on Earth, Earth must then shine a tremendous amount of light on the moon.

Think about it - during a "full moon" on Earth it can sometimes be light enough to walk around in and see things. Not as bright as the sun, certainly, but bright enough to take a picture with on a clear night with a full moon. And the moon is a fraction of the size of Earth. So when Earth comes up over the moon's horizon, Earth must be absolutely huge - dozens (erm... well, not dozens, really - but you get the idea) of times larger than the moon is, and as such reflecting a whole lot more light onto the surface of the moon than the moon reflects onto Earth.

So all those pictures you see with more than one shadow, or with the sun in the background - those were most likely taken below the light reflected from Earth.

Jason

Well, the Sun was lighting it like day on Earth anyway, so any reflection from another planet is out of the question. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the other interesting thing. The Astronauts were talking at a normal volume level, while they were rocketing through space, from Earth out of the atmosphere, which would be quite unlikely, due to the high decibels of the thrust, it'd be highly unlikely they could be heard so clearly and not be yelling. And, the thing that really got me about the entire thing, was their lack of excitement at much of the times as they were on the moon and describing what it was like.

Tell me, wouldn't it seem very likely that they'd be almost irrational they'd be so excited? How could they so casually just describe things in the manner in which they did? If you ever watch this, or can again, I suggest people keep that in mind, because that's the thing that struck me as being the most unusual thing and most convincing out of all the reasons. Again, the show was completely biased about it, as it was their intention to only show one side of the debate or theory, but that just really bothered me about any claims it did happen. Again, if anything else, it's very interesting. Japan is sending a satellite to orbit the moon in 2002 (I think) and they say that will likely clear anything up, since even footprints (in theory) should remain for thousands of years.

Of course, I'm probably just as interested to see the non-public files on Watergate and the JFK assassination, when they finally release the information (once all the people that were involved are long and dead and gone, of course). If you want to see something cool, semi-modern, check out the Coral Castel: http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/coralCastle.htm Now that's interesting. :-)

Hey Tim,
have you checked this site? http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/ and this one too: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
Quite a good site for a skeptics like you.

cheers,
:beer:

[Edited by dektong on 03-24-2001 at 01:39 AM]

Consider:

* On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong was spotted giggling uncontrollably at a Bakersfield Dairy Queen.

* Less than 24 hours AFTER THE EAGLE HAD SUPPOSEDLY LANDED, a Domino's employee delivered a pizza to the Aldrin residence and asserts that the astro-not himself paid for it--and DID NOT TIP.

* In 1973 reports began surfacing that Shakespeare had in fact written the plays attributed to Michael Collins.

* From 1974 to 1980, Noam Chimpsky ran speech pattern tests on the alleged "moon conversations" and discovered that, when played in reverse, the recordings become unintelligible.

* An unidentified source within NASA recently admitted that Houston is actually located in Madagascar.

This was brought up once before here and I didn't respond because it was so ridiculous. The Flat Earth Society analogy is apropo as they too refuse to believe what has been proven as it does not fit their limited view of the cosmos.

1. We do have the technology to land people on the moon. We have sent people into space and returned them safely. Going to the moon and back is just a matter of distance.

2. Telescopes can see objects in space from the Earth. The rockets are easier to see when they fire thrusters, and they can be seen.

3. A flag waving can be explained easily enough when one understands a few things about space. It could be a combination of no atmosphere and solar winds. Ever see a nearly perpetual motion machine consisting of small black and white flags sealed with no air inside a glass globe? When exposed to sunglight, they revolve.

4. Tims says Tell me, wouldn't it seem very likely that they'd be almost irrational they'd be so excited? How could they so casually just describe things in the manner in which they did? If you ever watch this, or can again, I suggest people keep that in mind, because that's the thing that struck me as being the most unusual thing and most convincing out of all the reasons. "

Rubbish. These are highly trained professionals who undergo psuchological testing, have been physically and mentally tested and prepared, and have at least been in at the upper stratosphere, though some have been further out in space. They are not going to react like some awed teen-ager who can't keep their wits about them. What a ridiculous argument.

5. "The Astronauts were talking at a normal volume level, while they were rocketing through space, from Earth out of the atmosphere, which would be quite unlikely, due to the high decibels of the thrust, it'd be highly unlikely they could be heard so clearly and not be yelling."

Sound does not travel in space. It needs atmosphere for that.

6. For those who don't want to believe the billions of dollars it costs is enough reason not to return, you may choose to believe another reason supplied by recent commercials. We found out the moon is not made of cheese and have not returned for that reason.

A space station has more value as there are many things that can be manufactured in a gravity free atmosphere, which gives a space station commercial value as well as scientific.


I think some of you would benefit from a trip to the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. If you go by boat, just be sure not to sail too far out. We wouldn't want you falling off the edge of the Earth!

A few more things. Even low power telescopes can follow the Apollo space shots out into space. You can even see them in Florida for some distance. Those same telescopes can detect the return of the Apollo capsule to Earth. Thus, it can be proven that Apollo capsules were fired into space and returned from space.

Since there are no 7-11s in space, they had to go somewhere. They might as well go to the moon as the mission called for.

Originally posted by Duster
This was brought up once before here and I didn't respond because it was so ridiculous.


Well, firstly, I didn't say it didn't happen. I stated that the programs and information were biased. Shall I get a dictionary for you, or just explain to you what I meant: Things seemed suspect, enough to make people, with (yes) even a small amount of intelligence, wonder -- and no, that's not a statement exclusive to deem anyone that would wonder as to only possessing a small amount of intellect -- since you'll likely argue that. I think it's "ridiculous" that you draw your own, insulting, derogatory and petty remarks in your conclusions, when people are stating legitimate reasons for only wondering about things that, to them, seem reasonable to have suspicions about -- and it's ridiculous for you to assume to what extent those suspicions lie and to assume those people lack common sense about something that can't be resolved in a manner of simply using common sense. It's a matter of interest, opinions, information and deducations. Again, shall I refer you to seek the assistance of a dictionary?


The Flat Earth Society analogy is apropo as they too refuse to believe what has been proven as it does not fit their limited view of the cosmos.


But, that's just it. The issues people are bringing up, have not been "proven". You're not making any sense, you just think your opinions and belief's are more correct and sound, which is expressly due to the fact that it's your own opinion. This is not reasonable or sound evidence to support what you "feel" or "feel to be more likely". So, you believe it did happen, based on what you've been told or read or viewed. Should I mention a man by the name of Orson Welles and a little Halloween prank that people felt was real? Let me direct you to what other people's reality was: http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/wotw.html

So, in your opinion, because you're possibly so shallow minded, which you can't possibly see any reason why the great US government would dare lie to the people or the world -- no matter what reasons people might have to be curious or suspicious about something that, when presented well, although certainly biased and some aspects surely being ridiculous -- that you'd be moronic enough to compare this with people that refuse to believe the Earth isn't flat? We're talking about undeniable proof, compared to something we didn't witness first hand and don't have all the facts about. Not all of us just believe what we hear. Furthermore, not all of us are mentally challenged and road the short bus to school, because we bring up some interesting issues that make us wonder about the topic.


1. We do have the technology to land people on the moon.


Now, or then? You say this, based on????? Based on the fact that it's been hypothesized? Based on the fact that we did it (or so you were lead to believe)? Exactly, how and what? I'm not arguing that fact, but you say this, as if it's simply a fact based on one or both of the reasons I just mentioned.


We have sent people into space and returned them safely.


Yes.


Going to the moon and back is just a matter of distance.


As is going to anywhere, whether it's realistic, is another issue. Of course, I never argued it as being realistic or not (technologically or financially). In fact, I'd like to see more visits, in my life time. I'm disappointed there's never been any plan to return. Many things are continually studied, to break the barriers or advance in other ways. I don't believe these moon missions so long ago, collected all that we can or want or need to know. For the record, I don't have much faith there's any intelligent life beyond Earth, but that's my theory -- I won't try and mock or belittle you if you explain your reasons to show why you feel it's only just possible that there may or may not be, as I have done in my previous posts about the event that took place. By the way: Living forever, is just a matter of time.


2. Telescopes can see objects in space from the Earth.


Yes. Now, why though, are there no images of the moon's surface showing anything left from any of the missions?


The rockets are easier to see when they fire thrusters, and they can be seen.


My response is something like: Duh!


3. A flag waving can be explained easily enough when one understands a few things about space.


Right, you mean, like "what _you_ assume" and "_your_ theories". Thanks, that's really helpful. These are your opinions, and maybe you're a big fan of Star Trek, but that doesn't validate these "understandings" of outer space that you seem to mysteriously posses.


It could be


... anything ...


a combination of no atmosphere and solar winds.


...0r anything else we want to assume or make up. Yes, this is all true... or it could be because it never happened and it was on Earth and someone didn't think about the small details, like no wind... Just about anything, indeed.


Ever see a nearly perpetual motion machine consisting of small black and white flags sealed with no air inside a glass globe?


Ever consider the key phrase being; "perpetual motion"?


When exposed to sunglight, they revolve.


What's 'sunglight'? Now, why can't they make flags do this on Earth? Very disappointing, indeed! :-(

Did you consider why the dust being kicked up by the Astronauts weren't blowing around, like the flag was? Or why nothing but the flag was? I.e., somewhat similar to Earth's wind and gravity? I'm simply pointing out, that you're "obvious reasoning's" of why people are idiot's for even daring to wonder, can be countered and explained just as easily, which explains why it's a continuing debate with people that actually care to dabate it.


4. Tims says Tell me, wouldn't it seem very likely that they'd be almost irrational they'd be so excited? How could they so casually just describe things in the manner in which they did? If you ever watch this, or can again, I suggest people keep that in mind, because that's the thing that struck me as being the most unusual thing and most convincing out of all the reasons. "


Yes, I did, which seemed reasonable. I simply stated, that if anything would make me wonder, that may very well be the most compelling. That is my opinion of which would be more convincing.


Rubbish.


Oh, whatever... Damn you're cool. :-) I should have checked to make sure you didn't have a degree in BSing about knowing all about the space-time-continuum paradox in alpha-delta-gamma-blah-quadrant-seven, before I posted. Silly me.


These are highly trained professionals who undergo psuchological testing,


And I bet psychological tests too.


have been physically and mentally tested and prepared,


Yes, true. I guess that explains the overall, boring, seemingly rehearsed lack of reactions to anything that will thrill any other human being that fully understood the ramifications of what they were actually participating in. Insightful.


and have at least been in at the upper stratosphere,


So? This is so similar the moon, is it? So similar to such a feat? Amazing how they prepared so well.


though some have been further out in space.


Yes.


They are not going to react like some awed teen-ager who can't keep their wits about them. What a ridiculous argument.


Yeah, right. Real ridiculous. Your claim, so adamantly saying that is ridiculous, says a lot about your attitude about this. Fine, if you aren't one to wonder about anything, that makes for a stale mind. You don't have to be a conspiring nut-case about anything or question every little detail and demand proof, etc. But for someone to genuinely think it's odd that there were no excited reactions by the people that landed on the moon, walked on the moon and jumped around, etc. on the moon, is seeming a bit odd to them and state that it's the most compelling reason for them to be convinced otherwise -- even though they never said they believed otherwise -- is what is a "ridiculous" argument piece. If you want to go out of your way to be a jerk in general, fine, but don't try and act like I'm some dim-wit, because I found that odd. I think many, many people would agree it's a little odd.. probably because they are more intent to think, rather than just act like you are right now.


5. "The Astronauts were talking at a normal volume level, while they were rocketing through space, from Earth out of the atmosphere, which would be quite unlikely, due to the high decibels of the thrust, it'd be highly unlikely they could be heard so clearly and not be yelling."


Yes... I said that too.


Sound does not travel in space.


Try reading what I said (refer to above); "while rocketing through space, from out of the atmosphere". Not "in dead space". Also, you surely must be somewhat aware of the theory of how a basic rocket is designed, with all your insightful knowledge, right? Tell me, the object has immense thrust, not just "behind it, into dead space", but within it, where all that "Oxygen" and "Hydrogen" are. All that neat vibrating stuff, all that noise. There were these variables in existence when they were leaving the atmosphere and while they were beyond it. Of course, I was referring to while they were still in it, but oh well.


It needs atmosphere for that.


Okay, read what I said before you reply telling me it doesn't travel in space, when I clearly said they were still in Earth's atmosphere. Personally, I'm not stressed about this, or if it even happened or not. I'd find it disappointing, but not shocking, if it didn't. However, to reiterate, I never said it didn't happen, never.


6. For those who don't want to believe the billions of dollars it costs is enough reason not to return,


And for you to believe that's *not* a "ridiculous argument", well, good luck with that... Oh, and as for your comment about they MUST have gone to the moon, because they were gone, apparently you aren't familiar with the popular term back then known as "orbiting"... I once again direct you to a dictionary.


you may choose to believe another reason supplied by recent commercials. We found out the moon is not made of cheese and have not returned for that reason.


Well, may sarcasm save the day. We're off to a good start.


A space station has more value


Oh? There's some "value" for people to dwell beyond the atmosphere of Earth? Beyond knowledge and beyond desire and drive and striving to better ourselves, prove something to ourselves, see if we can do it, learn, and test or break the boundaries? What? For all that money, is so much value, in comparison?


as there are many things that can be manufactured in a gravity free atmosphere, which gives a space station commercial value as well as scientific.


?? Heh, heh... that's the best you've got? For all those billions of dollars? Please detail some of these scientific reasons that are of more value than a moon landing and exploration and testing there? Or, about these 'doohickies' and 'thinga-ma-jigs' that are manufactured in space, when we have means to produce a zero gravity environment on Earth for less costs? Why go into space, and dwell beyond Earth to test and build these things? What? Loss of bone mass in the human body? Good idea, that'll come in really handy. Plus, we get to see what happens to chickens when they hatch, after the embryo is floating around in zero gravity for weeks.. That will certainly improve life on Earth for us wacko skeptics.


I think some of you would benefit from a trip to the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.


Because...?


If you go by boat, just be sure not to sail too far out. We wouldn't want you falling off the edge of the Earth!


Wow, believe it or not, I actually couldn't differentiate between a curious thought about something as I outlined above, in comparison to some ancient myth about sailing and the world having an end where we'd just fall off! I'm seriously considering on seeking a legal remedy for this, from my former educational facilities, just as soon as I learn how that whole "walking" thing works. I'm in stage two of crawling and got a gold star today. My dog is typing this, I can't be held liable. Damn, I'm an idiot... Why can't I be more like you? I want to insult people more for no reason and be a dick in general, can you teach me? I'll pay you in pocket lint! See, I can be a jerk too... it's especially fun when we are arguing about a subject that I never disagreed with you about, even though you apparently took such great offense to anyone's comments about the suspiciousness of some of the aspects of said event. Nifty. :-)

[Edited by Tim_Greer on 03-24-2001 at 05:15 AM]

Tim, one of the many things you missed is that the moon being made of cheese is a thing called humor, not sarcasm.

You should use that dictionary (assuming it has a space exploration section) and look up solar winds. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

You may be right about there being no intelligent life elsewhere. I find precious little of it on Earth.

Wanting to understand things and being somewhat skeptical is one thing, something I find commendable. Heck, I consider myself a critical thinker. Giving credence to idiots instead of thinking and learning the truth is not.

Fox also gave us the alien autopsy special. That looked just as convincing as there "we've never been to the moon" special". It was just a low budget documentary version of Capricorn One.

You can ignore all the salient points I made, and ask yourself this, why would there be wind inside a movie set if the whole thing was staged? Where would it come from?

[Edited by Duster on 03-24-2001 at 12:36 PM]

You both raise some excellent points. The point about the Alien Autopsy is irrelevant to the discussion and is what is known as a red herring or straw man.

I would like to add one comment to the discussion. A principle known as "Occam's Razor" and often employed by Sherlock Holmes.

The most probable scenario is the one that involves the fewest amount of verifiable facts and assumptions to explain the theory in question.

Sherlock Holmes used it in a reductive sense. By eliminating all possibilities but one, no matter how improbable, it is likely to be the solution.

So the question becomes, which is more improbable: faking a moon landing or actually going there?

My opinion is that it would be far easier to fake it from a technological standpoint than it would be to actually go there. That does not mean we did not go to the moon.

To this discussion I would like to add one more "fact" and that is the Van Allen radiaton belt which I believe is about 500 miles above the earth's surface. This one issue disturbed me more than all the others presented in the program.

It is believed that the radiation exposure from the above would be enough to kill a human in a short period of time. The presentation suggested that in order to survive the radiation exposure the space capsule would have to be lined with 9 ft (?) of lead! The capsule was very thin, made of aluminum as were the astronaut's spacesuits.

Combine this with the fact that since the Apollo missions no manned human space capsule has gone through the Van Allen radiation belt and you have to at least raise the question of why.

They also made the point that if the spacesuits were radiation proof why don't they test them by sending people into three mile island. A little silly perhaps but the concept is sound.

Being eccentric in your thinking doesn't make you a nut.

Originally posted by geekwannabe
The point about the Alien Autopsy is irrelevant to the discussion and is what is known as a red herring or straw man.
Not entirely. It puts things into context, a network airing a controversial show for ratings and not attempting to answer questions for which there are simple answers.

I would like to add one comment to the discussion. A principle known as "Occam's Razor" and often employed by Sherlock Holmes.

I've read all the Sherlock Holmes stories via the Annottated Sherlock Holmes, a marvelous collection that had much background material and comments about different parts of each story.

Holmes also said "once the impossible is removed, whatever remains, however, improbable, must be the truth."


To this discussion I would like to add one more "fact" and that is the Van Allen radiaton belt which I believe is about 500 miles above the earth's surface.It is not a constant, and differs in "shape" as well as distance.

Combine this with the fact that since the Apollo missions no manned human space capsule has gone through the Van Allen radiation belt and you have to at least raise the question of why.
How about because there are no other planets or satellites close enough or feasible for us to travel to at present?

They also made the point that if the spacesuits were radiation proof why don't they test them by sending people into three mile island. A little silly perhaps but the concept is sound.Except for the fact that there are different types of radiation, not to mention intensities. We are all exposed to solar and other types of radiation, some filtered through our atmosphere. Nuclear radiation is different from the delta and gamma rays found in space.

Being eccentric in your thinking doesn't make you a nut.Of course not, and many of the advances have been made by those who were visionaries and considered eccentric by the populace.

However, the analogy to the Flat Earth Society is more relevant than some people care to believe. To them, it has not been proven that the Earth is round. Like their counterparts a few hundred years ago, they doubt the validity of reports that people have actually sailed around the world. Of course, they won't believe satellite photos showing the Earth is round because that's fake too (by their beliefs, of course).

Most people tend to believe things filtered through their own perceptions of reality. That becomes even more difficult when we are discussing being in space, where things are very different.

Perhaps because both inner and outer space have interested me for most of my life, I am more cognizant of the answers to many of the issues raised by a show geared towards sensationalism. They aren't secrets and any truly inquisitive mind could discover the answers for themselves. However, minds that only want to ask, argue about possibilities, and not ever know the answer, won't go to any effort to learn the truth.

To quote from the X files "the truth is out there".


[Edited by Duster on 03-24-2001 at 03:05 PM]

Originally posted by geekwannabe
I would like to add one comment to the discussion. A principle known as "Occam's Razor" and often employed by Sherlock Holmes.

The most probable scenario is the one that involves the fewest amount of verifiable facts and assumptions to explain the theory in question.
Actually, Occam's Razor states "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" It means that when presented with a set of otherwise equivalent models, the simplest one is usually the correct one.

Let's apply that to the Apollo 11 landing.

Is it more likely that:

all the previous Apollo missions, in which we orbited the moon, tested modules in lunar gravity and orbit, took pictures, and more, were faked

the space shots, including Apollo 11, which could be seen with the naked eye in parts of Florida, and then tracked by radar, telemetry and telescopes from various countries, including some not beholding or even friendly to the U.S., were faked

that all the astronomers, professional and amateur, in all the countries, and anyone capable of knowing if the Apollo capsules made it into space were sworn to secrecy and kept their vows

or that Apollo 11 was the culmination of the previous Apollo missions, built on the Mercury, Gemini and other missions over many years?

What do you suppose William of Ockham would say?



[Edited by Duster on 03-24-2001 at 05:05 PM]

Originally posted by Duster
What do you suppose William of Occam would say?


He would be surpised and probably laugh out loud to hear about a man landing on the moon :D

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by Duster
why would there be wind inside a movie set if the whole thing was staged? Where would it come from?

More importantly, why would they make such a simple mistake? If they are going to lie, and really try hard to lie consistently, then for sure they would not do any mistake on this one... too simple.

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by geekwannabe
It is believed that the radiation exposure from the above would be enough to kill a human in a short period of time. The presentation suggested that in order to survive the radiation exposure the space capsule would have to be lined with 9 ft (?) of lead! The capsule was very thin, made of aluminum as were the astronaut's spacesuits.


You got it wrong (next time it would be nice to post your reference too...) Take a look here: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/radiation.html

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by Duster
Tim, one of the many things you missed is that the moon being made of cheese is a thing called humor, not sarcasm.

You should use that dictionary (assuming it has a space exploration section) and look up solar winds. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

You may be right about there being no intelligent life elsewhere. I find precious little of it on Earth.

Wanting to understand things and being somewhat skeptical is one thing, something I find commendable. Heck, I consider myself a critical thinker. Giving credence to idiots instead of thinking and learning the truth is not.

Fox also gave us the alien autopsy special. That looked just as convincing as there "we've never been to the moon" special". It was just a low budget documentary version of Capricorn One.

You can ignore all the salient points I made, and ask yourself this, why would there be wind inside a movie set if the whole thing was staged? Where would it come from?

[/B]

Blah... Read what I said...

"You may be right about there being no intelligent life elsewhere. I find precious little of it on Earth."

I was actually going to say that myself in my previous post.

"Heck, I consider myself a critical thinker. Giving credence to idiots instead of thinking and learning the truth is not."

I agree, so don't demonize people for just pointing out some reasons to add to the suspicion. That's not mindless refusal to believe, it's just interesting points to the topic at hand. You seem intent on coming up with any weak explanation to justify how it definitely did happen. I have posted reasons why those can't be realistically used as good points, not anymore than any counter reasoning. I also mention this "solar winds" theory of yours. It's ridiculous to assume that this affected only the flag and nothing else, not even the dust being kicked up.. apparently it's drawn just to the flag.

"Fox also gave us the alien autopsy special. That looked just as convincing as there "we've never been to the moon" special". It was just a low budget documentary version of Capricorn One."

No it didn't, that was pathetic. I didn't watch it past the first few minutes, it was so bad. It wasn't interesting and it didn't bring up any interesting points. I'm not into watching the conspiracy type shows, but the moon landing one was at least interesting.

"You can ignore all the salient points I made, and ask yourself this, why would there be wind inside a movie set if the whole thing was staged? Where would it come from?"

I guess you've missed the point, that it wasn't supposed to be in a building, if that was the case.

Anyway, you've missed what I've said and didn't seem to read it or be able to comprehend it -- This is why I kept referring you to a dictionary, as it seems you failed to understand the words I used. I never claimed to have researched it, and I said that it could be argued either way. You were guessing and assuming things and giving them as reasons of why it definitely happened, which was ridiculous, yet you refer to other's as "idiot's", because they say some things did seem odd, but never to the degree that it's proof it didn't happen.

Only an idiot would argue those things and accuse people of ignoring every fact and being generally foolish, for simply stating those things. I took a topic and mentioned a few interesting points in the favor of the people questioning it, yes. Does that mean I don't believe it happened? No. Do I believe it happened with all my heart and soul? No. Do I think it probably didn't happen, more than it probably did? No, I actually don't, since I never researched it -- and you don't seemed to have either, so don't act like you have the answers.

You keep acting like anyone with any even semi-valid reason, to a pretty good reason to question it, are not willing to learn? That's ludicrous! These people have made an attempt to, since they found some things to question. You bring up questions, find the answers and learn about it, not just claim one way or the other, like you have been doing (which is all you've done). Therefore, you're not different from that claim, just that you believe the opposite more strongly about it had happened, than the other people that are genuinely questioning it. What are you so confused about here? I never said it didn't happen and to give you an example of how much I understand it from a point of view of knowing it did, I've been disgusted and highly offended that there's those people that think the whole Nazi death camp events didn't really happen. You sit there and think "You blithering idiot!! How can you even question that, with all the information we have on it and all the footage!!?".

Well, the moon landing is considerably different, whereas the government itself, not many people, had control over what you saw, instead of all the witnesses, information, footage, etc. it was more controlled. Of course, SO WAS THE FOX SPECIAL! They were completely biased and NASA either didn't care to comment about things, or FOX cut their comments out, that would have likely, and truly (i.e., not your uninformed counter statements) stated exact and definite reasons for this. Anyway, how you missed that, I won't even try to guess.

[Edited by Tim_Greer on 03-24-2001 at 06:07 PM]

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Read what I said.
I did, including the part where you said the program was biased. If you read my original rebutal, you may see that only points 4 and 5 addressed comments you made, yet you took the whole thing personally. There are other people engaged in this discourse, or did you not see that?

This is the last I shall communicate with you on any subject. I choose not to communicate with those who will not remain civil, those who have too limited a comprehension level, and those who suffer from both impediments to intelligent conversation.

Originally posted by Duster
Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Read what I said.
I did, including the part where you said the program was biased. If you read my original rebutal, you may see that only points 4 and 5 addressed comments you made, yet you took the whole thing personally. There are other people engaged in this discourse, or did you not see that?

This is the last I shall communicate with you on any subject. I choose not to communicate with those who will not remain civil, those who have too limited a comprehension level, and those who suffer from both impediments to intelligent conversation.

"This is the last I shall communicate with you on any subject."

Right, because you look like the arrogant SOB that you have been acting like. You are loosing the debate, and I've pointed out how you're stating these things, saying I lack intellect, etc., as do the others, when I never even said it didn't happen, which you are so mindlessly intent on claiming I did!

"I choose not to communicate with those who will not remain civil,"

There's nothing worse, than some jerk-off, coming in, insulting people for no reason and calling them idiot's based on something you assume about them, that's proven to be untrue, based on their previous statements which conflict with your claims about them and what they said or meant. You come in and start calling people stupid, for things they never said, other than to make a few comments about the topic at hand -- not saying it didn't happen -- and you're bound to get a similar reaction from said person. Try and figure that one out, Mr. civility. What a joke!

"those who have too limited a comprehension level,"

Prove that's true. You're saying I lack comprehension, you arrogant dick, but you only say this, because you look like a blundering fool, because you're so desperate to appear like you know when you're talking about -- which you do not - all about a claim as to what I said, which I never did. Where did I say it didn't happen? Show some evidence of this claim, for once, or try and understand why I'm not intent on being pals with someone that has no other intent, than being an *******!

"and those who suffer from both impediments to intelligent conversation."

Oh, I see. In other words, people that don't agree with YOU or take what YOU say to be fact, without question, and not even in the smallest degree of even posting a comment about wondering about something, than they lack the ability to interject anything of value whatsoever, into an "intelligent conversation" -- especially if you don't personally like them. Well, I guess you've really put me in my place. Now I'm really impressed. Where did you go to school to get to be so damn cool, "Duster"? It's not surprising to run into someone with such a fragile ego, that they resort to such pathetic tactics as you have, in this and other debates. This is nothing knew, you're not the first jerk I've run into and you'll likely not be the last either.

Try and deal with the fact that people aren't going to mindlessly follow your own personal logic, and try very hard to not confuse that with the other person being less intellectual or knowledgeable or comprehensive than you -- because I can say with all confidence, that is not the case, not in this case. Good luck with that, "Duster"... talk about a waste of time. An interesting debate turns into you letting us all know how cool and superior you think you are. I'm sure you must be proud. Notwithstanding, this is going nowhere, because of the pig-headedness of you and your ego, so I'll leave you to that. :-)

After all this, I would still like to say that I don't believe man has ever been to the moon. We could discuss hundreds of reasons why or why not, but the deciding factor is my gut feeling, and it tells me we've never been there.

I apologize if I started a hot topic with some of you :D

Originally posted by tabernack
After all this, I would still like to say that I don't believe man has ever been to the moon. We could discuss hundreds of reasons why or why not, but the deciding factor is my gut feeling, and it tells me we've never been there.

I apologize if I started a hot topic with some of you :D

No need to apologize for feeling what you do, or for how other people react and do throughout the conversation that they volunteered their thoughts, and often ego, to. I don't think it's the conversation, as much as it is just people wanting to try and use it as a forum to explain how cool they are to other people.

He didn't say anything that was at all useful other than the "solar wind" theory. So, what did he say that was so insightful? Mind you, I didn't argue everything he said, just pointing out how it can be easily argued, not for the sake of not agreeing.. he seemed to miss that point, because he was so intent on acting like a know-it-all about something he obviously doesn't know much about.

So, in that case, we could have been debating what was the better cookie recipe and had the same results. Apparently, the whole "moon landing" issue, really hit a nerve with this "Duster" person. No reason to apologize for that, I still think the topic is interesting. :-)

So, with that said... I have things to do and it was funny to see his reaction.. and yes, I did some of it to get a rise out of him, and that was fun, but it's getting old and I've seen all this before. Toodles.

"I choose not to communicate with those who will not remain civil,"

There's nothing worse, than some jerk-off, coming in, insulting people for no reason and calling them idiot's

Actually, the idiots (non possessive) I was referring to were the ones who did the show. Of course, they may not be idiots, just out for ratings. I remarked here about giving credence to idiots, not suggesting anyone here was an idiot. I let them prove that for themselves.

"those who have too limited a comprehension level,"

The above proves my point once again.


"The only sin is stupidity" Oscar Wilde. :P

Originally posted by Duster
"I choose not to communicate with those who will not remain civil,"

There's nothing worse, than some jerk-off, coming in, insulting people for no reason and calling them idiot's

Actually, the idiots (non possessive) I was referring to were the ones who did the show. Of course, they may not be idiots, just out for ratings. I remarked here about giving credence to idiots, not suggesting anyone here was an idiot. I let them prove that for themselves.

"those who have too limited a comprehension level,"

The above proves my point once again.


"The only sin is stupidity" Oscar Wilde. :P

Well, I see that you've managed to stop posting. *LOL*

"Actually, the idiots (non possessive) I was referring to were the ones who did the show."

Bulls**t! It was very apparent what you meant and in what manner.

"Of course, they may not be idiots, just out for ratings. I remarked here about giving credence to idiots, not suggesting anyone here was an idiot."

Yes, you were. The non believing idiot's theory. That was clear. I don't know why you're bothering to act like you meant otherwise. Your posts had every indication of that, hence the "taking it personally". *l*

"I let them prove that for themselves."

Well, at least you tried to save face, too bad though. That was nothing less than a predictable counter measure. Although, I commend you on your efforts to retain the sarcastic arrogance that you're so infamous for.

""those who have too limited a comprehension level,"

The above proves my point once again."

And, again, based on the fact that you personally want to claim it does. Like I said about, a ego ridden jerk.

""The only sin is stupidity" Oscar Wilde. :P"

I forgive you, my child.

PS: Re: the Moon mission conspiracy, since you can't seem to grasp the obvious and are only intent on further trying to convince yourself of how much cooler and smarter you are: Yes, a lot of the stuff was pretty weak and funny.. but some of it was interesting anyway... I don't have to believe in something to be interested in the conversation, be it theory, philosophy or whatever.. if not, how could someone even enjoy a movie or life or any thought, other than static, boring information from a book? You don't have to be an arrogant dick, nor a conspiracy nut to just entertain some thoughts and actually dare to converse about them, without some jerk trying it use it as a tool to be a snob and let us all know it.

Is this supposed to be of any value, or am I cursed with some moron that's going to act like he's smarter than I, and be on my case constantly, because I didn't kiss his ass and agree to his egoism riddled comments? There's no escape, is there? I mean, can't you see this for what it is? And still, you CONTINUE and do it? How friggin' IRONIC and pathetic! You are simply non relenting, to the extreme, Duster, and it's so incredibly ridiculous how far you will go to boost your own ego -- without a thought or care how it represents you. I will never put up with someone's arrogant crap, when they have no reason in the world to be acting in such a manner and I will respond in kind, if need be. Deal with it, you egotistical nut! And, goodbye!

BadAstronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) and The Great Moon Hoax (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm)

Originally posted by tabernack
After all this, I would still like to say that I don't believe man has ever been to the moon. We could discuss hundreds of reasons why or why not, but the deciding factor is my gut feeling, and it tells me we've never been there.

I apologize if I started a hot topic with some of you :D
You can't argue with gut feelings or other emotional reactions, at least not successfully.

You didn't start a hot topic and have nothing to apologize for. Some people just haven't learned how to communicate and resort to ad hominem attacks when logic fails them. That's certainly not your fault.

Do understand that the purpose of the Fox show was not to raise a valid question, but to raise ratings, just as with the alien autopsy special. If that were not true, why did they tell lies (some under the guise of "they said...")?

The truth of many of the things they brought up is readily available and easy to find, yet they made no effort to do so. Why? They wouldn't have a show to put on if they did.

It's hardly surprising in a time where even the supposedly serious news media reports what's popular and commonly believed instead of what's true, regardless of how simple it is to learn the truth.

Two examples from the past bear this out, the Y2k bug and the start of the millennium. Even though there were web sites (like y2k.com) that explained what the y2k problem was, and the areas it was limited to, the news media chose to report on the hysteria and problems that would result. When I heard a local radio station talking about the y2k virus I called them up, set them straight, and told them of web sites that explained it further. Did that change anything? Not at all.

The start of the third millennium is even easier. If you can count to 10, you'd know why the millenium started this year and not Jan. 1, 2000. The U.S. Naval Observatory made a concerted effort to explain this simple fact to the news media. Did they listen? None that I'm aware of. Sadly, even CNN, which often reports on serious news when most of the media is focused on the pecadillos of elected representatives, was guilty on both counts here also.

That's why critical thinking is so important. Unfortunately, relatively few people will use the questions raised by the Fox show to learn the truth. Instead, they will argue nonsense, ignore reality, and some will even berate people who know what they are talking about becasue they perceive it as a personal attack.

There are a few other people in this discussion who realize the truth of many of the lies told by Fox, like the radiation issue. It's not hard to do All it takes to learn is to be willing to let a new idea in, have a thirst for knowledge, and the resources to slake that thirst. For all of us involved in this discussion, those resources are available via the Internet.

Originally posted by Elena
BadAstronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) and The Great Moon Hoax (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm)

Cool links, thanks. That explains the flag issue, beyond a theory of some cosmic winds. :-) I thought it was said to be waving, beyond where they were turning it into the moon's surface to secure it, and beyond any ripple effect?

Thanks, Elena. That was a most helpful contribution, a real boost and quite illuminating.

Originally posted by Duster
[QUOTE] Originally posted by tabernack
After all this, I would still like to say that I don't believe man has ever been to the moon. We could discuss hundreds of reasons why or why not, but the deciding factor is my gut feeling, and it tells me we've never been there.

I apologize if I started a hot topic with some of you :D


You didn't start a hot topic and have nothing to apologize for. Some people just haven't learned how to communicate and resort to ad hominem attacks when logic fails them. That's certainly not your fault.


You really are that lame? When logic fails me? When did I ever argue anything logical? Your theories about why it might have been, or your assumption that I ever even disagreed it happened (which I never did!) are reasons for that? That can't be rational to assume that's a lack of logic, just a disagreement of YOUR logic, or assumed or self-claimed logic or self-claimed superior logic, which is a huge joke! You're guilty of exactly what you accuse other people of, I've never been guilty of that -- you simply failed to understand.



That's why critical thinking is so important.


People go by what information that they are given, so are you calling this user's you're responding to now, dense?


Unfortunately, relatively few people will use the questions raised by the Fox show to learn the truth.


You hadn't, you simply guessed, based on your limited knowledge. That user guessed based on theirs.


Instead, they will argue nonsense, ignore reality, and some will even berate people who know what they are talking about becasue they perceive it as a personal attack.


Oh, and I guess that was about "the people that made the show too"? AGAIN, you damn nut, I NEVER said it didn't happen, I simply pointed out some interesting things about the topic that was brought up! I never ignored anything in regards to reality! PROVE I DID. Show me where that ever happened! I disagreed with YOUR assumptions about why things happened, you never did and never could prove my disagreement with your self-proclaimed knowledge (which is obviously fraudulent) was ever incorrect! Yes, you did commit personal attacks and CONTINUE to do so, even when I point out, CLEARLY, that you were completely mistaken about what I ever thought!

And don't act like this is or was ever about other people or the creators of said program. You claim you know what you were talking about, but never offered a reasonable explanation, as the individuals on the web sites Elena posted did. You offered ridiculous assumptions as reason. I argued that fact, because you just wanted to act like you knew what you were talking about, and called me an idiot for not thinking those were the best or correct answers and actually saying so! It's that simple, so pay attention, for ONCE!

That is the only problem I had with your posts. You assumed reasons for explanations, which in most cases were far off base. You didn't know about the reasons and I never stated I did either. I did recognize the outlandish aspects of the reasons you gave and responded saying such, when you tried to indicate I was an idiot for not thinking YOUR ridiculous reasons were logical. That's YOUR opinion about what happened. No two people have the same process of logic. That doesn't make the other person stupid, overly dismissive of facts or theories or reality, because they don't agree with YOUR logic about the reasons YOU have deduced to come up with YOUR answers! This is NOT ignoring facts, this is NOT unrealistic or beyond rational thought, NOR is it any reason to claim those people are lesser intelligent, because it conflicts so severely with your EGO!

Do you understand, YET!? Probably not, let me CLEARLY state this to you ONCE MORE, you ego maniac, I NEVER said it didn't happen... I simply stated things I thought were of interest to the topic at hand... I did not agree YOUR assumptions and opinions were fact, because they were not and still are not, as even the web site's illustrate! Again, this means nothing more than the simple and obvious fact, that you will blatantly lie (or unwillingly admit you're so arrogant that you will continue to say I have ignored the facts or that I'm of lesser intellect than the great YOU!). It means nothing more, since nothing more was discussed, argued, debated or stated. It simply comes down to you being guilty or exactly what you have accused other's of, which is obviously and clearly NOT a fact. I perceive the above aspects, as a personal attack, most certainly, because they were.

You can continue to claim this is due to a reaction of my lack of understanding or being convinced that it never took place -- but I have clearly shown, throughout this thread, that I NEVER once thought it didn't and that you confused my comments to meaning something they never did mean, and that I certainly understood, when you obviously did not when you made up your ridiculous reasons. I never once argued any aspect that even you mentioned that would be reasonable and my comments were simply, as I stated, out of interest to the topic at hand. However, you can continue to be a dick as long as you want, you seem to have already chosen that route long ago and plan to continue to do such.

Those are the facts, indisputably so, and you can make up whatever reason you like to be as evasive and misleading as possible, but the only people that will buy into that, are the "true" idiots... and I don't assume many, other than yourself, can figure out how to use their keyboard, let alone get onto the net to read this crap you've been spewing. There's no need to say anymore, stop lying and contorting the events for try and make you feel better about you, Duster. I'll leave it at that, but you have a lot (A LOT) to learn and you desperately need a clue!

[Edited by Tim_Greer on 03-24-2001 at 09:05 PM]

Mission Control to WHT:

We're picking up a lot of static in some of your transmissions. (over)

Please turn up the squelch control.(over)

A lot of garbage is coming through on the squawk box.(over)
-- --- --- ----
That's better.(over)

Mission Control over and out.

Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP!

Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP!

Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP!

Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP! Oh crap! I can't stop posting, I'm compulsive! HELP!


*thud*

My point in my earlier communication that seems to have been missed is, which is the simplest explanation that fits all the available facts.

You have all argued persuasively for your point of view but this does not mean that either party is correct.

All the "verifiable facts" seem to be open to interpretation.

Can you fool a nation?

With the technology that existed in 1969 it would seem to be an almost impossible task to accomplish a manned return trip to the moon. Given the state of computing power at that time versus today it would be like comparing candles to solar flares.

Would NASA be too smart to make mistakes? Possibly, but they did lose a Mar's Lander a couple of years ago because they confused km with miles. So anything's possible.

The psychological value of reaching the moon and the impact upon the Russian psyche would make any means justified.

There is no way that I am aware of that would allow a nation or an individual to track a miniscule, fast moving object in the vast realms of space so this point would appear to be a non-starter (try isolating Jupiter in a telescope for a first hand perspective on the difficulty of doing this).

The premise of the argument is that the Apollo missions and others did in fact launch but that they did not leave the earth's atmosphere.

Was the technology sufficient at that time to track this type of earth orbit? I don't know the answer but I would imagine that if you knew where to look you would probably see it. Since no one thought to look if it was orbiting it would look like one more satellite in the sky.

Anyway enough rambling on what I thought and still think is a very interesting topic.

This question should definitively answer itself once we can once again accurately survey the moon's surface. If the program is correct than the Japanese should provide the data in 2 years.

On a final note, can you prove the existence of God?

Franc

Originally posted by geekwannabe
This question should definitively answer itself once we can once again accurately survey the moon's surface. If the program is correct than the Japanese should provide the data in 2 years.

Why would that be true? Wouldn't the same people who refuse to believe the evidence that we've been to the moon simply choose to believe that the Japanese are in on the conspiracy then as well?

Originally posted by geekwannabe

On a final note, can you prove the existence of God?




(Also known as the Pizza Proof)

There is good pizza, better pizza and yummy, yummy! Domino's; so there must be a Best Being.

Originally posted by tfc
There is good pizza, better pizza and yummy, yummy! Domino's; so there must be a Best Being.


Hey...this is called Anselm Ontological Proof! Not a pizza proof! ;) The proof has a flaw in it, though.... This can go on and on but I prefer not to discuss it here since this has nothing to do with the original topic :D

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by dektong
Originally posted by tfc
There is good pizza, better pizza and yummy, yummy! Domino's; so there must be a Best Being.


Hey...this is called Anselm Ontological Proof! Not a pizza proof! ;) The proof has a flaw in it, though.... This can go on and on but I prefer not to discuss it here since this has nothing to do with the original topic :D

cheers,
:beer:


Hi Dektong

Actually, the Pizza Proof is Aristotle's. Anselm's proof is the "fish-story proof":


I caught a fish soooo big, it had all the predicates, including existence.

Ever see the movie "Contact" (was that the name of it)? She asks for proof of God and the guy says "Did you love your father? Prove that love existed." If a tree falls in the forest and you're not there to hear it, does someone in New York pass gas?

(OK, I'll try to be a serious for a painless minute.)


Hi Tim

Yep, I remember that movie. Your mention of it reminds me of a scene subsequent (?) to the one you point out, where the traveling scientist (played by Foster) is asked about the principle of Ockham's razor (mentioned a few times in this thread) by her main doubter (played by James Woods). Ockham was an Anselm critic (although he reserved his sharpest attacks for Aquinas), opposing the use of faith to settle matters of reason and vice versa. Whatever Ockham's faith, he denounced the deduction of putative facts (about the world) from pure reason.

Anyway, my point, and it's minor at best: No empirical evidence has been produced for the Faking of the Apollo 11 Mission; there are, however, the moon rocks here on Earth, for example, to support the Other View.

About the proverbial tree and the gas-passing New Yorker...Don't know much at all about Complexity Theory, although I did (once) glance at the cover of Ekeland's _Broken Dice_.

Originally posted by geekwannabe
...
Can you fool a nation?

With the technology that existed in 1969 it would seem to be an almost impossible task to accomplish a manned return trip to the moon. Given the state of computing power at that time versus today it would be like comparing candles to solar flares.
...

You'd be surprised just how little computer power is required for space flight. About a year ago, NASA "upgraded" the Hubble Space Telescope's computer from an Intel 386 with about 100k of memory to an Intel 486 with a whopping 2 megabytes of memory.

No one seemed to comment on the loss of the Mar's Pathfinder by NASA as an example of possible fallibility.

Empirical evidence? There is a common concept in analyzing a hypothesis and that is that you cannot use facts that solely derive from the issue at hand to support the position. You cannot use facts or evidence produced by the Moon Landing to prove that the Moon Landing actually occurred. That's why this is so fascinating.

The reason I was intrigued was that I found that the people who presented the evidence on the Fox program "seemed" to be highly credible, intelligent individuals. Perhaps it is naive of me to assume that they were telling the truth about the science involved to support their position.

Nevertheless, their version of the "empirical" evidence presented was quite intriguing. When I first saw the title of the program I laughed out loud but after I watched it I found myself questioning the whole event.

Either way it won't change my life.

Anyway on the issue of computing power, more is always better. For a recent example of how difficult this whole concept of dealing with space travel, look at the difficulty faced in calculating the exact position of the splashdown location of the recently downed Mir space station.

Knowing where it was going to land was a major headache and somewhat unpredictable.

Even if NASA was 99.999% accurate in faking the event it still leaves the chance that they missed something that might be discovered by conspiracy theorists. Given the mountains of available data and the "fuzziness" of some of it, it's no surprise that this cottage industry has developed.

Governments lie and they cover things up when they can if they will put those who govern in a bad light. Clinton anyone? It's naive to believe that this can and won't happen.

Given the state of society and particularly technology in 1969 (black and white TV for God's sake) and the lack of pervasive communication channels like the Internet and you can see why it would be easier to pull off something as audacious as this idea.

PT Barnum would have loved it.

Will the Japanese cover up? I don't know and I don't care as I find the mental gymnastics we have been engaged quite fascinating. I also find it a testament to the quality of the intellects that reside on this board.

Who says we are one-dimensioal.

You're greatly mistaken about the state of technology in 1969. While personal computers were still years away, there were computers in large businesses, universities, the military and NASA.

Do you believe that all the space missions were faked, including Sputnik? If not, then technology was available.

It wasn't the Stone Age and color TV is something else you are mistaken about. It had been available for at least 3 years. It caught on quickly and by 1969, most of the new and original programming was in color.

It's lamentable that so many people would give credence to a show whose purpose is clearly to garner ratings instead of investigating their ridiculous claims. Once you investigate (unless you already have a knowledge of science), it is easy to find why they are ridiculous.

Of course if the producers had done that, there would have been no show.

Hi Franc

That was your post-final post, eh? :)

For a second there, I thought you were confusing fact and reason, or you thought that I was (not difficult these days, trust me); but it occurs to me that you're merely pointing out that my earlier post apparently does nothing more than beg the question, since I'm assuming to be true that which is my duty to prove--i.e., that those rocks are indeed from the lunar surface; or that what I wrote amounts to nothing more than circumvention. OK.

I can't, of course, prove that: Even if I had two stones on my table, I couldn't choose the moon rock over the fossilized fish, just as I don't have the expertise to distinguish diamond from glass. So I rely, in the latter case, on my local jeweler (hopefully my wife doesn´t!) for that information. There might be those who visit a hundred gemologists before they're satisfied (and even then...) An imperfect analogy, but anyway...Yes, I stand by my post: The studies done on the rocks by numerous scientists around the globe lends *support* to the lunar landing. These third-party (of course, some will undoubtedly argue that no such animal as an impartial third-party exists) observations will not *prove* to everyone's satisfaction that humans went to the moon, but again, no equally compelling physical evidence is forthcoming from the Other Side (and this last clause is, of course, subject to the same argument of logic...and so it goes).

Beyond the rocks and the photographs and the testimonies of the astronauts themselves, etc., I suppose the proper way to "prove" a lunar landing would be to gather everyone on the planet for a field trip to the moon for observation, documentation, and perhaps a flag-waving demonstration.

But I can understand and appreciate the reactions of those who believe the whole thing is a hoax: A truth of reason--however flawed I might think it to be--can't be considered untrue without contradiction.

Speaking of the reason/fact distinction, maybe I should have added "of course, I'm accepting the moon's existence itself as a fact":

In a PS to my previous post, someone mailed me the following link:

http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/Moon3.htm

Satire? I'd hope so, but frankly I'm not sure.

they have nothing, to show on TV but things like this, Fox is fast running out of ideas...

Originally posted by tfc
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/Moon3.htm


And I will pay them $100,001 if they can prove than moon does not exist! Gee... what a joke!

cheers,
:beer:

I was being polite in my earlier posts.

Insults and innuendos are the signs of desperate people.

Super Computers exist today but not everyone has one. The most pervasive visual technology in people's homes was black and white TV. Vacuum tube technology was pervasive. That is the point. It would be easier to fool people at that time because they were far more unsophisticated. I myself am old enough to remember watching B&W TV.

Are you purposely ignoring the content of my last post and previous posts?

Duster Said:
"Do you believe that all the space missions were faked, including Sputnik? If not, then technology was available."

To which my prior anticipated reply was:
"With the technology that existed in 1969 it would seem to be an almost impossible task to accomplish a manned return trip to the moon."
"There is no way that I am aware of that would allow a nation or an individual to track a miniscule, fast moving object in the vast realms of space so this point would appear to be a non-starter (try isolating Jupiter in a telescope for a first hand perspective on the difficulty of doing this)."
"The premise of the argument is that the Apollo missions and others did in fact launch but that they did not leave the earth's atmosphere."

"Empirical evidence? There is a common concept in analyzing a hypothesis and that is that you cannot use facts that solely derive from the issue at hand to support the position. You cannot use facts or evidence produced by the Moon Landing to prove that the Moon Landing actually occurred."

I have not stated what my opinion is on this issue purely because I like to argue both sides of the issue.

"Either way it won't change my life."
"Even if NASA was 99.999% accurate in faking the event it still leaves the chance that they missed something that might be discovered by conspiracy theorists. Given the mountains of available data and the "fuzziness" of some of it, it's no surprise that this cottage industry has developed."
"Will the Japanese cover up? I don't know and I don't care."

I am simply pointing out in detail the many potential flaws in the evidence that could lead someone to conclude that the moon landing could have been contrived.

Moon Rock? How about an asteroid. Who would know the difference? All that the rock tells us is that it is not terrestrial in origin.

Computers existed, that is correct but the computers that did exist where no more powerful than a pocket calculator. You know Moore's Law as well as I do. If you can lose an unmanned space probe with today's technology, computing power, experience, and advancements then how were they able to flawlessly pull off a return manned space trip?

Why hasn't a manned space vehicle left the earth's atmosphere since the last Apollo mission?

If you think there is nothing to be learned by returning to space than we may as well assume that we have all the answers and forget about doing any further research?

I think it is this one issue that fuels the flames of the conspiracy theorists. Why don't we go to Mars since it is only a matter of distance?

You have to admit that it was a miraculous achievement, and perhaps that is where the answer lies for both positions.

Is Global Warming a fact or a fiction? It depends upon your position. Both sides in the debate have "mountains" of evidence to support their position.

Since Fox is a Broadcaster why wouldn't they do things to boost ratings? It's their business.

We are all friends here and I like to keep debates non-personal and avoid the Ad-hominem.

By the way can anybody tell me how to format other people's posts in quotations as so many of you do so well. Also is there a way to capture multiple quotes from different people in the same response?

(after completing this post I discovered the process, thanks anyway)

I really am done by the way!

Thanks,
Franc

[Edited by geekwannabe on 03-26-2001 at 02:31 PM]

Originally posted by geekwannabe
Insults and innuendos are the signs of desperate people.
My own belief is that insults are the refuge of the immature, insecure and intellectually incompetent.


Are you purposely ignoring the content of my last post and previous posts?
I ask you the same. You are mistaken about color tv in 1969, as you are mistaken about many other things. Simply repeating that there was B&W and an attempt at misdirection by mentioning vacuum tube technology does not refute what I said (it can't) and does not alter the truth.


Super Computers exist today but not everyone has one. The most pervasive visual technology in people's homes was black and white TV. Vacuum tube technology was pervasive. That is the point. It would be easier to fool people at that time because they were far more unsophisticated. I myself am old enough to remember watching B&W TV.

[quote]
To which my prior anticipated reply was:
"With the technology that existed in 1969 it would seem to be an almost impossible task to accomplish a manned return trip to the moon."
Aside from the fact that you ahave already demonstrated being wrong about the technologies available in 1969, all the previous Apollo missions would have to have been faked in order for it to be true that Apollo 11 was. We didn't simply go to the moon and land on it. We went to the moon and orbited it, did some tests in its gravity, and returned to Earth. This was done over various Apollo missions. Building on what we learned, Apollo 11 landed on the lunar surface.

"There is no way that I am aware of that would allow a nation or an individual to track a miniscule, fast moving object in the vast realms of space so this point would appear to be a non-starter (try isolating Jupiter in a telescope for a first hand perspective on the difficulty of doing this)."
The operative phrase here is what you are aware of. There is a lot that you are not aware of, including the existence of color tv in the late 1960s.

The speed of launched objects does not make them difficult to track. In the vastness of space, that speed makes for relatively slow moving objects. It's true that the further out something of small mass and mostly no illumination goes, the fewer the number of entities that will be able to track it. However, there are various observatories around the world not under U.S. influence, that could do so.


"The premise of the argument is that the Apollo missions and others did in fact launch but that they did not leave the earth's atmosphere."
If all the Apollo missions launched yet remained orbiting the Earth, that would have quickly been discovered. Any amateur astronomer with a decent telescope could detect the capsule. The idea that no one, in all those missions, knew where to look and also that none came upon it either by searching or by accident is ridiculous. It does not account for those in Florida that were tracking the Apollo since its launch. You can see it for miles with the naked eye.

It does prove one thing. Conspiracy theorists, at least in this case, totally disregard common sense and anything that disproves their theory, including the physical laws of science, existence of technologies, etc.

I am simply pointing out in detail the many potential flaws in the "evidence" that could lead someone to conclude that the moon landing could have been faked.

"Computers existed, that is correct but the computers that did exist where no more powerful than a pocket calculator. "
Your ignorance is showing once again. You obviously know nothing about the computers at the time. They were big, used switches and tape drives, and had considerably more power than you believe.

"If you can lose an unmanned space probe with today's technology, computing power, experience, and advancements then how were they able to flawlessly pull off a return manned space trip?"
Feed back from the astronauts is one way. The fact that they are able to make flight adjustments, something an unmanned probe can't do on its own, is one huge difference.

Not all of the returns were flawless. On one, Apollo 13 in 1970, there was considerable oxygen loss and danger the astronauts might die after an explosion in its SM oxygen tanks. The moon landing was aborted. Fortunately, a collaborative effort in everybody putting their noggins together (those wonderful human computers called brains) effected a remedy and the astronauts returned safely.

Of course, conspiracy theorists can always claim that NASA decided to put more action and suspense in this faked sequel.

"Why hasn't a manned space vehicle left the earth's atmosphere since the last Apollo mission?"
It's a question of allocation of resources, along with other considerations, something every business had to do as well. Each space shot costs a huge amount of money. Those resources have been largely focused on learning more about the outer planets via unmanned probes, as well as preparing for a manned space station orbiting the Earth. One of the many purposes will be to learn more about the effects of prolonged weightlessness and other physiological (and psychological) factors, perhaps in preparation for a possible landing on Mars.

"I think it is this one issue that fuels the flames of the conspiracy theorists. Why don't we go to Mars since it is only a matter of distance?"
Ignorance is what fuels the flames of the conspiracy theorists. We've been to Mars. We landed an unmanned probe on it and have orbited it, taking pictures and readings of its surface. Its surface conditions are far more demanding than those of the moon. It will take more preparation for them.

For those who are ignorant of the state of the technology in the 1960s and think we couldn't possibly have gone to the moon, landed and returned, here are a few facts:

February 3, 1966
First Spacecraft to Land on the Moon
The Russian spacecraft Luna 9 completed a 250,000 mile trip and successfully became the first spacecraft to soft-land on the moon. Luna 9 transmitted pictures of the Moon's surface back to Earth. The mission demonstrated that the Moon's surface was strong enough to support the weight of a large spacecraft.

Nearly 4 months later...
June 2, 1966
First American Spacecraft on the Moon
Surveyor 1 became the first American spacecraft to soft-land on the moon. After a journey of 63 hours and 36 minutes, Surveyor 1 successfully landed only 9 miles off its target in the Oceanus Procellarum. The spacecraft transmitted more than 11,000 high-resolution photographs before its energy sources were depleted.

September 15, 1968
First Moon Orbit
The Soviet Zond 5 is launched. It becomes the first spacecraft to orbit the moon and return.

December 21, 1968
First Manned Moon Orbit
Apollo 8 is launched with Frank Borman, James A. Lovell, Jr. and William A. Anders, the first Apollo to use the Saturn V rocket, and the first manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon, making 10 orbits on its 6-day mission.

July 20, 1969
First Manned Moon Landing
Apollo 11 makes the first successful soft landing on the moon. Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jr. become the first human beings to set foot on another world.

September 12, 1970
First Return of Lunar Soil
The Soviet Luna 16 is launched, conducting the first successful return of lunar soil samples by an automatic spacecraft.

November 17, 1970
First Robotic Lunar Mission
Luna 17 lands on the moon, with the first automatic robot, Lunokhod 1. Driven by a five-man team on earth, travelled over surface for 11 days.

Since Fox is a Broadcaster why wouldn't they do things to boost ratings? It's their business.]
Or course it is. My point is that since getting ratings is their business, nothing they say should be taken as true. What they claimed has already proven to be false (unless science is a conspiracy also).

We are all friends here and I like to keep debates non-personal and avoid the Ad-hominem.
I concur. Insults are the refuge of the immature, insecure, and intellectually incompetent. We have certainly seen that demonstrated.

By the way can anybody tell me how to format other people's posts in quotations as so many of you do so well. Also is there a way to capture multiple quotes from different people in the same response?
It's easy. You can always look at the HTML in the posts of people who do it. VBulletin, like UBB and similar programs, substitute their own code for HTML formatting, Instead of the left and right angle brackets, < and >, they use the [ and ] brackets.

For quotes, you use encase the word quote in [ and ]. Of course, you need to end the quote with /quote encased similarly.

To sum up the moon shots, three years before the Apollo 11 landing The Soviet Union landed on the moon and later orbited it. We first orbited and then later landed on it, doing the same thing that unmanned probes had done earlier.

Unless the conspiracy theorists wish us to believe that there was a conspiracy between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., bitter enemies at the time, that all the moon shots, manned or not, were faked, and that no one anywhere in the world noticed and brought it up before, it seems more reasonable to conclude that a manned landing simply followed unmanned landings that were a preparation for it.


"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes" Marcel Proust.


[Edited by Duster on 03-26-2001 at 04:00 PM]

For those about to die we salute you!

Duster, you are relentless. Are you this knowledgeable about all subjects or is this one of your particular interests?

If you will notice, like the good lawyer, that I am, I have always tempered my comments with "weasel-words" to mask my lack of anything other than direct evidence.

"Seemed, Would appear to be, almost", etc., you get the idea!

I would suggest that you are a little impolite in your directness but that's okay, you're not my mother.

Thanks for the conversation.

Originally posted by geekwannabe
Duster, you are relentless. Are you this knowledgeable about all subjects or is this one of your particular interests?
I do know a bit (or more than a bit) about a lot of topics, and I did say earlier that both inner and outer space have long been interests of mine. I am very ignorant on a much larger range of topics. We all are.

I just can't stand to see abject ignorance spread on a large scale, and conclusions drawn from that ignorance.

If you will notice, like the good lawyer, that I am, I have always tempered my comments with "weasel-words" to mask my lack of anything other than direct evidence.

"Seemed, Would appear to be, almost", etc., you get the idea!
I noticed, and their use can be judicious. It allows for the fact that we may be mistaken, that what once was believed is no longer true as new things are learned, etc. That is one reason I use them myself.

However, you also did state some things overtly that were simply not tue.

I would suggest that you are a little impolite in your directness but that's okay, you're not my mother. I don't think so, I addressed the issues, not personalities. I am a very direct person and ignore the possible effects on fragile egos in a search for the truth. That makes me not at all suited for the diplomatic corps.

Perhaps it was a lack of understanding of what ignorant means that led you to that impression. I use words for their actual meaning and look up anything I am uncertain of. We are all ignorant of many things. That doesn't make us stupid. Stupid is attempting to defend a position in a discussion from ignorance after facts have been brought out.

Thanks for the conversation.
You're welcome.

Originally posted by dektong
Originally posted by tfc
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/Moon3.htm


And I will pay them $100,001 if they can prove than moon does not exist! Gee... what a joke!

cheers,
:beer:

Cracked me up, too.

Fun site, well-done.







[Edited by tfc on 03-27-2001 at 03:03 AM]