|
Post by sts60 on Mar 2, 2011 1:42:29 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.
I think while this sort of thing is very common, you're shortchanging quite a few people here who have been involved in a lot of in-depth discussions, and spent a lot of time explaining things to hoax believers. Several of the regulars here have spent considerable amounts of time and effort investigating the Apollo record, both of itself and in the context of examining "hoax" claims.
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.
If you're actually arguing that the record is incorrect, or somehow is just a matter of belief, than the burden of proof is on you. While you have made some nods to a more general argument regarding the nature of certainty, you have also attempted to falsify parts of the record by saying, for instance, that the retroreflectors could have been placed by means other than those in the record. That's an affirmative argument; it's up to you to demonstrate how it might realistically have been done, and provide evidence for it.
I also must point out that some of your premises are pretty shaky. Scientists can uniquely identify samples recovered in situ from the Moon, as opposed to meteorites of lunar origin, or of other provenance altogether. This has been discussed pretty extensively here.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 2, 2011 1:42:52 GMT -4
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
Which "NASA texts", and in what context?
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.
But there are experts posting here, and I'd say more than 5% of the regulars. For example, Bob Braeunig has extensively documented the trajectories used to deal with the charged particle environments in the Van Allen belts. Dwight has published a book examining the television system and its development. Jay Windley (who's away from the board for a while) is an aerospace engineer who has consulted extensively for various television productions examining the "hoax" claims. I am a space systems engineer myself, and I used to work for the guys who hold the patents for the capsule design used on Mercury and afterwards. There are others, most of whom became expert not because they are aerospace engineers but because they took the time to really learn about one or more aspects of spaceflight in general or Apollo in particular.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 2, 2011 1:59:06 GMT -4
had to resort to copy and paste. Care to point out the posts that were "copy and paste"? If you can't, then please retract your allegation of plagurism.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 2, 2011 2:34:53 GMT -4
Moreover, the proof we have currently do not prove that we went there with certainty, contrarily to what many persons believe. Can you name a historical event for which there is "absolute proof?" If so, please cite such an example. If not, then why is the Apollo Program any more or less plausible than any other historical claim? Some might consider it arrogant of you to claim that you are the only known producer of sperm. On what charge? You haven't even postulated that a crime has even been committed, much less specifically what that crime is and how the evidence presented implicates you.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 2, 2011 2:49:46 GMT -4
But there are experts posting here, and I'd say more than 5% of the regulars. For example, Bob Braeunig has extensively documented the trajectories used to deal with the charged particle environments in the Van Allen belts. Dwight has published a book examining the television system and its development. Jay Windley (who's away from the board for a while) is an aerospace engineer who has consulted extensively for various television productions examining the "hoax" claims. I am a space systems engineer myself, and I used to work for the guys who hold the patents for the capsule design used on Mercury and afterwards. There are others, most of whom became expert not because they are aerospace engineers but because they took the time to really learn about one or more aspects of spaceflight in general or Apollo in particular. I'm not an expert. I don't claim to be an expert. However, you don't have to be in order to realize the sheer magnitude of Apollo and how impossible it would be to fake. You don't have to be an expert in order to have a reasonable level of understanding about something. You don't have to be an expert to be convinced of something beyond a reasonable doubt. You also don't have to be mindless in accepting the word of experts. I know very, very little about cars' inner workings. When my car breaks, I get someone who does know about cars to fix it. Similarly, if I wanted to send something into space, I certainly wouldn't do it myself. There are several people here who would be able to either help me or point me to specific people who could. The world is an increasingly specialized place, and no one can know everything. I pride myself on knowing something about more things than most people do, but I'm assuredly not an expert in most things. Even most things I do better or know more about than the average person. I know more about psychology and psychiatric medicine than the average person, but I still go to my doctor.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Mar 2, 2011 4:02:31 GMT -4
I am not saying that people are wrong. Great. So we're done! 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. I don't think we can tell you anything, but for a different reason. That reason being that you are terrible, terrible at reading. In my very first line of my very first post I agreed with you. 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. Yes, you do assert something. You claim the truth about the moon landings cannot be known with 100% absolute certainty. This claim is correct, as it is for any historical event. But then you engage in the familiar practice of moving goalposts, shifting from absolute certainty to sufficiently certain by your standards, and smoothly starting to insult instead of arguing, and stubbornly ignoring anything written to you.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 2, 2011 4:36:30 GMT -4
For most people here, it is a matter of belief than reason. Oh really? Would you care to back that up? If you think anyone here defends Apollo out of sheer blind faith then you haven't taken the time to read this forum in any depth at all.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Mar 2, 2011 5:25:45 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. Funny thing is you can research what you do not understand if you have the inclination. Something I did when I first heard about the hoax proponents as I was surprised that this was the case many years ago. So off I trotted to look up a few things, along with what I do in life, training, schooling etc and it fits. I am not a rocket scientist or a radiation expert but I have reached my point in life with a certain bent for want of a better word and training and can see what went on. For example. I have a reasonable understanding of how rockets work or how the measurements of the reflectors are used and more importantly the comparison with the sites where there are reflectors and the rest of the moon where there are not. Then there is the ones that are not aligned with earth and the ones that are. All this is checkable. I can look through the reports and look at the way the lander was built, one thing the advance in the internet has allowed (increased availability of information). Unfortunately the increase in information has also allowed the pedlars of snake oil and information that is as bent as a £3 pound note, but the the silver lining to counter the nay sayers is that I can also look at their claims and see that they are worthless. Another benefit of the web, no longer a small section of society at the back of the class with rumours, to voice these you have to publish on the net now. This visibility is, I think, a problem for the no landing believers. They have to say why, the claims they make can be examined as is the landing itself. The omissions and glaring mistakes in the no landing scenario do not appear in the information that anyone can look at for the landing. The claims for the hoax fall flat at every point. The landings happened as far as the information is available. The plan was sound, the engineering and the drive from the humans involved. So, you proof they did not land is?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 2, 2011 6:10:17 GMT -4
Kimchijjigae, I have a few questions for you.
Proof is a concept that implies a level of certainty appropriate to the specific proof. What level of certainty do you think is necessary for an objective investigation?
You say you do not claim that we are wrong in asserting the validity of Apollo, but that you are here to see if we can convince you. What would it take to convince you and why is does that constitute a reasonable level of proof?
What kind of investigations have you done to come to your conclusion that the validity of Apollo in in doubt for you? What claims have you rejected and why?
What other aspects of the U.S. space program are you in doubt about? Which missions or flights do you accept as real and which do you reject? Mercury? Gemini? Apollo 7? Apollo 11?
Are you just taking the “classical” skeptical position that we can’t know anything for certain or do you have specific issues about Apollo?
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 2, 2011 8:51:41 GMT -4
kimchi jjigae does not exist.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 2, 2011 10:55:06 GMT -4
had to resort to copy and paste. Care to point out the posts that were "copy and paste"? If you can't, then please retract your allegation of plagurism. Accusing one’s opponent of plagiarizing his/her arguments seems to be a pretty common tactic these days. I’ve been accused of it on several occasions. I think there are several reasons for it. First, it’s an attempt to lower the pro-Apollo opponent to the same level as the HB. Since most HBs have only a rudimentary understanding of Apollo learned via Google, they have to believe their opponents are the same so they can go toe-to-toe with them in an argument. They know they don’t stand a chance against a real expert, so they dismiss the opponents’ expertise as being the regurgitation of facts read on the Internet. Second, they interpret the fact that they always receive the same answer to the same question as their opponents mindlessly repeating a pre-packaged response. They fail to recognize that the reason they get the same answer is because it is the one “right” answer. They also fail to recognize that our in depth understanding of a particular topic and our ability to delve into intricate details and explanations demonstrates real expertise. Providing detailed responses in nearly real-time to just about any random issue the HB raises cannot be done with “cut and paste” answers. This requires the respondent to use his/her own words drawing upon his/her knowledge and expertise. Third, I think they do it just to annoy and provoke their opponents.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 2, 2011 11:28:24 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 2, 2011 11:31:03 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. Perfect example of reasons #1 and #3. Knock you opponent down by dismissing his/her demonstrated expertise, and insult them in an attempt to arouse an emotional response.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 2, 2011 12:07:22 GMT -4
No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. And precisely how do you know what technical knowledge people here have or do not have, and how much is required for them to understand the arguments they make? What level is your technical knowledge at to make you so sure you can dismiss the arguments that easily?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 2, 2011 12:15:39 GMT -4
Well, great more copy and paste. For a proof to be of any value, we must prove that the proof itself is valid. No one can prove that the set of arguments they are using is completely valid, because they lack technical knowledge. It is sad to see people behaving so irrationally. Do you care to have a discussion on the issues you have raised here? Or are you just going to post these "no on can know anything" declarations? A good start to a discussion would be to directly answer some of the questions put to you (see my post above.) We ask them in good faith for the purpose of further discovering your position and request you respond in kind. That said, experience tells me I have little reason to hope you will answer direct questions with knowledgeable answers, after all you seem to discount knowledge. But I am perfectly willing to be shown that my suspensions are wrong.
|
|