|
Post by Glom on Apr 10, 2011 16:45:44 GMT -4
I believe it is now time to bring up Occam's Razor. Putting equal weight on secret probes as an explanation for the rocks as men picking them up as we know happened violates Occam's Razor because it gives undue weight to a hypothesis that depends on total speculation and enormous contrivance.
There is no equivalence. The latter is 99.9999% proven. The former is 0.00000% proven. I'm going with the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Apr 10, 2011 16:47:56 GMT -4
I think Jay had been carrying the debunking ring of power long enough. It is now up to us to pick up the burden until the ring can be returned to where it was forged, in the fires of a manned moon launch. "For children to grow up, their parents have to die." It is our time. The Children of Jay riseth! Still, you know he was especially got at handling the content less pseudo-intellectual crap that we're being offered here.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 10, 2011 17:45:42 GMT -4
No one needs a logician, or geologist, or aerospace engineer here. One needs only a modicum of familiarity with the Apollo program and a layman's understanding of the lunar samples issue.
The sample collection, distribution, and analysis, like the rest of Apollo science activities, were carefully planned, rigorously documented, and widely publicized (and published). The mission timelines, training activities, management and budget record, engineering data, support hardware, photovisual record, international scientific consensus, and of course the unique properties of the samples themselves - still available to qualified researchers - all support the in situ collection of these samples by Apollo astronauts, their analysis by the international scientific community, and their provenance.
There is no evidence whatsoever for any alternative method of collection, any lack of widespread analysis, or any dispute of their provenance by qualified researchers.
kimchijjigae has no basis for disputing the record other than his own personal disbelief and is evidently disinclined to perform any work to support his position. Therefore, his claim is properly rejected as unsupported as well as contrary to the historical and scientific record.
There's no point in indulging the various subarguments, such as "20%" - which is not based on anything other than his uninformed opinion, or "robots" - which is equally unsupported but also contradicts the known state of technology - because their unsupported belief is equally as impotent as his unsupported disbelief (poorly masqueraded as skepticism) in the actual sample collection and analysis program.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 10, 2011 18:07:32 GMT -4
Still, you know he was especially got at handling the content less pseudo-intellectual crap that we're being offered here. No doubt he would have logically dispatched kimchijjiggae quickly and succinctly. Not that it would have changed anyone's mind. I enjoy reading his posts, both those that expose vacuous crap and those that illuminate the understanding of the educated in the finer points. I still wish he would write a book on practical logic and clear thinking.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 10, 2011 19:37:37 GMT -4
Let me reword it so you guys can understand. Something is possible if you can't disprove it. Good game, k thnx bye.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 10, 2011 19:38:36 GMT -4
Again and again, I have said it like a thousand time, but I will say it again. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't have any position and I am playing the devil's advocate right now.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 10, 2011 19:47:03 GMT -4
You can't argue that there is a probability of X% for X thing ESPECIALLY if you have limited knowledge. Thus saying the probability that God exist is 50% is meaningless and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Apr 10, 2011 19:47:14 GMT -4
Let me reword it so you guys can understand. Something is possible if you can't disprove it. Good game, k thnx bye. That means it is possible you are a orangutan who has learned to type. Proof me wrong...
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 10, 2011 19:49:43 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 10, 2011 19:50:35 GMT -4
Let me reword it so you guys can understand. Something is possible if you can't disprove it. Good game, k thnx bye. That means it is possible you are a orangutan who has learned too type. Proof me wrong... I may be one, but people recognize me as a human being.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Apr 10, 2011 19:51:40 GMT -4
Irrationality hurts my eyes. Begone, you foul beasts!
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Apr 10, 2011 20:13:15 GMT -4
That means it is possible you are a orangutan who has learned too type. Proof me wrong... I may be one, but people recognize me as a human being. Says you. It is not impossible that you are an orangutan that has learned to type and hypnotise onlookers into believing it is human. It is not impossible that you are a spambot. It is not impossible that you are an invisible red dragon living in my garage that is playing a prank. It is not impossible that you are a software glitch in some server. It is not impossible that I could keep doing this until the heat death of the Universe... Irrationality hurts my eyes. Begone, you foul beasts! It is not impossible that you are rational...
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 10, 2011 20:44:16 GMT -4
Something is possible if you can't disprove it. Do you understand the difference between "possible" and "probable"? It is possible that the lunar samples were returned to Earth using robots, but it is not probable because there is no evidence supporting it (and there would be). The evidence supports the claim that the Apollo astronauts returned the samples to Earth... therefore NASAs explanation is the most probable one.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 10, 2011 20:46:49 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. The following people know with certainty whether they went or not: Buzz Aldrin Neil Armstrong Alan Bean Eugene Cernan Charles Duke Edgar Mitchell Harrison Schmitt David Scott John Young This negates your specification that "no one" possesses this knowledge, therefore your argument is refuted.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 10, 2011 21:04:10 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. . You failed 100% to cast any credible doubt on any aspect of the Apollo record. Given the mountain of evidence for the history being EXACTLY as recorded I'd say with certainty that we went. Any other position is demonstrably irrational. In the same way that we couldn't fly across the Atlantic in 1900, moonrocks could not have been collected robotically because the capability did not exist. If you are suggesting it was possible then back it up with evidence, otherwise it is just fantasy.
|
|