Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
ali smack

6 stupid things about the moon landing

97 posts in this topic

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...".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same goes both ways, hence the problem.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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)

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:

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:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

the conspiracy is BS but sadly a lot of people do believe it. it's frustrating when they call me an idiot for not believing in there tripe

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to ignore, Coffey. You're a waste of time IMHO.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to ignore, Coffey. You're a waste of time IMHO.

It's most certainly a waste of time trying to discuss anything in a logical way with him, as he doesn't understand the most simple of concepts but assumes that it is everyone else that doesn't get it. If ignorance is bliss who are we to make someone unhappy?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's most certainly a waste of time trying to discuss anything in a logical way with him, as he doesn't understand the most simple of concepts but assumes that it is everyone else that doesn't get it. If ignorance is bliss who are we to make someone unhappy?

His absurd belief that science is controlled by the evil gubmint is just hilarious.

He has pointed it out multiple times in this thread.

His posts were literally logical fallacies confirmed by another logical fallacy....sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, Why would moon hoaxers think he could cover up fake moon landings. Oh I know...STUPID!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, Why would moon hoaxers think he could cover up fake moon landings. Oh I know...STUPID!!!

The US government couldn't even hide the semen stain on Lewinski's dress, how on earth could they have covered up the moon landings???? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US government couldn't even hide the semen stain on Lewinski's dress, how on earth could they have covered up the moon landings???? LOL

Look how fast the Watergate scandal went down the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

As just one example of your picking and choosing, you said "everything we are told about he moon could be wrong". One of the things I'd mentioned that got that reply was the moon's low gravity. This isn't something we are told, it's something that has been measured in various different ways. Some of those ways, such as the tides, are there for anyone to observe, not just some remote scientist telling you about it. Astronomers have had a good measure of the mass of the moon for the best part of 200 years. Several nations have actually sent probes to the moon that would not have worked if that mass was wrong. You can't discard known facts about the moon without also discarding a lot of what is the accepted physical environment here on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As just one example of your picking and choosing, you said "everything we are told about he moon could be wrong". One of the things I'd mentioned that got that reply was the moon's low gravity. This isn't something we are told, it's something that has been measured in various different ways. Some of those ways, such as the tides, are there for anyone to observe, not just some remote scientist telling you about it. Astronomers have had a good measure of the mass of the moon for the best part of 200 years. Several nations have actually sent probes to the moon that would not have worked if that mass was wrong. You can't discard known facts about the moon without also discarding a lot of what is the accepted physical environment here on earth.

That doesn't prove I'm wrong at all.

If we where wrong about just 1 of those variables, then it could change all the facts.

Just like things have changed int he past.

Seriously imagine yourself when the world was flat, you had the understanding of the world being flat and some crazy nut job is telling you it's round. Because back then they didn't have the scientific understanding that they do now. Now imagine what could be discovered in the next few millenniums. What if we can't comprehend possibilities now until it's proven like we did back then. Everything you are debating with me about would change. Which means everything you said was actually not fact. YET you know what facts would remain? The ones I'm explaining in this thread. Because it wouldn't matter that all our science had changed and all our theories had changed and all the facts had changed. My facts would still be there proving that in science facts can change and people cna certainly lie and people who can't think for themselves will carry on following the people who lie and enslave them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in conspiracy regarding Moon Landings, you have to pick and choose!!!!!!

I have no debate regarding this with astronomers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristarchus of Samos proved the Earth is round in 300BC. Eratosthenes in 200 BC.

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Do hoaxers believe that the moon is a flat disc, since that's all we can observe with our eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Do hoaxers believe that the moon is a flat disc, since that's all we can observe with our eyes?

Well, the moon looks like Swiss Cheese, so according to typical conspiracy logic (like "the WTC looks like a controlled demolition") there is probably a Swiss Cheese moon community out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look how fast the Watergate scandal went down the drain.

But look at the great job they did in keeping all of the drone strikes secret......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.