|
Post by echnaton on Aug 31, 2005 17:31:43 GMT -4
To say "I am a scientist and therefore my opinion on the moon landings is worth more than yours" is akin to saying "I am a priest and therefore my opinion on the existence of God is worth more than yours" I think this goes to the root of the problem. You do not understand the difference between objectively verifiable evidence and simple belief so you paint a false dichotomy. I’ll make a more appropriate dichotomy based on what is occurring in this forum. An expert scientist or engineer with experience in a relevant area of knowledge would demonstrate that he had examined the evidence surrounding an event, applied that evidence to the possible theories to explain an event, come to a most likely explanation, made this work available for criticism from recognized experts and appropriately revised the work according to this criticism. This is compared to the approach you are using “I believe it to be this way and one opinion is as valid as another.” Margamatix, don’t you see the difference in these two approaches? Can’t you see why Jay, Bob and others command respect in this forum? Are you going to continue insisting that there is no such thing as expert opinion?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 31, 2005 17:32:43 GMT -4
To say "I am a scientist and therefore my opinion on the moon landings is worth more than yours" is akin to saying "I am a priest and therefore my opinion on the existence of God is worth more than yours"... Straw man. That hasn't happened here. What has happened is that a number of people, including engineers with directly relevant domain knowledge and experience, have taken the time to explain the way things actually work and to show you or point you towards supporting data. All you have done in response for your technical claims is to ignore the explanations, repeat your initial claim, or go on to a different subject.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 31, 2005 18:11:12 GMT -4
"Photographic experts who were consulted declared that none of the negatives had been tampered with, there was no evidence of double exposures, and that a slight blurring of one of the fairies in photo number one indicated that the fairy was moving during the exposure of 1/50 or 1/100 second". Source www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htmSo much for "experts"! A claim to have consulted experts is hardly the same thing as a through examination by experts with published findings. Given Doyle’s willingness to believe this nonsense, he may well have ignored a good part of what he was told by any photographic expert and simply reported what matched his belief. Secondly the notion that experts can be wrong is hardly big news. That is why you need to examine writings and opinions rather than accept them based on faith. As long as we don’t know who this expert is and have access to his written opinion, we have no basis on which to pass any judgment on the veracity of Doyle’s version of the opinion. Under these circumstances I think we can safely dismiss the claim of expertise backing of the veracity of the photos as evidence for the existence of fairies. That is until I take my kids to see Peter Pan again, at which time I will once again profess my faith in fairies.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 31, 2005 18:15:18 GMT -4
To say "I am a scientist and therefore my opinion on the moon landings is worth more than yours" is akin to saying "I am a priest and therefore my opinion on the existence of God is worth more than yours" I think this goes to the root of the problem. You do not understand the difference between objectively verifiable evidence and simple belief so you paint a false dichotomy. I’ll make a more appropriate dichotomy based on what is occurring in this forum. An expert scientist or engineer with experience in a relevant area of knowledge would demonstrate that he had examined the evidence surrounding an event, applied that evidence to the possible theories to explain an event, come to a most likely explanation, made this work available for criticism from recognized experts and appropriately revised the work according to this criticism. This is compared to the approach you are using “I believe it to be this way and one opinion is as valid as another.” Margamatix, don’t you see the difference in these two approaches? Can’t you see why Jay, Bob and others command respect in this forum? Are you going to continue insisting that there is no such thing as expert opinion? With all due respect, I disagree with you. There is no proof whatsoever that the moon landings happened. Belief in Apollo is a faith, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 31, 2005 18:21:13 GMT -4
There is no proof whatsoever that the moon landings happened.
Then what are you trying to explain away?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 31, 2005 18:24:18 GMT -4
Belief in Apollo is a faith, nothing more and nothing less.
No, your disbelief is a matter of faith. We have given you exhaustive lines of reasoning for everything we have put forth. In return you have given us nothing regarding your propositions except naked expressions of denial and disbelief. Clearly you are the one operating on faith because you can go no further than a statement of belief.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 31, 2005 19:13:28 GMT -4
Margamatix said: "There is no proof whatsoever that the moon landings happened. Belief in Apollo is a faith, nothing more and nothing less. "
G'day Margamatix
There are three main pieces of evidence I use to prove the Moon landings happened.
The first is rocks. Now you've previously argued that the rocks could be collected by sample return missions. I suppose I could just about grant that, even though you made little effort to explain (a) how rocks had been photographed on location, (b) how core samples a few metres long were collected, (c) how 10 kilogram rocks were picked up or (d) how fragile clods of compacted soil were picked up, given the robot technology of the time.
The second is the radio signals. We know Mission Control was talking to the astronauts in real time, referring to events which were happening at the time (such as half-time football scores). We know that the ground stations were pointing their dishes straight at the Moon in real time. We know that ham radio operators pointed *their* dishes at the Moon and picked up signals. You haven't addressed how NASA might have faked these signals.
The third is the behaviour of lunar dust in television images. It behaves like dust in a vacuum, and in reduced gravity. We can create vacuums in giant chambers. We can create 30 seconds of reduced gravity inside a plane. What we can't do is produce both a vacuum and reduced gravity together, nor do so in a location where you can see for kilometres.
*That* is proof.
It's *not* faith.
*So there!* :-)
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 31, 2005 19:17:27 GMT -4
I think this goes to the root of the problem. You do not understand the difference between objectively verifiable evidence and simple belief so you paint a false dichotomy. I’ll make a more appropriate dichotomy based on what is occurring in this forum. An expert scientist or engineer with experience in a relevant area of knowledge would demonstrate that he had examined the evidence surrounding an event, applied that evidence to the possible theories to explain an event, come to a most likely explanation, made this work available for criticism from recognized experts and appropriately revised the work according to this criticism. This is compared to the approach you are using “I believe it to be this way and one opinion is as valid as another.” Margamatix, don’t you see the difference in these two approaches? Can’t you see why Jay, Bob and others command respect in this forum? Are you going to continue insisting that there is no such thing as expert opinion? With all due respect, I disagree with you. There is no proof whatsoever that the moon landings happened. Belief in Apollo is a faith, nothing more and nothing less. Pathetic. So, in other words: No, you don't understand the difference between the two approaches outlined. Fingers in the ears again. Dear oh dear.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Aug 31, 2005 21:59:50 GMT -4
Your analogy is poor. St Augustine said something like "The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven", it is a matter of faith. Scientist and engineers especially those whose area of expertise directly relates to the "questions" HBs have raised and even more so those who had direct involvement in the project are better equipped than you or I to evaluate questions about the Van Allen belt, being able to cool spacesuits, moon rocks, our ability to have pulled it off etc. Doesn't it strike you as odd that all the "anomalities" are "discovered" by people who do not have any expertise in what they are talking about. Doesn't it strike you as even odder that no one who has studied the science well enough believes that any of these "anomalities" are anything unexpected? I have never driven a truck. I have never driven a motor vehicle in Europe. The furthest east I have been is Berlin and that was years ago. Some imagine I did some research on the Net and argued that it was impossible for you to have traveled by the route you claim to have taken with the truck you claim to have driven. I made some points that no one who knew what they were talking about would make Would my opinion be as valid as yours? I live in Brazil now. I have been buying selling and collecting Native Amazonian Art for 12 years now. Even if you read a book or two who would be better qualified to say if a particular headdress were authentic or not? You have yet to show that any scientists believed in the fairies just some unnamed photo "experts". Even in the article it says "As many had suspected all along, the girls had used paper cutouts of fairy drawings." The people who fell for that sound more like your camp than mine. To say "I am a scientist and therefore my opinion on the moon landings is worth more than yours" is akin to saying "I am a priest and therefore my opinion on the existence of God is worth more than yours" Scientists believed wholeheartedly in the Cottingley fairies.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Aug 31, 2005 22:10:07 GMT -4
The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise because only a small number of diehards like your self with no expertise doubt that it's true. What evidence do you have that it did not happen? The only scientist it seems who doubts Apollo is a CT nut a high school teacher whose thinking is so warpped he thinks that a webcam is part of a secret survelance program caried out by a Dallas museum, the city's parks department and the US government! groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/160I think this goes to the root of the problem. You do not understand the difference between objectively verifiable evidence and simple belief so you paint a false dichotomy. I’ll make a more appropriate dichotomy based on what is occurring in this forum. An expert scientist or engineer with experience in a relevant area of knowledge would demonstrate that he had examined the evidence surrounding an event, applied that evidence to the possible theories to explain an event, come to a most likely explanation, made this work available for criticism from recognized experts and appropriately revised the work according to this criticism. This is compared to the approach you are using “I believe it to be this way and one opinion is as valid as another.” Margamatix, don’t you see the difference in these two approaches? Can’t you see why Jay, Bob and others command respect in this forum? Are you going to continue insisting that there is no such thing as expert opinion? With all due respect, I disagree with you. There is no proof whatsoever that the moon landings happened. Belief in Apollo is a faith, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 1, 2005 7:47:59 GMT -4
Yikes.
How can you, after weeks of being presented with intelligent, articulate, and total rebuttals of ALL of your issues, even have the guts to say something like that?
Do you even read the answers to your posts?
In order to prove the landings didn't take place, you are going to have to first debunk the evidence that has been presented that it did happen, then provide evidence that it was faked.
You have done no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Sept 1, 2005 8:22:22 GMT -4
;D I have a theory.........one that is based on logic and reason........ conclusion.........margamatix is not an HB at all,he`s just getting you at it.......
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 1, 2005 8:48:31 GMT -4
Funny the same thing occured to me. OK margamatix prove to us that you really don't believe that man has been to the Moon. Prove to us that YOU are not a hoax! ;D I have a theory.........one that is based on logic and reason........ conclusion.........margamatix is not an HB at all,he`s just getting you at it.......
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Sept 1, 2005 9:38:19 GMT -4
;D I have a theory.........one that is based on logic and reason........ conclusion.........margamatix is not an HB at all,he`s just getting you at it....... Or........he`s B.S. which is why there are no replies, ......(yeah,yeah,,,,,,just joking)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 1, 2005 11:11:04 GMT -4
You all forget. In margamatix world if you ignore something then it doesn't exist. margamatix chooses to ignore anything that shows that the landings did happen and therefore none of that proof exists. Simple.
|
|