|
Post by laurel on Mar 1, 2011 22:01:51 GMT -4
So if you're not saying it was a hoax, what are you saying? Do you think there is sufficient evidence that Apollo was real or not?
|
|
|
Post by peterscreek on Mar 1, 2011 22:02:14 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 can do the job. Your assertion is a little to simple to be compatible with reality, I'm afraid. Sure, I suppose one could say that an unmanned probe capable of placing the LRRR wasn't beyond the technology of the day. But saying that and leaving it at that fails to account for other real-world considerations. Try this: Could unmanned probe technology of the time deploy the LRRR and other Lunar surface experiments and return several hundred pounds of Lunar dust, core samples, and rocks, some of which were photographed in place prior to collection? Could probes capable of such activity be funded, developed, manufactured, tested, transported, launched, and recovered in absolute secrecy undiscovered to this day? Would the inflight and surface operations of these probes be consistent with the observations made at the time by astronomers, radio astronomers, and ham radio operators? Would the surface activity of these probes be consistent with the high resolution images recently obtained of the landing sites? I'm sure I left something out but you get the idea, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 22:02:32 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. I do not call into question reality as we perceive itself. I came here to tell you, here, right now people take NASA claims as their holy texts, even though 95% people here don't have the ability to prove it within reasonable doubt, not meaning copy and paste arguments put forth by experts, and lack sufficient abilities to fully grasp every facet of the arguments used.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 1, 2011 22:05:42 GMT -4
So if we shouldn't be relying on arguments put forth by experts, who should we listen to? Maybe those people are considered experts for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 1, 2011 22:07:57 GMT -4
You absolutely didn't grasp what I said. I said it can't be known with certainty. I never said it was a hoax. We grasp what you're saying. You can't be 100% sure NASA is telling the truth any more than you can be 100% you aren't living inside "the Matrix". But you can be very reasonably certain that Apollo landed on the Moon because the evidence supports it and there is no evidence that it was faked. Something doesn't have to be proven 100% in order to say "Okay, I'm convinced." NASA has convinced me, the hoax believers have not.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 22:13:18 GMT -4
For most people here, it is a matter of belief than reason. If one person respond "yes" to a question because his friend said so and he didn't even understand the question, can we argue that he know something? No, most people here don't know anything in fact. It is just a matter of belief for them. This explains why people had the knee-jerk reaction of shifting the burden of proof on me, or had to resort to copy and paste. These people don't truly "know" even if it was true. It's funny how people argue for or against something as if doubt never crossed their mind.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Mar 1, 2011 22:13:48 GMT -4
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. I do not call into question reality as we perceive itself. I came here to tell you, here, right now people take NASA claims as their holy texts, even though 95% people here don't have the ability to prove it within reasonable doubt, not meaning copy and paste arguments put forth by experts, and lack sufficient abilities to fully grasp every facet of the arguments used. Yes you do. You do call into question reality as we perceive it. As we perceive any other part of history with sufficient evidence to support it. But now you switch from calling into question the historical record to calling in question the ability of those here to investigate the available evidence. This is a different argument from the one I responded to, but it doesn't matter. Even if your new argument is true, even if 95% of us here are too dumb to properly understand the evidence for the historical record, that would still not be evidence that the historical record is wrong. You are still waiving around an empty argument. It has no meaning. It has no substance. And it still leaves 5% who do "have the ability to prove it within reasonable doubt". Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 22:19:17 GMT -4
I am not saying that people are wrong. I am saying that I don't know and I would like you to prove me that we can know it with certainty, which I really doubt. Since I don't assert anything, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who want to fervently and blindly defend their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 1, 2011 22:20:51 GMT -4
What kind of proof are you looking for exactly, or did you just come here to play mind games and insult people?
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 1, 2011 22:25:57 GMT -4
I came here partly to ascertain my suspicion that no one here can prove it within "reasonable doubt".
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 1, 2011 22:50:01 GMT -4
I came here partly to ascertain my suspicion that no one here can prove it within "reasonable doubt". How does all of this not qualify as "beyond reasonable doubt"? - thousands of photographs
- hours of film/video
- eyewitness testimony from 24 astronauts
- the testimony of the radio engineers at various receiving stations around the world
- the testimony of thousands of people who witnessed the launches
- the testimony of the thousands of people who built the Apollo hardware
- the confirmation from other nations (some of which were enemies of the United States)
- the hundreds of pounds of moon rock and soil samples
If people still have doubts they are not reasonable doubts. If one person claimed to have gotten to the Moon all by themselves then I would think the guy was nuts... but Apollo wasn't a one man operation... thousands of people were involved. There is no reason to doubt them all.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 1, 2011 23:48:05 GMT -4
I came here partly to ascertain my suspicion that no one here can prove it within "reasonable doubt". Let's turn this around. What is your theory on how the hoax was perpetrated?
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Mar 2, 2011 0:12:16 GMT -4
For most people here, it is a matter of belief than reason. It seems you are confusing us with the Hoax Believers. As for the certainty thing, I don't know with absolute certainty that I'm not a hallucinating brain kept alive inside a jar in some mad scientists lab. (If I am, I'd rather not know.) All I can do is analyse my experiences and observations. I've come to the conclusions that Apollo is at least as real as that 1,000 foot tall iron tower in the city of Paris, France. I've never personally seen or touched it, but I've never seen or heard anything that casts doubt on the existence of the Eiffel Tower. I've never seen or heard anything that casts doubt on the reality of Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 2, 2011 1:09:42 GMT -4
Okay. You're saying we can't know anything with 100% certainty. So far, so good. There are ways and ways around things.
You're saying we're parroting what we've read elsewhere? Wrong. For starters, there are people here who have directly worked with technology and data created by and for Apollo. Those people know that what they do wouldn't work if the Apollo record were faked unless it also happened to be faked in a way which made everything they do coincidentally work out right. And that's a reasonable explanation?
Besides, "parroting" implies repeating without understanding. No, okay, I don't really understand a lot of the more technological discussion. Most of the details about radiation go right over my head. However, I have studied geology, and I know why the arguments about the Moon rocks can only be explained (with any reasonable restraints) by Apollo's having been real. I understand why we do not have the technology to fake the Moon rocks. I understand why it's a ludicrous assertion to claim that we sent probes to get the samples. I understand that people who understand a whole heck of a lot more than I have worked with the samples, and I know that not one of them has cried fake.
What have you got, other than bluster?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 2, 2011 1:29:32 GMT -4
I came here partly to ascertain my suspicion that no one here can prove it within "reasonable doubt". All my doubt has been removed thanks to years of meticulous research. If you still have doubt after studying the subject as extensively as I have (as well as others here), then I would argue that your doubt is not reasonable. ... not meaning copy and paste arguments put forth by experts, and lack sufficient abilities to fully grasp every facet of the arguments used. Some of us here are experts. Many of the "copy and paste arguments" to which you refer were likely put forth by members of this forum.
|
|