rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Mar 3, 2007 7:44:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 3, 2007 8:28:18 GMT -4
It is possible with sufficient effort and luck to fake anything. So that isn't much of an argument by itself. More of an argument is if the effort and the luck needed to carry out the deception is warranted. Another is if the argued deception is plausible or practical.
A problem I have with your topic above is that at no point did anyone in the Apollo project decide to do "this thing," or "this other thing," in order to "prove" that they went. They were working on going. They did so in an open manner, in a world scientific community that understood the task and the effort, the problems and the solutions.
And today Apollo still rests on that foundation. It was possible then; according to our best understanding today the technology was available and up to the task. What was described as being done was technically feasible and internally consistent. The project took place in the public eye, with a great many observers at various levels. And the understanding gained in space operations, technology, and environments is still with us today; every rocket that flies today, every scientific paper on the evolution of the lunar surface written today, looks back in part towards data and experience gained in the Apollo project.
It was part of a continuum. Apollo was not a once-only, special case; it was only one of several spaceflight series from the early fifties through to the modern day. The technologies and approaches Apollo used were used at the same time creating high-speed aircraft, ballistic missiles, communications satellites -- and that's just space technology.
You are trying to invent an imaginary world in which everything about Apollo was suis generis; in which technologies that looked like nothing else that had ever been done were pulled out of a hat, then hidden again to never be used again. And you are trying to depict this as happening all inside a bell jar; that NASA waved its institutional hands and spacecraft sprung into being fully formed -- with the fine details known only to a select few within the organization.
Take just one simple case; the AGC. Anyone who studies the history of computing can follow how the first transistors were built, the first integrated circuits created and used for specific solutions like guided missiles -- and the AGC -- then with growing understanding the IC became first generic, then grew so much in complexity the first single-chip microprocessors became possible. The AGC sits perfectly in place between analog computers as used for naval gunnery, the family of multi-chip logic devices (NAND, NOR, and so forth), the development of strategies of registers (aka accumulators), RAM, clock and drivers on a single board and the movement towards placing more and more of these operations into a single purpose-built chip, etc.
But really, when it comes down to it, you, like most of the Hoax Believers, discard the majority of the footprint that the Apollo program made in sciences and engineering, and the massive amounts of data and documentation it generated during its lifetime, to concentrate all your attention on a small part of a pictorial record taken by amateurs on the lunar surface.
By the by, do ANY reading in the scientific community itself (instead of your pseudo-scientist YouTubers), and you'll see a great awareness of the pressures business and government are putting on the sciences -- and a strong and vocal resistance to that pressure. Read a little about the conflict over attempted restriction of the teaching of Evolution, or the attempted stifling of discussion of global climate change. You'll see that scientists are far from a willing party to a government deception.
The fact that any individual, even a reputable one with skills in the field, contests the majority view has nothing at all to do with whether they are right, much less with whether there is a conspiracy to suppress alternative views. Science is by and large self-policing, and it does so by letting all voices into an intellectual argument, with those theories that work best and most logically eventually winning out. Right now there is a huge discussion over various alternatives for a theory that encompasses both the quantum and the classical world. Does that mean only one theory is right, and the other theories are being propped up by corporate interests and/or corrupt governments? No. It means science is busy at work figuring out which theory fits the facts and which will have to be eventually abandoned or at least superseded.
Finally, a nod towards the Solipsists. Everything is "mere evidence." (Or better put, "mere data.") We go through our lives with tiny trickles of neural impulses telling us that within range of our senses something occurred, something that evolution and experience tells us is the sound of a crying baby or the taste of ice cream or a sock to the jaw. The only way out of the Solipsist's Trap is to take certain things by faith. I accept that I exists, and that the external world exists.
And at every level of our experience we have to essentially accept that there can be no certainty. Do I know the sun will rise tomorrow? I do not, but I am still setting my alarm and otherwise making plans on the assumption that it will. Similarly, I do not know that if I step over the balcony I will die, but I am unwilling to risk experiment. All that I have experienced of the world suggests to me that I will fall and I will die if I try this. Therefor I allow that shred of doubt to exist without attempting to test it.
When absolute certainty is both impossible AND a ridiculous requirement, we are best guided by the greatest certainty possible. Can I be absolutely certain Apollo could not have been faked? Of course not. Can I be certain enough that if it were necessary, I would stake my own life on that certainty. Yes. Everything I know about the world tells me that faking Apollo would have been almost impossibly difficult -- but landing on the Moon "merely" difficult.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 3, 2007 8:56:51 GMT -4
Bravo, nomuse.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 3, 2007 9:28:09 GMT -4
Lot's of data have been offered as proof that the moon missions were real. It has been said that several countries tracked the craft to and from the moon. It has been said that most geologists agree that the rocks really came from the moon. It has been said that all of the data learned from Apollo have been used by scientists since then, etc. I don't see any reason to believe any of this. It's possible to manufacture bogus data and publish it on a large scale. It's possible for the press and textbooks to lie about what other governments say about Apollo. It's possible that other governments aren't saying what they really believe about Apollo. There are lots of alternative scenarios so none of this data constitutes proof that the moon missions really happened. It's mere evidence that may be proven wrong later. This should be nominated as the hoax believers mantra. Under this philosophy, nothing can be know and everything is merely personal opinion. Thus all ideas have equal weighting and one can just dismiss others arguments without the slightest bit of proof. Fortunately there are people in the world, and on this board, that don’t hold to this nihilistic view and recognize that the universe has consistency and that dismissal of others arguments can’t change the facts of nature.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Mar 3, 2007 9:39:11 GMT -4
Actually, it's been said that all geologists that have examined the moon rocks confirm that they are from the moon.
Why did you bother bringing up stuff on a "global nuclear cover-up"? It's not related to Apollo. And neither is "touture and death squads". Save that stuff for Other Conspiracy Theories. You were warned more than once.
If you claim this about Apollo, then tell me this: What about other space missions? What you claim here can be applied to the Pioneer missions, Voyager 1 and 2, the MERs, Galileo, Cassini and Huygens, Stardust, Hubble, ground based observatories and radio telescopes, the space shuttle, and the ISS. Yet I see no conspiracies regarding those. Why not, Rocky? From my view, this indicates that it's not a matter of Apollo being the first missions to the moon, but rather because it attracted so much attention, and mostly because it is the American flag that was planted on the moon. And you, Rocky, are letting your anti-US feelings influence your judgement. As you love to say, that is not objective.
You have not explained what difficulties have kept Apollo from being carried out as history recorded it. All you do is link to videos and websites, letting others do the talking for you. You're showing yourself to be little more than an advertisement for the sites you link to. Now, the claims given by people like David Percy, Ralph Rene, the late Bill Kaysing, James Collier, and Bart Sibrel have been debunked many times. Yet you dismiss the explainations, as they do not agree with your world view.
Undoubtably, you'll claim that the Constellation project is a fraud too, simply because it seems better for you to believe that the US runs all sorts of scams, rather than actually being capable of a feat of science.
Now, I myself am angry at our govt for the stunts it has pulled lately. But that is not an incentive for accepting hoax theories or dismissing emperical evidence and data.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 3, 2007 10:20:43 GMT -4
Lot's
That's "Lots". I wouldn't make an issue of it, but you said you are giving English lessons to a neigbhor.
of data have been offered as proof that the moon missions were real. It has been said that several countries tracked the craft to and from the moon. It has been said that most geologists agree that the rocks really came from the moon. It has been said that all of the data learned from Apollo have been used by scientists since then, etc. I don't see any reason to believe any of this.
You are of course welcome to offer any actual evidence to support your opinion. Until then, your uninformed belief means nothing.
It's possible to manufacture bogus data and publish it on a large scale.
Irrelevant. The data has been used and verified by entitiies worldwide, including by entities not especially friendly to the U.S.
It's possible for the press and textbooks to lie about what other governments say about Apollo.
Ridiculous. It's not just a matter of textbooks. It's actual flight operational experience, on a daily basis, by civil, military, and commercial entities worldwide. It's already been pointed out to you that many billions of dollars of commerce operate in accordance with data commensurate with that developed during Apollo and predecessor operations. Like many ignorant hoax believers, you seem to think that TPTB can just print whatever they want about the universe and nobody else can figure it out. That is utterly at odds with the real world, and with both day-to-day and long-term space operations.
It's possible that other governments aren't saying what they really believe about Apollo.
Handwaving. You are of course welcome to provide evidence to back up the claim that governments worldwide are lying about Apollo.
There are lots of alternative scenarios so none of this data constitutes proof that the moon missions really happened.
No. There are no credible alternative scenarios. Simply your constant bleating of "They're all lying or wrong!" You really are a one-trick pony. And it's a lame trick.
It's mere evidence that may be proven wrong later.
You are of course welcome to challenge the validity of any part of this "mere" evidence. But that would require you to do something more than wave your hands, wouldn't it?
There are lots of cases of the official version of things being contested by reputable people in the alternative press.
Irrelevant. We're discussing the Apollo program.
Your completely unsupported claims are worth nothing, because you clearly know nothing about the subject at all. Your whole post was a lot of nothing, in fact. Do you have anything to say, or do you just intend to keep repeating "They're all lying or wrong!"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 3, 2007 11:49:18 GMT -4
Rocky, everything you posted is irrelevant to Apollo. You may try as much as you wish to impeach us as experts, but the fact remains that we know what we're talking about and you don't. The fact also remains that you do absolutely nothing to question the claims of the hoax believers you so ignorantly parrot.
Do you or do you not have any actual evidence for your claim that Apollo was faked?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 3, 2007 12:01:45 GMT -4
I'll tell you what gentlemen, I wouldn't want to live Rocky's sad world view for all the money in the world.
Can you imagine looking at the world like that? Scary.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 3, 2007 12:04:04 GMT -4
From what I've seen, I think Rocky just looks at the world through YouTube. I haven't seen evidence that he has any experience or knowledge beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 3, 2007 12:11:00 GMT -4
Rocky, once again you show your complete ignorance of the way science and engineering actually work. They do not depend on accepting anybody's word about how the world is, but instead work and work well because they apply measurements of the real world to calibrate their theories and methods. To give the obvious example:
You claimed that the visor reflections were evidence that Apollo was faked. This was not based on any personal expertise in optics or photography, but something you saw on a conspiracist website.
Some of us here have enough expertise in optics to present explanations of why you were wrong, but we didn't just ask you to take our word for it. We suggested experiments you could carry out to discover whether the world worked the way we said it did or the way that you said it did.
Why are you so afraid to carry out these simple experiments?
And why should we believe anything you say about any other matter when you are so wilfully incorrect on this one?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 3, 2007 12:13:19 GMT -4
From what I've seen, I think Rocky just looks at the world through YouTube. I haven't seen evidence that he has any experience or knowledge beyond it. Welcome to the YouTube generation.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 3, 2007 13:16:52 GMT -4
Guys, come on, he's got you all right where he wants you. Everybody's responding to his argument, and everybody seems to be forgetting he still has lots of things to address before talking about this should even be applicable. He can say new stuff, talking his way around the old stuff he said. That's exactly what he wanted.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 3, 2007 13:30:45 GMT -4
Rocky's just a troll. Plain and simple.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Mar 3, 2007 13:39:27 GMT -4
I'm saying that we can't believe everything we read and I'm giving examples of untruths that are in the press. That is the topic. If I get warned or banned for that it will be an injustice. All l'm saying is that all of that data is not proof that Apollo was real as data can be manufactured. False data has been manufactured before and the whole country ended up believing it. Answer this question. Do you argue that all of the Apollo data are proof that we went to the moon?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 3, 2007 13:47:12 GMT -4
That's like saying there World War 1 never was there.
|
|