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

#31    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,209 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:19 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:


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.


Quote

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.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#32    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,577 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:22 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

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. :tu:

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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#33    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,670 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 - 04:30 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 06 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

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.

View PostLilly, on 06 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

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.

View PostLilly, on 06 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

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 by Coffey, 06 February 2013 - 04:38 PM.

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

#34    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,896 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 - 04:48 PM

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

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.

"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

#35    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,577 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

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

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#36    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,896 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 - 05:00 PM

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

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.

Quote

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 by Waspie_Dwarf, 06 February 2013 - 05:02 PM.
fixed link.

"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

#37    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:21 PM

View PostLilly, on 06 February 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

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.


#38    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,896 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 - 05:43 PM

View Postali smack, on 06 February 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:


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.

"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

#39    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,931 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:47 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

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.

;)

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#40    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:52 PM

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

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

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

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#41    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,896 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 - 06:03 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 06 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

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.

"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

#42    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,896 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 - 06:06 PM

View PostCorp, on 06 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:



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 by Waspie_Dwarf, 06 February 2013 - 06:07 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

#43    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,670 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 - 06:13 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

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.

View Postskyeagle409, on 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

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

Same goes both ways, hence the problem.

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 06 February 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

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.

View Postflyingswan, on 06 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

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 by Coffey, 06 February 2013 - 06:16 PM.

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

#44    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:22 PM

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.


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."

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#45    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,670 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 - 06:31 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."

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. :tu:

Edited by Coffey, 06 February 2013 - 06:37 PM.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users