Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

6 stupid things about the moon landing


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#46    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:34 PM

View PostJ. K., on 06 February 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

[/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.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#47    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:41 PM

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":

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

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?

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#48    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:48 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

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.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#49    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

View PostJ. K., on 06 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

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. :tu:

View PostJ. K., on 06 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

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.


View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

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 by Coffey, 06 February 2013 - 07:07 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#50    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:16 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

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.

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#51    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'm not saying I believe it's a hoax, but....

That is just like when people are about to make a racist comment and preface it with "I'm not racist but...".


#52    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:05 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

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

You really don't get it do you. You seem to criticise scientific method without the vaguest clue as to how it works.

I'll try again and see if you can understand this time.

The same principle I used with images applies to wires, shadows, movement etc.

It is not enough to show that something appears to be a wire, the hoax believer has to prove that it can't be anything EXCEPT a wire.

If there is ANY possible explanation consistent with the accepted theory i.e. Apollo is genuine (for example reflections off of a radio antenna) then the hoax believers evidence can not be considered proof. Their explanation must be the only possible explanation and it is their burden to prove it.

The pro-Apollo side does not have to prove ANYTHING as it is already considered proven. In order to show that the hoax believers case should not be accepted they only have to show that there are explanations consistent with Apollo being genuine.

In logic (around which science is based) this is known as falsifiability.

To summarise the above example:

Hoax believer shows an image that they claim shows a wire. This they say proves Apollo was a hoax. They have the burden of proof.

Pro-Apollo side put forward alternative expalnations, eg it's an antenna not a wire, it's a fault on the negative, it's an internal reflection inside the camera lens, etc.

Hoax believer's case fails. As there are alternative explanations consistent with Apollo then they have not proven the existence of the wire and therefore their photo can not, logically, be considered evidence of their theory.

But actually it is even worse than that for the hoax believer. Even if they can disprove every alternative suggested this still does not constitute proof that they are correct. If you claim 1+1=3 and I claim 1+1=4, simply proving you wrong does not prove me right. Unless the hoax believer can show that what they claim to be a wire actually is a wire then their argument has not passed the burden of proof.

I repeat, not one single argument that the hoax believers have put forward in over 43 years has passed the burden of proof.

Apollo is not a matter of faith or belief. It is a matter of fact.. either it is genuine or it isn't. As such, if it is faked then the hoax believers should be able to put forward arguments and evidence which do pass the burden of proof. They fact that in over 4 decades of trying they have been unable to do so leads to only one rational, logical conclusion... Apollo was genuine.

Hoax believers are just that... believers.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 06 February 2013 - 08:06 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#53    burt_ie

burt_ie

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 103 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2008

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:13 PM

To me the moon landings were an amazing achievement for the human race and happened during a time when people were looking to the future and achieving great things. It brought people together and showed us what we could achieve as a species if we worked hard and put aside our differences. All that is now gone because governments are more concerned with money and costs.

I really dont know why people chose to belive that
it was all faked...


#54    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:19 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

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

Science says basic knowledge can be wrong when there are theories to overturn and replace the existing understanding, which is not the case here. The base knowledge which applies in all the sciences here have so far stood the test of time and no alternative science has come forth to displace it.

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

It was a fact and science that Pluto was a planet, it is not a fact anymore and scientifically it is a dwarf planet

No, your statment is misleading. Pluto was classed as a planet... just. The definition of a planet was never formalised but when in 2006 the IAU did define a planet, Pluto no longer fell within the definition of a planet (and became, as you said, a dwarf planet). No facts changed, merely definitions. No science changed, merely defininitions.

Edited by Obviousman, 06 February 2013 - 08:25 PM.


#55    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,840 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:22 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

Same goes both ways, hence the problem.

It then comes down to whose side is supported by facts and evidence.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#56    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:53 PM

View PostObviousman, on 06 February 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Science says basic knowledge can be wrong when there are theories to overturn and replace the existing understanding, which is not the case here. The base knowledge which applies in all the sciences here have so far stood the test of time and no alternative science has come forth to displace it.

In the moon landing there is nothing based on science though. lol It's based on believing certain people not science. :tu:


View PostObviousman, on 06 February 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

No, your statment is misleading. Pluto was classed as a planet... just. The definition of a planet was never formalised but when in 2006 the IAU did define a planet, Pluto no longer fell within the definition of a planet (and became, as you said, a dwarf planet). No facts changed, merely definitions. No science changed, merely defininitions.

Bad example then, World being flat? Big bang theory and larger Planets? (the newest change)



View Postskyeagle409, on 06 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

It then comes down to whose side is supported by facts and evidence.

Exactly.... :tu:

Can something be fact or evidence if it is a lie though.... :clap:

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

You really don't get it do you. You seem to criticise scientific method without the vaguest clue as to how it works.

I'll try again and see if you can understand this time.

The same principle I used with images applies to wires, shadows, movement etc.

It is not enough to show that something appears to be a wire, the hoax believer has to prove that it can't be anything EXCEPT a wire.

If there is ANY possible explanation consistent with the accepted theory i.e. Apollo is genuine (for example reflections off of a radio antenna) then the hoax believers evidence can not be considered proof. Their explanation must be the only possible explanation and it is their burden to prove it.

The pro-Apollo side does not have to prove ANYTHING as it is already considered proven. In order to show that the hoax believers case should not be accepted they only have to show that there are explanations consistent with Apollo being genuine.

In logic (around which science is based) this is known as falsifiability.

To summarise the above example:

Hoax believer shows an image that they claim shows a wire. This they say proves Apollo was a hoax. They have the burden of proof.

Pro-Apollo side put forward alternative expalnations, eg it's an antenna not a wire, it's a fault on the negative, it's an internal reflection inside the camera lens, etc.

Hoax believer's case fails. As there are alternative explanations consistent with Apollo then they have not proven the existence of the wire and therefore their photo can not, logically, be considered evidence of their theory.

But actually it is even worse than that for the hoax believer. Even if they can disprove every alternative suggested this still does not constitute proof that they are correct. If you claim 1+1=3 and I claim 1+1=4, simply proving you wrong does not prove me right. Unless the hoax believer can show that what they claim to be a wire actually is a wire then their argument has not passed the burden of proof.

I repeat, not one single argument that the hoax believers have put forward in over 43 years has passed the burden of proof.

Apollo is not a matter of faith or belief. It is a matter of fact.. either it is genuine or it isn't. As such, if it is faked then the hoax believers should be able to put forward arguments and evidence which do pass the burden of proof. They fact that in over 4 decades of trying they have been unable to do so leads to only one rational, logical conclusion... Apollo was genuine.

Hoax believers are just that... believers.

I don't criticize scientific method at all. LOL

I'm criticizing people who don't understand it properly. :tsu:

View PostObviousman, on 06 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

That is just like when people are about to make a racist comment and preface it with "I'm not racist but...".


Hahaha, I honestly don't believe it is a hoax.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#57    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,840 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:12 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:


Exactly.... :tu:

Can something be fact or evidence if it is a lie though.... :clap:

If it is a lie, then it is not the true evidence that I am speaking of. Case in point: the so-called evidence of Apollo moon hoax folks regarding the footprints of astronauts and the waving flag on the moon. Scientific means were used to determined that the Apollo moon folks were wrong on all counts.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#58    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:23 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

I don't criticize scientific method at all. LOL

I'm criticizing people who don't understand it properly. :tsu:
People in glass houses...

You have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of even the most basic logical principles on which scientific methodology is based. Your posts are littered with logical fallacies and non sequiturs.

You are in no position to criticise anyone until you have corrected your own overwhelming deficiencies on the subject.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#59    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 06 February 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

If it is a lie, then it is not the true evidence that I am speaking of. Case in point: the so-called evidence of Apollo moon hoax folks regarding the footprints of astronauts and the waving flag on the moon. Scientific means were used to determined that the Apollo moon folks were wrong on all counts.


So what would you think if the government announced on live TV tomorrow that the whole thing was a lie and a cover up?

What would your true feeling and reaction be?

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

People in glass houses...

You have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of even the most basic logical principles on which scientific methodology is based. Your posts are littered with logical fallacies and non sequiturs.

You are in no position to criticise anyone until you have corrected your own overwhelming deficiencies on the subject.

I love people like you, there is no flaws in my posts, only you not being able to understand my point. Which is apparent by the your posts.

You couldn't even grasp the point made about the photographs. :whistle:

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#60    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,630 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:45 PM

Is there an Off switch in here somewhere for this thread ? Its All B.S. We went to the Moon 12 people walked on it !
:tu:

This is a Work in Progress!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users