6 stupid things about the moon landing

[Lilly]

...I'm not saying I believe it's a hoax, but if it was then everything we are told about he moon could be wrong. lol

Oh sure...for all we know the moon may not even exist!

See link for this ground breaking conspiracy! http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/Moon3.htm

[skyeagle409]

Only 6 stupid things about the hoax hypothesis? Oh, I'm pretty sure there are more than 6 stupid things. Just sayin'

I agree! To further add, a stupid thing to say is that the United States spent billions of dollars to hoax moon missions that could have easily been revealed while spending billions of dollars on the Vietnam war and dealing with high inflation . The best thing to have said if a moon mission was impossible,was to simply say, we can't do it, and leave it at that, but as the facts and evidence have it, the United States did indeed, send men to the moon, and that has been confirmed by other countries as well.

[Coffey]

Oh sure...for all we know the moon may not even exist!

See link for this ground breaking conspiracy! http://www.revisioni.../Moon/Moon3.htm

Well i don't believe any of it was a Hoax, I'm just making points here that if it was a hoax then they are saying that the evidence, which would only be evidence if we had actually been there backs up thta we where there. Can you not see the flaw int hat? lol

It's funny really.

The only clear undeniable point the guy int he video made was about the amount of people that would have to be involved, his other points have no ground to stand on.

Anyway, have you ever been to the moon? Have you touched it?

Do you believe a government who has lied before and is run by a private bank?

That's the thing right there. I don't think it was a hoax, but I also don't think that from being told by people who I don't trust. if people don't want to believe it happened and don't trust what people say, then they have good reason to and have the right to that opinion.

I agree! To further add, a stupid thing to say is that the United States spent billions of dollars to hoax moon missions that could have easily been revealed while spending billions of dollars on the Vietnam war and dealing with high inflation . The best thing to have said if a moon mission was impossible,was to simply say, we can't do it, and leave it at that, but as the facts and evidence have it, the United States did indeed, send men to the moon, and that has been confirmed by other countries as well.

That';s not a solid reason at all.

The money being spent was a good thing for those in charge. lol

They could have even been shifting the money somewhere else if it was a hoax. lol Even better for them.

If they let the Soviets get there first, they would have lost their place as the global leader. Which means the years since then could have been very different.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Coffey

[skyeagle409]

I'm not saying I believe it's a hoax, but if it was then everything we are told about he moon could be wrong. lol

Next on the agenda; The moon is a hologram created by NASA in order to justify the spending of billions in its budget.

[Coffey]

Next on the agenda; The moon is a hologram created by NASA in order to justify the spending of billions in its budget.

As I said I don't believe that nonsense so trying to make me out to sound like a conspiracy theorist who believes that doesn't work. Typical attempt of the brainwashed slave though.

[Lilly]

Anyway, have you ever been to the moon? Have you touched it?

I have a telescope and a good basic knowledge of the science involved herein. This is enough for me.

Do you believe a government who has lied before and is run by a private bank?

I don't just up and believe too much of anything (especially coming from government).

Also, while people do indeed have a right to their own opinions, they do not have a right to their own facts.

[skyeagle409]

As I said I don't believe that nonsense so trying to make me out to sound like a conspiracy theorist who believes that doesn't work. Typical attempt of the brainwashed slave though.

You misunderstood what I have posted. I aimed that message at those who've claimed the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

[Coffey]

You misunderstood what I have posted. I aimed that message at those who've claimed the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

Well the point still stands. I don't laugh or mock those who believe something different. I thought the world learned that when the Earth was thought to be flat.

I have a telescope and a good basic knowledge of the science involved herein. This is enough for me.

Yes but that basic scientific knowledge could be wrong, Science itself dictates that.

I don't just up and believe too much of anything (especially coming from government).

Also, while people do indeed have a right to their own opinions, they do not have a right to their own facts.

Yes they do, but the facts are from one specific source. Which means if that source lied, then they are not facts.

It was a fact and science that Pluto was a planet, it is not a fact anymore and scientifically it is a dwarf planet. There is also a dwarf planet bigger than Pluto near us. Which if we knew about before would have been another planet. That was basic science, yet it changed. That's what science does, which is why facts can change and are not always what you think.

I remember arguing with a teacher in school, who claimed Pandas where strictly herbivores, me having such an interest in wildlife knew she was wrong. I educated myself a lot on animals/wildlife, with the help of my Grandfather. She ridiculed me in front of the class, making out I was stupid. I was laughed at and mocked.

Well the next day i bought in 3 forms of evidence in literature proving that pandas are not in fact herbivore but omnivore. As they will sometimes eat carcasses of other animals.

Moral of the story, just because someone is in a position where they are more educated or in a powerful position does not always mean their facts are correct.

Back to the point though, it shows far more intelligence for someone to find little cracks and create theories from this than to just constantly quote and hammer home what NASA or the Government say.

I'll end my part in this discussion with:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Albert Einstein

Edited February 6, 2013 by Coffey

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Back to the point though, it shows far more intelligence for someone to find little cracks and create theories from this than to just constantly quote and hammer home what NASA or the Government say.

And it shows far more intelligence to weigh up the evidence and make an informed conclusion based on observation and evidence than to go around kidding yourself that you are clever because "you don't believe everything you are told". Arguments from ignorance NEVER win the day.

[skyeagle409]

Well the point still stands. I don't laugh or mock those who believe something different. I thought the world learned that when the Earth was thought to be flat.

Some folks just want to have fun and will reject all evidence presented to them.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I remember arguing with a teacher in school, who claimed Pandas where strictly herbivores, me having such an interest in wildlife knew she was wrong. I educated myself a lot on animals/wildlife, with the help of my Grandfather. She ridiculed me in front of the class, making out I was stupid. I was laughed at and mocked.

Well the next day i bought in 3 forms of evidence in literature proving that pandas are not in fact herbivore but omnivore. As they will sometimes eat carcasses of other animals.

Moral of the story, just because someone is in a position where they are more educated or in a powerful position does not always mean their facts are correct.

This is a very false argument. Was the school teacher a zoologist? If not then simply because they were a teacher does not make them an expert on Pandas. This is another logical fallacy you are employing called Appeal to Authority.

If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.

It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.

However in the case of Apollo we do have the testament of geologists and planetary scientists, whose knowledge IS relevant to the field. Thus your example is irrelevant.

Whilst it is true that being an expert doesn't mean they are necessarily correct, it means that there is a far higher chance that they are correct than someone with no expertise in the field.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf
fixed link.

[ali smack]

Oh sure...for all we know the moon may not even exist!

See link for this ground breaking conspiracy! http://www.revisioni.../Moon/Moon3.htm

Well Whoever owns that website is certainly taking the mickey. they can't honestly think the moon doesn't exist. When everyone sees it every night.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Well Whoever owns that website is certainly taking the mickey. they can't honestly think the moon doesn't exist. When everyone sees it every night.

That is rather the point.

It is a satirical site highlighting the false arguments given by conspiracy theorists who focus on perceived "flaws" whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

[Corp]

How did NASA know, in 1969, what techniques would be available to geologists more than forty years in the future? How could they possibly have foreseen these techniques and faked the rocks so well that they continue to fool every expert in the world today?

Time travel. They put together the hoax but then people pointed out the flaws in the rocks. So they went back in time and fixed the hoax so it would take these issues into account. Duh.

[flyingswan]

All based on what we are TOLD about the moon.....

Can you not see that. lol

I'm not saying I believe it's a hoax, but if it was then everything we are told about he moon could be wrong. lol

You seem to think that science is a belief system. It's not, it's a method of measuring the world to rule out incorrect ideas and one result of this is the production of a body of knowledge that is so well established that no-one can reasonably doubt it. The moon's gravity, for instance, can be measured in different ways (eg tides) that all give the same answer. If any of what you think "we are TOLD" is wrong, it will have effects on everyone. The existence of lunar surface meteoritic damage correlates with the observation of shooting stars. The solar wind correlates with aurorae and upsets to power lines. Geologists applied their normal analytic methods to Apollo samples and found effects that agree with what they would expect on the moon, but they also found things that they didn't expect, things that led them to revise their theories of the moon's origin. In your world, they had been TOLD that the moon was formed in one of three possible ways, all they had to do was see which was right. Instead, after several years, someone thought up a fourth way which fitted the Apollo evidence. This result in turn had implications for the history of the earth, as did other Apollo data such as the ages of the impact craters. You can't pick and choose what to believe in science, there is far too much inter-connectedness

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Geologists applied their normal analytic methods to Apollo samples and found effects that agree with what they would expect on the moon, but they also found things that they didn't expect, things that led them to revise their theories of the moon's origin.

A great example of this is the late, great Sir Patrick Moore. As one of the finest observers of the Moon, pre-space age, he was a firm believer that most, if not all, of the Moons craters were of volcanic origin. The exploration of the Moon, both robotic and manned, produced overwhelming evidence that the craters were of impact origin.

Apollo made all of Sir Patrick's early books on the Moon obsolete, so he, more than most, would have had reason to dispute the authenticity of Apollo. In fact he did no such thing. He embraced it, admitted he'd backed the wrong horse and accepted the evidence in front of him. That is how good science works.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Time travel. They put together the hoax but then people pointed out the flaws in the rocks. So they went back in time and fixed the hoax so it would take these issues into account. Duh.

Now that is a good example of CT thinking. Over complicated and illogical.

If they had time travel they would simply go forward in time to a point where travel to the moon WAS possible and bring back the blue prints to the 1960s. Much simpler and less chance of being caught.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Coffey]

However in the case of Apollo we do have the testament of geologists and planetary scientists, whose knowledge IS relevant to the field. Thus your example is irrelevant.

Whilst it is true that being an expert doesn't mean they are necessarily correct, it means that there is a far higher chance that they are correct than someone with no expertise in the field.

So where does the geologist learn the theories etc to come to these conclusions... The same establishment that is saying it...

I made the point clear on that before.

Some folks just want to have fun and will reject all evidence presented to them.

Same goes both ways, hence the problem.

And it shows far more intelligence to weigh up the evidence and make an informed conclusion based on observation and evidence than to go around kidding yourself that you are clever because "you don't believe everything you are told". Arguments from ignorance NEVER win the day.

Exactly and it is ignorant to believe everything someone tells you jsut because they are in a higher position.

You seem to think that science is a belief system. It's not, it's a method of measuring the world to rule out incorrect ideas and one result of this is the production of a body of knowledge that is so well established that no-one can reasonably doubt it. The moon's gravity, for instance, can be measured in different ways (eg tides) that all give the same answer. If any of what you think "we are TOLD" is wrong, it will have effects on everyone. The existence of lunar surface meteoritic damage correlates with the observation of shooting stars. The solar wind correlates with aurorae and upsets to power lines. Geologists applied their normal analytic methods to Apollo samples and found effects that agree with what they would expect on the moon, but they also found things that they didn't expect, things that led them to revise their theories of the moon's origin. In your world, they had been TOLD that the moon was formed in one of three possible ways, all they had to do was see which was right. Instead, after several years, someone thought up a fourth way which fitted the Apollo evidence. This result in turn had implications for the history of the earth, as did other Apollo data such as the ages of the impact craters. You can't pick and choose what to believe in science, there is far too much inter-connectedness

No i d not believe Science is a belief system at all. I do however believe that a lot of people who claim to know about science treat it that way.

Like a lot for people on here who constantly quote other scientists and textbooks etc.

You actually are wrong about what you pick and choose, that is exactly what happens in modern science. It is also part of the problem on both sides of the fence.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Coffey

[J. K.]

No i d not believe Science is a belief system at all. I do however believe that a lot of people who claim to know about science treat it that way.

Pardon the semantic interruption here. Is "belief" defined only as knowing something without proof? What verb is more appropriate for this sample sentence?

"I believe that gravity exists, and I will fall if I lean too far over the edge."

[Coffey]

[/size]

Pardon the semantic interruption here. Is "belief" defined only as knowing something without proof? What verb is more appropriate for this sample sentence?

"I believe that gravity exists, and I will fall if I lean too far over the edge."

That's the simplest way of evidence of gravity.

It also isn't anything to do with what I was saying.

Now prove to me the moon is not made of cheese? Using another example of that style.

Falling does not prove gravity exist either. Prove to me the reason you will fall is because of Gravity. The exact point you made proves to me you don't actually understand gravity...

Telling me gravity exists because you fall is like me telling you that you can walk, because you have feet. lol It's not that simple.

I know a lot about Physics.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Coffey

[Waspie_Dwarf]

[/size]

Pardon the semantic interruption here. Is "belief" defined only as knowing something without proof? What verb is more appropriate for this sample sentence?

"I believe that gravity exists, and I will fall if I lean too far over the edge."

What is wrong with it is that the existence of gravity is not a belief, it is a verifiable effect based on observation. Falling if you lean too far is also a certainty based on known laws and theories of nature. Belief doesn't come into it. You could quite easily substitute the word "know" for "believe" and still be correct.

However if I claim that I "know" there are fairies at the bottom of my garden most people will (correctly) point out that it is a non-verifiable statement and is a belief system. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

[J. K.]

Please note that I said "sample" sentence. I was not bringing up gravity as a topic. I was attempting to determine your definition of believe (and I messed up the quote":

No i d not believe Science is a belief system at all. I do however believe that a lot of people who claim to know about science treat it that way.

Are you saying that the word "belief" cannot be used in conjunction with a scientific statement of fact? Are you saying that the word "believe" only applies to a situation in which there is no observable or testable evidence?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Now prove to me the moon is not made of cheese? Using another example of that style.

More logical fallacies. Science uses the burden of proof. For a new theory to be accepted (or an old one overturned) the burden of proof is on those proposing the new theory. There is no burden of proof on those defending the currently accepted theory.

It is for this reason that all Apollo hoax theories fail in a scientific sense. They can not provide the burden of proof. They usual try and reverse it, just as you have done in your statement. They will claim, for example, that an image shows an anomaly. They will then claim, with no further evidence that this is proof of a hoax. When challenged they will always say, "prove that this happened on the Moon" (turbonium is a past mater at this).

What they fail to understand is that it is up to them to prove that it couldn't be taken on the Moon. Often they will show that is is possible to fake an individual image. What they fail to understand is that proving an image can be faked is not the same as proving that an image is faked.

Moreover they will pick on only a handful of images out of thousands. It takes only one image to be genuine for Apollo to be genuine.

Those supporting Apollo do not have to prove that the image had to be taken on the Moon, only that it was possible that it was taken on the Moon. If it could have been taken on the Moon then the hoax believers argument that the image is evidence of fakery fails.

Since 1969 no image has been shown to be impossible to take on the Moon, not ONE.

[Coffey]

Please note that I said "sample" sentence. I was not bringing up gravity as a topic. I was attempting to determine your definition of believe (and I messed up the quote":

No problem.

Are you saying that the word "belief" cannot be used in conjunction with a scientific statement of fact? Are you saying that the word "believe" only applies to a situation in which there is no observable or testable evidence?

Nope.

I can say "I believe that my dog is a dog". (this is probably worse than your example before when you where making your point lol)

The fact is my dog would be a dog, But I can believe it also.

BUT, now this is why it's also acceptable as a belief. It's highly unlikely, but my dog could actually turn out to be a cat. If cats and dogs where the same species and we where wrong about it. Now int his case it's very unlikely but it has happened with others animals.

I'm probably making that more complicated and confusing, I'm bad at explaining what I mean a lot of time. lol

My whole point is aimed around how people will turn round and go to someone who has seen a UFO, Oh I don't believe they exist in them unless i see it with my own eyes. Well how come that same sort of person will then believe everything a scientist tells them without question. Yet majority of the time the person has no understanding of that field of science etc. That in my opinion is treating science like a religion. Take it one step further now imagine the whole moon landing was a hoax, the government, NASA and leading scientists int eh world where in on it. Lets say they are all part of some Illuminati, elite, super masons etc. Then it would be very easy to manipulate and lie to everyone about the facts. Just like they DID with religion. lol

Imagine going back thousands of years, now have this exact debate, but take away science and replace it with religion. The conversion would have been very similar. Now we look back and laugh at how naive the human race was believing in Gods etc. I knows it's not identical, but there is similarities there. Lot's of people quote science like it's a religion, they preach it. They bash others theories with "evidence" they don't even understand themselves.

More logical fallacies. Science uses the burden of proof. For a new theory to be accepted (or an old one overturned) the burden of proof is on those proposing the new theory. There is no burden of proof on those defending the currently accepted theory.

It is for this reason that all Apollo hoax theories fail in a scientific sense. They can not provide the burden of proof. They usual try and reverse it, just as you have done in your statement. They will claim, for example, that an image shows an anomaly. They will then claim, with no further evidence that this is proof of a hoax. When challenged they will always say, "prove that this happened on the Moon" (turbonium is a past mater at this).

What they fail to understand is that it is up to them to prove that it couldn't be taken on the Moon. Often they will show that is is possible to fake an individual image. What they fail to understand is that proving an image can be faked is not the same as proving that an image is faked.

Moreover they will pick on only a handful of images out of thousands. It takes only one image to be genuine for Apollo to be genuine.

Those supporting Apollo do not have to prove that the image had to be taken on the Moon, only that it was possible that it was taken on the Moon. If it could have been taken on the Moon then the hoax believers argument that the image is evidence of fakery fails.

Since 1969 no image has been shown to be impossible to take on the Moon, not ONE.

Here's evidence of my point above.

Thanks for that.

Now.... WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS? Not someone else's.

Never even heard of that theory int hwe way you are putting it across. It seems to me that they where just making the point thta the images can be faked therefore they are not evidence that that we went to the moon. Which is true. lol It's not being used as evidence they didn't go, just saying how it can't be used as evidence that they did go. Seems like you misunderstood that.

The points I've heard which you never covered are things to do with shadows, wires, things jumping around (like frogs) etc etc.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Coffey

[J. K.]

My whole point is aimed around how people will turn round and go to someone who has seen a UFO, Oh I don't believe they exist in them unless i see it with my own eyes. Well how come that same sort of person will then believe everything a scientist tells them without question. Yet majority of the time the person has no understanding of that field of science etc. That in my opinion is treating science like a religion. Take it one step further now imagine the whole moon landing was a hoax, the government, NASA and leading scientists int eh world where in on it. Lets say they are all part of some Illuminati, elite, super masons etc. Then it would be very easy to manipulate and lie to everyone about the facts. Just like they DID with religion. lol

I would agree with you, and I would say that anything a person is passionate about can become a religion to them.