|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 17:16:54 GMT -4
Even scientists cannot prove whether we went on the moon or not. What we can prove through science is very limited and as far as I know what scientists can do is refute some ridiculous claims, but as far as I know they can't prove anything with certainty. They can make sense of what they see, but then again they can't run a computer model in their head and know whether a picture is fake or not just by looking at it. Moreover, the proof we have currently do not prove that we went there with certainty, contrarily to what many persons believe. It's like saying just because we found sperm on a dead girl's body I had sex with her. It only suggest that I had sex with her and in our legal system that can be a reasonable proof that would put me behind bars, but as far as I know that is not an absolute proof.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Mar 1, 2011 17:38:21 GMT -4
No-one knows? How about the 12 men who actually walked on the Moon and the 6 who orbited in the CSMs? Don't you think they would know with absolute certainty? As certain as anyone can be. I get the feeling that the normal line of reasoning is not going to cut much ice with you.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 1, 2011 17:49:23 GMT -4
Hi, kimchijjigae. Welcome to the board.
If you're saying that images may have been faked, please consider that the Apollo record includes thousands of still images from the moon and hundreds of hours of motion imagery - all consistent with the documented explorations. In addition, the landing artifacts have been imaged recently by the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter.
If you're saying that all of this could have been faked, then it's not simply enough to assert it. You need to identify actual instances of such fakery, how it could have been faked, and show that such fakes invalidate the rest of the imagery.
But then, as ipearse mentioned, there is the testimony of the persons who explored the Moon themselves - actually set foot on it and orbited around it.
There is much, much more evidence, both direct and indirect. But first things first.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 1, 2011 18:25:23 GMT -4
Welcome to the board kimchijjigae.
Even scientists cannot prove whether we went on the moon or not.
Why are scientists some special case?
What we can prove through science is very limited...
I doubt that many scientists would disagree with you, but it depends on what you mean by proof. If you mean that I can prove I burn my hand when I put it in flame, or an ice cube will melt when I put it in the sun; I can prove those things empirically. Proof means something very different to qualified scientists, it takes on a deep philosophical meaning. That's why I get tired of listening to hoax theorists talk about proof. They seem to adopt their version of proof, and never look at other evidence.
Proof is not a simple term to band around. It's a practice in science, and has a very careful meaning.
Talking from experience, most scientists that have studied the pure subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology to PhD level, would actually agree with you. But then it depends on what you define as proof.
I am very familiar with Karl Popper, and take his philosophy very seriously. It frames the art that I weave, and that is the art of physics. What I do is create models to describe the universe, and they are very abstract. Can I prove them. Not really. I can only say that they fit observations to a certain level of confidence. For instance, General Relativity (not my model) has been confirmed to several parts in a billion. In science that is a very good model. Does it prove the theory of relativity. No, but it proves that Relativity is a good theory to describe gravity.
So, be careful of what you mean by the term proof. In terms of Apollo, it is a less abstract concept and does not lend it self well to the philosophical tie of proof and scientists that you seem to want to adhere to and use as your opening gambit.
and as far as I know what scientists can do is refute some ridiculous claims...
And that is what they are, ridiculous claims that don't fit the models of nature. Models which have been tested and verified to high precision.
I'm reading some comments on Jarrah White's latest effort, from a character called Aurinkohivri. He claims that it only takes a layman to digest solar physics and know that Apollo was fake. Reading through his comments I can quickly point him to literature that shows how wrong he is, highlighting that it takes more than a layman to understand flare physics. It takes someone who is researched in the area, and knows the field well.
So, while I take your point that scientists cannot prove anything, I think you'll only find scientists talk in terms of confidence. However, I have never seen a piece of hoax evidence that stands up to scientific or logical scrutiny. So, I can say with 100% confidence, that all evidence presented so far is bunk.
Moreover, the proof we have currently do not prove that we went there with certainty, contrarily to what many persons believe.
I think I understand the sentence. You seem to be contradicting yourself however. You have argued that scientists have no absolute proof, but now seem to be arguing from the point of absolute proof to support your point. I may not have understood you properly, so you might like to explain this again.
They can make sense of what they see, but then again they can't run a computer model in their head and know whether a picture is fake or not just by looking at it.
I'm not sure of your point here. Why are computer models superior to the physical models that they represent? Computer models are for doing number crunching of models based on physical laws that are contrives of humans, not computers. Rubbish in, rubbish out.
One of the finest computers in the world is out brain. Train it, and you can look at pictures and decide if they are fake or not.
I've also never met a scientist that claims to have run a computer model in his head. Have you?
It's like saying just because we found sperm on a dead girl's body I had sex with her. It only suggest that I had sex with her and in our legal system that can be a reasonable proof that would put me behind bars, but as far as I know that is not an absolute proof.
I guess you are talking about DNA. It is one reason I do not believe in the death penalty as I do not believe science should resolve whether the state has the right to kill someone. This is a deeper issue however, and one of moral justice and boundaries with science. There is a rich thread of criminal philosophy running through your example. I'll run with this though. Finding your sperm on the dead woman is not enough to convict you. Finding you fingerprints on the weapon, CCTV evidence of you breaking into her house on the night of her murder, and your tire and foot marks where the body was found might build up chain of evidence that implicates you.
That is what we have with Apollo, a chain of evidence. It all fits together very well.
Since you seem to be preaching to the converted, I don't really see what your point is, and why this challenges the authenticity of Apollo?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 1, 2011 18:54:08 GMT -4
I'm not sure I want to know under what circumstances your sperm would get on someone you hadn't had sex with. In fact, I'd like to be able to stop thinking about that now.
At bare minimum, Apollo has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any further than that, and you're moving into philosophy, not science. The fact is, no one can take a serious and open-minded look at the evidence and come to any other reasonable conclusion but that the United States successfully completed the described missions. I've managed to come up with "feasible" conspiracy scenarios for various other events, but I've never been able to even imagine one which works given the sheer weight of evidence and the sheer variety of types of evidence are involved.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 1, 2011 19:29:54 GMT -4
There is a vast mountain of evidence Apollo landed on the moon, testimony, documents, images, and material returned to Earth that could only have formed on the moon. On the other side there is a failure to understand the physics of light, a lack of knowledge about photography, and a picture of what is claimed to be a 'C' on a rock. What should a reasonable person examining the evidence conclude? Of course if you set the bar for proof at infinite height then nothing can be proved but I wonder if you apply the same rigorous standard to those who claim that Apollo was a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 20:16:25 GMT -4
The two most cited reasons for why we should believe men landed on the moon is 1) we returned A LOT of samples and 2) the laser reflector on the moon.
First of all, we can only say that only the samples that have been tested may come from the moon, implying that if all the rocks brought back from the moon were not tested those rocks may not be of lunar origin.
Secondly, do you need to put a man on the moon for there to be a laser reflector on the moon? My response is no. Unmanned probes can do the job.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 1, 2011 20:46:40 GMT -4
First of all, we can only say that only the samples that have been tested may come from the moon, implying that if all the rocks brought back from the moon were not tested those rocks may not be of lunar origin.
Where's Jay when you need him? He's good at naming logical fallacies. I can't even begin to work out what logical fallacy applies here. The lunar samples that have been tested have an abundance of evidence to show they were formed in a place that is not Earth. What specific characteristics regarding the origin of those rocks do you dispute?
Secondly, do you need to put a man on the moon for there to be a laser reflector on the moon? My response is no. Unmanned probes can do the job.
What unmanned probes were sent to the moon to place the retroreflectors? Please name the craft, provide launch dates, and proof of their assembly/launch.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 21:10:01 GMT -4
Prove that we absolutely need to send men to put a reflector on the moon. You can't. That's why it's an argument.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Mar 1, 2011 21:32:36 GMT -4
Prove that we absolutely need to send men to put a reflector on the moon. You can't. That's why it's an argument. Really? This is your position? "I can come up with a random scenario that has no evidentiary support whatsoever therefore I win?" Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Mar 1, 2011 21:34:20 GMT -4
Even scientists cannot prove whether we went on the moon or not. What we can prove through science is very limited and as far as I know what scientists can do is refute some ridiculous claims, but as far as I know they can't prove anything with certainty. They can make sense of what they see, but then again they can't run a computer model in their head and know whether a picture is fake or not just by looking at it. Moreover, the proof we have currently do not prove that we went there with certainty, contrarily to what many persons believe. It's like saying just because we found sperm on a dead girl's body I had sex with her. It only suggest that I had sex with her and in our legal system that can be a reasonable proof that would put me behind bars, but as far as I know that is not an absolute proof. You are correct, but it is a rather meaningless statement. Because it is impossible to prove with absolute certainty, the historical record with the evidence for it is generally taken to be true, unless you can prove it is not. Think about it: you can't prove with 100% certainty that the Second World War happened. You can't prove with 100% certainty that you were born from your mother. Yet for both these things there are (probably, I don't know your personal situation) lots of evidence. Now, a DNA test might put your mom or dad in an uncomfortable situation (again assuming a "normal" background), or it might confirm the historical record. There are others here who are much better at explaining this than I am, but I think I got the gist of it.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 1, 2011 21:40:41 GMT -4
Secondly, do you need to put a man on the moon for there to be a laser reflector on the moon? My response is no. Unmanned probes Magic fairies on flying unicorns can do the job. Fixed that for you. Do you realy not see the contradiction in your position? You say that the veracity of something for which there is a mountain of documentary evidence should be questioned because you can come up with an alternative explanation for which there is no evidence whatsoever?. So, everyone else should give unimpeachable evidence for their position, but you don't need to provide anything but unsupported conjecture to support your side? Sorry - You don't get a "free pass" at the expense of people who have accomplished so much.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 1, 2011 21:44:45 GMT -4
Prove that we absolutely need to send men to put a reflector on the moon. You can't. That's why it's an argument. Apparently the videos of Apollo astronauts deploying reflectors on the Moon don't satisfy you. Why?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 1, 2011 21:55:59 GMT -4
Prove that we absolutely need to send men to put a reflector on the moon. You can't. That's why it's an argument. We can play that game all day. Prove to me that Australia exists. I've never been there myself, so how can I be 100% sure? You can show me pictures or video, but they could be fake. You could get 24 people who claim to have been there to tell me all about it, but they could have been paid to go along with a lie. You could show me a rock and say "this rock came from Australia", but I'm not a geologist so all rocks look the same to me. You could offer to fly me to Australia... but how do I know it's not a trick. Maybe you'll just hypnotize me. Or maybe I'll get on the plane and you'll blow it up in mid air. That is how unreasonable hoax believers are. They don't accept the overwhelming evidence that supports Apollo. And they also don't offer an alternative theory that makes more sense than NASAs official story.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 21:57:05 GMT -4
Secondly, do you need to put a man on the moon for there to be a laser reflector on the moon? My response is no. Unmanned probes Magic fairies on flying unicorns can do the job. Fixed that for you. Do you realy not see the contradiction in your position? You say that the veracity of something for which there is a mountain of documentary evidence should be questioned because you can come up with an alternative explanation for which there is no evidence whatsoever?. So, everyone else should give unimpeachable evidence for their position, but you don't need to provide anything but unsupported conjecture to support your side? Sorry - You don't get a "free pass" at the expense of people who have accomplished so much. You absolutely didn't grasp what I said. I said it can't be known with certainty. I never said it was a hoax.
|
|