|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 13:26:53 GMT -4
wolf there are scientists who didn't agree with apollo.
I've searched diligently for about six years for qualified engineers and scientists who don't believe in Apollo and I've not found any. Oh, I've found plenty of people who say they don't believe in Apollo, and they say they're scientists or engineers (e.g., Ralph Rene), but it doesn't take long to show that they're inflating their credentials and qualifications. Ralph Rene, for example, was a construction worker, not a "physicist".
So I am very interested in these scientists you say opposed Apollo. I presume they can provide actual scientific explanations for the alleged hoax, and not just the same pseudoscientific garbage that's been thrown around for 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 13:29:41 GMT -4
review the Rob Moore article I posted where Rob Moore tells his friend that the theory can't be applied.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 13:36:02 GMT -4
JayUtah, I will not go back preferably to Rob Moore's article bcz you will say there is no proof that Moore said this and maybe the author is lying. However, remeber that great scientists were laughed at by other "great scientists" at past time, but their ideas were proven right. For example, Albayrooni resorted to mathematical calculations to prove that the Sun turns around the earth, other scientists could, by math, prove that earth rotates around the sun. They were right, although at that time they were few. History is full of people like that, althoughthey were few, they were right, but discredited at that time.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 22, 2005 13:41:37 GMT -4
JayUtah, I will not go back preferably to Rob Moore's article bcz you will say there is no proof that Moore said this and maybe the author is lying. However, remeber that great scientists were laughed at by other "great scientists" at past time, but their ideas were proven right. For example, Albayrooni resorted to mathematical calculations to prove that the Sun turns around the earth, other scientists could, by math, prove that earth rotates around the sun. They were right, although at that time they were few. History is full of people like that, althoughthey were few, they were right, but discredited at that time. A valid scientific theory makes predictions about reality. If these predictions are incorrect, the theory is wrong. This is called falsifyability. An invalid theory cannot be shown to be wrong because it doesn't make predictions. The hoax theory is of this invalid type, it make no predictions that it can be disproved by. If you want to see a bit more about this, try the "Key question for hoax believers" thread.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 13:48:35 GMT -4
Albayrooni made wrong predictions about reality. there is a site that is called nonmoving earth which argues that 180 equations for the earth rotation where disproved, would you consider this a valid theory or I just missed your point?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 22, 2005 13:51:06 GMT -4
Review the Rob Moore article I posted. What? Where?? Do I have to go looking for the post you mention? Why don't you simply post it here?? The old "they laughed at Galileo" argument does not impress me...actual evidence does.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 22, 2005 14:00:22 GMT -4
Albayrooni made wrong predictions about reality. there is a site that is called nonmoving earth which argues that 180 equations for the earth rotation where disproved, would you consider this a valid theory or I just missed your point? There are phenomena like Doppler shifts from cosmic radio sources, stellar parallax and aberration that are predicted by moving earth theory but not by stationary earth theory. What predictions does stationary earth theory make that are not predicted by moving earth theory? I'm afraid I've got to sign off now, goodbye for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 14:00:48 GMT -4
Listen I feel this issue is becoming subjective and I hate subjective issues, unless I posted the thread about them If you want anything that can be answered quickly, not subjectively, send me messages and I'll reply. I have studies but unfortunately couldn't resist coming back here, so I prefer short answers to valid things and direct proofs like othr threads I am discussing. Just have to focus more on what means most to me. the "they laughed at Gualileo" impresses me since it exhibits proof on how many scientists are laughed at but are proved later on right.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 14:08:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 14:13:29 GMT -4
JayUtah, I will not go back preferably to Rob Moore's article...
That's fine -- I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have posted a reference to some article that you wish me to read, I will read it. But I don't see any reference in this thread.
...bcz you will say there is no proof that Moore said this and maybe the author is lying.
It's unfair of you to assume what comments I might make on an article I have not read, and to which you have not accurately referred.
However, remeber that great scientists were laughed at by other "great scientists" at past time, but their ideas were proven right.
People laugh at idiots too, whose ideas were patently wrong. Being laughed at doesn't make one a genius.
You said there were qualified scientists who disagree with the authenticity of Apollo. Substantiate or withdraw the claim.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 14:19:46 GMT -4
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Nov 22, 2005 14:21:02 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 14:29:02 GMT -4
You replied to that thread so I assumed you have read it. About scientists being laughed at, My argument is that it doesn't necessarily make them idiots if they are laughed at, which seems to be your claim that the scientists are "not qualified" so everything they say is "hogwash"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 14:58:23 GMT -4
You replied to that thread so I assumed you have read it.Ah, yes. I'm sorry; I didn't make the connection. No, I don't really consider the third-hand testimony of Rob Moore's unnamed father to be "scientific" evidence of a hoax. The account is even factually wrong -- for example, the splashdowns occurring miles off-target and where no one could see. The Apollo splashdowns occurred within television and film camera range, and the Navy recovery forces asked permission to be moved slightly off station for fear the capsule would slam down onto the deck of the carrier rather than in the water! And Rob himself is supposed to be a physicist and yet talking all kinds of nonsense about "escape velocity" and interplanetary trajectories. Then the author goes on to talk about his Krishna religion and how they teach him that the moon landings were fake. Then apparently he has recanted this entire view. Do you really intend for that nonsense to be a "scientific" discussion of the moon landings? It's a bunch of nonsense that can't even get the basic historical facts right. About scientists being laughed at, My argument is that it doesn't necessarily make them idiots if they are laughed at...Of course not. Being persistently wrong makes them idiots. You're the one trying to argue about laughter. Idiots are often laughed at too, but the problem with their arguments is that the arguments are wrong, not that people are laughing at them. ...which seems to be your claim that the scientists are "not qualified" so everything they say is "hogwash" Well, no. You said you had scientists who disbelieved Apollo. Your only reference is a childhood leg-pulling story that is factually and scientifically wrong, told third-hand from an anonymous source that has now been disavowed. The story is dismissed as hogwash because it can be demonstrated to be hogwash regardless of who's telling it. Presumably you intended your disbelieving scientist claim to hold water because scientists are understood to have a more accurate and correct understanding of these things than layman. You prefer a scientist's opinion over a layman's, so evidently you recognize that some expertise is required. You either have qualified scientists who can argue in favor of your points, or you do not have them. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 15:10:12 GMT -4
You replied to that thread so I assumed you have read it.Ah, yes. I'm sorry; I didn't make the connection. No, I don't really consider the third-hand testimony of Rob Moore's unnamed father to be "scientific" evidence of a hoax. The account is even factually wrong -- for example, the splashdowns occurring miles off-target and where no one could see. The Apollo splashdowns occurred within television and film camera range, and the Navy recovery forces asked permission to be moved slightly off station for fear the capsule would slam down onto the deck of the carrier rather than in the water! And Rob himself is supposed to be a physicist and yet talking all kinds of nonsense about "escape velocity" and interplanetary trajectories. Then the author goes on to talk about his Krishna religion and how they teach him that the moon landings were fake. Then apparently he has recanted this entire view. Do you really intend for that nonsense to be a "scientific" discussion of the moon landings? It's a bunch of nonsense that can't even get the basic historical facts right. Ah, you haven't probably noticed that the author doesn't claim that every research done by him is right. He also says that numbers aren't claimed by him to be appropriate, only the confessions, two top-secretive sources confession, that I loved, adored and believed in strongly. Let us not continue what we don't agree on but what we agree on to walk from a base that is static. About scientists being laughed at, My argument is that it doesn't necessarily make them idiots if they are laughed at...That is the issue, who says they are persistently wong. What is wrong for the previous scientists was right. again, same as above. ...which seems to be your claim that the scientists are "not qualified" so everything they say is "hogwash" again wrong. Disproving what the author doesn't claim as 100% real is not something. Again and again, to you they are not qualified, same as previous scientists weren't considered qualified at that time. I don't have a smoking gun with fingerprints, I am just suggesting that these can be scientists that are just not well recognized at the time, but will be later acknowledged. I was just answering wolf that no one scientist has ever stood up against the moon landings.
|
|