|
Post by gwiz on Nov 22, 2005 8:01:18 GMT -4
On the whole, the recent debate on the Apollo hoax hasn't had anything to do with the veracity of governments. True, we've looked up NASA sources for details of Apollo hardware, but most of the issues raised by Moon Man have been ones of basic physics and engineering. His objections to Apollo mostly apply equally to all space engineering, manned or unmanned, US, Russian, European, Japanese, Chinese, Indian...
The US government didn't write the thermodynamics textbooks, or the ones on rocketry, aerodynamics, etc. We've pointed out to him repeatedly that some particular aspect of Apollo he is objecting to is common engineering practice, and all we get is repetition of his claims and no acknowledgment of our points.
In the way that his opinions are totally immune to any contrary evidence, they aren't science, they're religion. If he wants to prove the opposite, he must respond to the "Key question for hoax believers" thread.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 22, 2005 8:11:01 GMT -4
What I think, probably didn't make it clear, is that trusting apollo is not the same as trusting the gov., but goes with it.
But that's the point: it shouldn't go with it at all.
Firstly, whatever you think of the government is irrelevant to empirical evidence. Whether the Nixon administration was trustworthy overall doesn't affect the objective reality of the physics and science behind Apollo. Nixon can be a crook but rocks are still rocks, rockets still work the same way, and space is still space. If a man with three prevous murder convictions appears in court charged with a fourth, his overall record won't make a shred of difference if it is shown that the alleged victim is still alive, that the alleged murder weapon was never in his possession, and that he was out of state when the murder took place.
Secondly, governments change. Often an HB will point out that Nixon was a crook. Nixon was in charge when the lunar landings happened, therefore those events are subject to doubt. Well, Nixon was not in power when Apollo was conceived. He was not in power when Mercury and Gemini were developing techniques to be used in Apollo. He was not in power when Apollo hardware was being developed. He was not even in power when Apollo 8 demonstrated that manned circumlunar flight was possible. Nixon is separate. The American government now is not made up of the same people. People who live now may not trust the current US government, but what has that to do with the past administrations?
Distrusting governemtn can lead to suspicion, but it should never be used as an explanation for believing something that can be objectively verified. If someone thinks the Nixon administration was highly corrupt and this casts doubt on everything that ever happened under their rule then fine, but if that someone is then confronted with real hard scientific evidence that those events could and did take place then it would be highly irrational to dismiss that as also faked. Sadly there are many HBs who will happily convince themselves that the entire world is the victim of some giant conspiracy than believe their understanding might be flawed and their mistrust of authority misplaced in one or two instances.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 8:51:02 GMT -4
Trusting the gov and trusting apollo done by the gov, one factor is a catalyst to the other, doesn't have to be the same. Oh, something else, Nixon and all politicians are of the same quality. Doesn't make sense to separate persons.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 22, 2005 9:39:34 GMT -4
Trusting the gov and trusting apollo done by the gov, one factor is a catalyst to the other, doesn't have to be the same.
So your logic is, "It didn't happen because the Government said it did happen".
Oh, something else, Nixon and all politicians are of the same quality. Doesn't make sense to separate persons.
Owch. So your logic is, "Every single politician has the same motives, the same logic, and the same campaigns".
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 10:10:08 GMT -4
Trusting the gov and trusting apollo done by the gov, one factor is a catalyst to the other, doesn't have to be the same. So your logic is, "It didn't happen because the Government said it did happen". No. my logic is that people who believe fanatically in something will unconsciously love to defend ppl who carried it out. let me do a confession. Bcz America supports the opposition, I felt inclined to America and to defend their policies and democracy although I know they don't apply it completely and it is their benefits to support the opposition. Oh, something else, Nixon and all politicians are of the same quality. Doesn't make sense to separate persons. NO. My logic is that all politicians lie. It is not plausible to say that if Nixon is a lier , but Apollo didn't start at his time, then Apollo is right. It looks similar to saying that bcz politicians lie, therefore Apollo didn't happen. Same logic.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 22, 2005 10:38:01 GMT -4
Trusting the gov and trusting apollo done by the gov, one factor is a catalyst to the other, doesn't have to be the same.
That's my point. Distrust of the government itself can certainly lead to a blanket distrust of things done by that government, but if real evidence can be provided for a specific event such as Apollo then that distrust won't stop the event from being real. It is necessary to divorce the event from the mistrust. See my murderer example earlier. Do we asume that all the evidence in his favour is false, or do we accept the very plain evidence of the continued life of the alleged victim and shelve our distrust of a previously convicted murder in this instance?
Oh, something else, Nixon and all politicians are of the same quality. Doesn't make sense to separate persons.
But it is the HBs who separate the people. They point to Nixon specifically as a crook, then use that and the fact that he was in power when the lunar landings happen to cast doubt on Apollo.
my logic is that people who believe fanatically in something will unconsciously love to defend ppl who carried it out.
Once again, this is not a matter of fanatical belief. I don't believe in Apollo because I have a fanatical desire to do so, but because all the evidence I have seen leads me to the logical conclusion that it genuinely happened. The evidence is based on verifiable science, not vague handwaving. A fanatical belief won't alter the fact that geologists all over the world have studied the lunar samples and consluded that they came from the Moon. It won't alter the fact that data about the radiation levels in the van Allen belts is avalable from many agencies besides NASA and all agrees that they are safe for astronauts to pass through as they did in Apollo. It won't alter the way rockets work. It won't alter physics.
My logic is that all politicians lie.
All human beings lie. That does not make all human beings incapable of telling the truth, and it does not make all politicians incapable of it either.
It is not plausible to say that if Nixon is a lier , but Apollo didn't start at his time, then Apollo is right.It looks similar to saying that bcz politicians lie, therefore Apollo didn't happen. Same logic.
Yes, but I never said that Nixon not being President during the development phase of Apollo makes it genuine. I said that because Nixon was not President for the critical early stages of Apollo you cannot use his criminal activity as a reason to doubt Apollo. You're putting words into my mouth. I did not offer the opinion that his not being President during the development stages automatically makes Apollo genuine. That would, as you say, have been equally flawed.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 22, 2005 10:42:48 GMT -4
The hardware that was involved throughout the 60s, for all three programs, was built by private companies, from the hufe Rockwells and McDonnell Douglases down to the little supplier companies. Were they also involved in the hoax, in that their hardware wasn't up to the task? Why do you also distrust them? Honestly, your prsonal distrust doesn't amount to a hill of beans when placed next to the physical and scientific evidence. I'm still waiting for real evidence, have yet to see any. Mostly just uninformed claims from those who know little or nothing about the "business" (but no doubt enjoy the benefits of satellites that "cannot function" on a daily basis). Dave
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 22, 2005 11:10:52 GMT -4
No. my logic is that people who believe fanatically in something will unconsciously love to defend ppl who carried it out
*twitch*
Okay, this is my main problem: You assume that we "fanatically believe something", and only believe in the Moon Landings because we "unconsciously love to defend ppl who carried it out"...
See, this is my main problem with the whole "Moon Landing was a Hoax" scenario: There is so much evidence to show that it occured, you would have to answer so many different questions.
The whole world would have to have been fooled; with telemetry, for one. Then, you would have to show that it was 100% possible to fake the moon dust, the moon walk, and the effects of Zero G. Then, you would have to prove that it was plain impossible in the first place (otherwise, why fake it?). Then, you would have to explain how they seemd to have fooled every engineer and physicist and scientist in the world. Then there's the pictures; without going into space, how did we take all those pictures? Photoshop certainly didn't exist back then, as Margamatix seems to believe.
In short, in the worlds of the immortal Moon Man, "It's just not believable".
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Nov 22, 2005 11:33:30 GMT -4
Ignoring the overwhelming evidence we went and accusing those who believe it wasn't a hoax of being under some kind of hero worship spell is a pretty lazy way to debate, IMO.
There's a lot of said evidence to debunk if one wants to seriously challenge the moon landings, and implying the people on this board who really know what they are talking about are some kind of sheep simply doesn't work.
There are literally dozens of total and partial lurkers, like myself, who are reading every word of these threads; we can tell the weak arguments from the strong ones.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 22, 2005 12:22:35 GMT -4
LOTR:
Have you ever told a lie? If yes, does that mean that everything you have said is a lie and I can't trust you?
That is the kind of logic you are using. You're saying that because Nixon lied about something then everything every politician has said or done has been a lie. It is irrational to believe that.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 12:43:21 GMT -4
I mean I didn't like bringing up bad things that USA does. Just said what is right. When mensioned, just didn't reply, but of course didn't lie and say everything is perfect with USA.
Review politicians and their acts. Are you saying that when they get stressed they don't lie, kill....?
Thompson,I got you and agree with your point
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 22, 2005 12:53:41 GMT -4
What everyone is trying (with an apparently complete lack of success) to point out is that politicians do occasionally speak the truth: sometimes they just can't help it...
(And lying by omission is still lying)
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 22, 2005 13:17:46 GMT -4
Quoting Al: What everyone is trying (with an apparently complete lack of success) to point out is that politicians do occasionally speak the truth: sometimes they just can't help it...
While yes, that's something that I was trying to point out, it's not the only thing. To summarize:
I do not defend the Apollo Hoax because of "Fanatical Belief"
Politicians may lie, but they cannot change fundamental laws of physics.
If the Moon Landings were impossible, then every physicist, engineer, and astronomer across the globe would've been like, "Wait a minute... that ain't right!"
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 13:18:46 GMT -4
Agree with your first point. second point, I have on occasions said that USA doesn't practice democracy well, but would point out More that it is at a better stance than others and emphasize it more, which is certainly true, unlike others who give weigh more on the malfunctioning of US democracy to focus on their govs better doing, which is certainly not true. On other occasions when I didn't reply, the others understood that I agree with them, but my heart is not there. Understand now?
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 13:20:19 GMT -4
wolf there are scientists who didn't agree with apollo. No, not everyone was silent. I will be sending you messages not to hi jack the thread.
|
|