|
Post by nomuse on Nov 30, 2006 19:14:56 GMT -4
What you describe sounds like a terribly silly way to do science. "Oh, no, Pliny already described the Elephant. We'll just have to change all the drawings and notes made by later explorers and naturalists."
I have a feeling, if Clementine had disagreed with ground data from Apollo, investigators would have looked into BOTH data sets to try and discover where the mistake might be -- or if it really was the disagreement it seemed to be. If all else failed, they'd tap into other studies and see which two vote the odd man out.
But, you see, in the real world data is not so simple as "Is A! No, is B!" When you have a detailed description of a real thing, you have the ability to check if your description A) has internal coherence (if it does not, then you may have discovered an internal error), B) follows patterns known to similar studies and fields. Statistical groupings, for instance, tend to fall towards several well-known curves. If you didn't get that bell curve, but instead got some strange thing with a sharp cut-off on one end and a big spike in the middle, it just might be a sign that either your sampling methodology was flawed, or there is something about the study you do not yet understand adequately enough to model.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 30, 2006 19:17:53 GMT -4
Well it's self perpetuating when any new data from something like Clementine is calibrated with Apollo data. What are they going to do when it turns out the the Procellarum KREEP Terrane province is as big as a football field in the future.
That is not what I asked, and your argument is invalid. I asked if you have EVIDENCE that the data is false, and Clementine data will also agree with Apollo data if they both happen to be genuine.
Your evasion is noted. Would you like to actually answer the very simple question now?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 19:28:00 GMT -4
I see things that I question, the leap to the hoax is just as bad as ignoring what you can't believe.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 30, 2006 19:30:04 GMT -4
How bad is looking into something THEN deciding you don't believe it?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 19:46:23 GMT -4
Well it's self perpetuating when any new data from something like Clementine is calibrated with Apollo data. What are they going to do when it turns out the the Procellarum KREEP Terrane province is as big as a football field in the future.That is not what I asked, and your argument is invalid. I asked if you have EVIDENCE that the data is false, and Clementine data will also agree with Apollo data if they both happen to be genuine. Your evasion is noted. Would you like to actually answer the very simple question now? Keep your shirt on. From memory I would say the best evidence of something being amiss would be the total lack of Hapkeite found in any Apollo sample, when it was discovered in a baseball sized Lunar meteorite and subsequently claimed to be a common product of space weathering effects.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 30, 2006 19:52:10 GMT -4
Oh, dear. Good thing NASA quickly covered up that discrepancy, so no-one would ever know about it.......
Oops. I guess someone let the cat out of the bag already.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 20:00:01 GMT -4
Oh, dear. Good thing NASA quickly covered up that discrepancy, so no-one would ever know about it....... Oops. I guess someone let the cat out of the bag already. Or the Warthog out of the Elephant.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 30, 2006 20:05:46 GMT -4
Just an example of NASA _not_ being the sole source of information:
Re Apollo Tv cameras (an example close to my heart being a TV techie and all)
Resources: NASA (obviously)
MASON DIXON ASTRONOMER
AMPEX (AMPEX HISTORY DIVISION)
COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
BILL WOOD RETIRED TV ENGINEER
WESTINGHOUSE ENGINEER
CSIRO PUBLISHING
SAM RUSSEL (PART OF RCA PROJECT RAINBOW)
NEWSEUM
BELLCOM
SMPTE JOURNAL ' BOEING
US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BRANCH OF ASTROGEOLOGY
HAYES INTERNATIONAL
DATA SYSTEM DIV: OF LITTON
US PATENT OFFICE
Please I beg you, for the love of God admit that NASA is not the sole source of information. I couldn't bare to type out all the reference numbers of all the sources I just listed.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 30, 2006 20:08:47 GMT -4
Oh, dear. Good thing NASA quickly covered up that discrepancy, so no-one would ever know about it....... Oops. I guess someone let the cat out of the bag already. So now we will ALL have to be killed. When that has happened, then the hoax will be proven!
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 20:13:49 GMT -4
I admit it. I couldn't bare to read them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 30, 2006 20:15:26 GMT -4
From memory I would say the best evidence of something being amiss would be the total lack of Hapkeite found in any Apollo sample, when it was discovered in a baseball sized Lunar meteorite and subsequently claimed to be a common product of space weathering effects.
You do know that lunar meteorites were identified in the first place by comparing them with the Apollo samples, right? So...
What have you done to convince youself that the meteorite in question actually comes from the Moon?
What have you done to conclude that the meteorite is the one genuine lunar artefact and the Apollo samples are not?
What have you done to convince yourself that hapkeite has to be present all over the Moon, despite the fact that it apparently hasn't shown up in anything except this one lunar meteorite?
It's a discrepancy, sure, but not a huge one when weighed against the vast amounts of evidence in favour of Apollo. It's not a house of cards that can be bowled over with one meteorite.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 30, 2006 22:30:14 GMT -4
Wait a minute, statue of liberty, oh my god I won. I won I won I won!!!!
Woooo hooo.
Off to Maastricht for some "coffee"
3onthetree you actually win for the prize of best rebuttal ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyways off to Maastricht for some "Coffee"
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 30, 2006 23:32:51 GMT -4
Wait, Statue of Liberty? That was Earth! You blew it up! You maniacs! Damn you!! Damn you all to Hell!!!
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 1, 2006 9:17:52 GMT -4
The problem with this format of debate is that 3onthetree can pick and choose whatever arguments to debate he or she wants and evade the others. I think some of the better arguments being made are being evaded by 3onthetree.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 1, 2006 10:09:46 GMT -4
Most of the HBs here so far seem to be able to tapdance from one argument to another like Fred Astaire.
|
|