[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[frenat]

Before the Apollo program, Van Allen said the Belts were a serious hazard for humans, and a spaceship would need a shield so thick it would be too heavy to lift off.

Citation please

The Apollo program started, and the Belts were not a problem anymore.

They went around the majority of them through the thinnest outer edges. They are BELTS and not spheres after all.

Over 40 years later, we spend a fortune to study the Belts with two probes.

How DARE we try to understand them more! The nerve! Gee, you think if they want to travel back and forth more often that a better understanding might be nice to more trajectories could be plotted? Or they could go deeper into the thick parts? The trajectories used for Apollo won't work every day of the month.

Before Apollo began, Von Braun said we'd need to put a fueling station in Earth orbit, in order to get a spaceship to the moon. It would take two or more rockets for it to work.

Von Braun was assuming the direct ascent method which requires a bigger rocket. We used the lunar orbit rendezvous method instead.

Apollo came along, no fueling station was needed, and one rocket worked out just dandy

And every engineer that actually understands it agrees. The math works.

Over 40 years later, we do need a fueling station, and at least two rockets.

We want to stay longer with more people. Gee, maybe we need to bring more stuff with us, you think?

See a pattern?

Yes, you have failed yet again.

[Czero 101]

Before Apollo began, Von Braun said we'd need to put a fueling station in Earth orbit, in order to get a spaceship to the moon. It would take two or more rockets for it to work.

Von Braun was assuming the direct ascent method which requires a bigger rocket. We used the lunar orbit rendezvous method instead.

Apollo came along, no fueling station was needed, and one rocket worked out just dandy

And every engineer that actually understands it agrees. The math works.

Lets not forget that the Saturn V, launch vehicle, while a single vehicle, was still made up of 3 separate rockets... they just called them stages.

1 rocket / stage to get them off the ground and part of the way to orbit

1 rocket / stage to get the rest of the way into orbit

1 rocket / stage to get them in to parking orbit then to put them on a course for the Moon.

How does that set up contradict what Von Braun originally theorized? Even if Direct Ascent was not used, they still needed multiple rockets to get them to the Moon.

So once again, Turbs proves he has virtually no understanding of this topic and is dead set and determined to stay ignorant, no matter how foolish he makes himself look in the process...

Cz

Edited April 6, 2013 by Czero 101

[Halcyon Dayz]

It may come as a shock to you, but governments have been known to lie at times!!

This is a fallacious ad hominem argument.

You have accused them of lying about this.

You have failed to present valid evidence in support of your accusation.

You should retract your accusation.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

It was also accepted as true that the Earth was the center of our solar sytem. It "passed the tests set of it", as well.

Now do you understand the flaw in your argument?

No but I can see see the flaw in yours. That you can't is amazing to me, how can anyone have something explained to them that many times and still not get it? I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be THAT stupid, in which case your failure to accept the burden of proof is deliberate. I repeat what I said earlier, the only reason for not accepting the burden of proof is that you know you can't meet it.

Read this VERY slowly.

When the geocentric view of the universe was the ACCEPTED truth it had NO burden of proof, it was considered proven (that it was wrong is irrelevant, that it was accepted as true IS relevant). The new hypothesis, the heliocentric view DID have the burden of proof (again that it was true is irrelevant, that it was not, at that point, accepted as true IS relevant).

Since the evidence supported the heliocentric view it replaced the geocentric as the ACCEPTED truth. As such the heliocentric view no longer has the burden of proof. Anyone that NOW claims that the Earth is the centre of the solar system WOULD have the entire burden of proof.

It's really not difficult. Read it again and again, it might sink in eventually. When it does progress to this next part.

Apollo IS the ACCEPTED truth so, just like the heliocentric view of the solar system, or the world being spherical, or the sky being blue it has NO BURDEN OF PROOF (as with the geo/heliocentric models of the solar system whether it is ACTUALLY true is not relevant, that it is accepted as true is).

The Apollo Hoax theory IS NOT the ACCEPTED truth therefore it HAS the entire burden of proof.

See how it works:

Accepted = no burden

Not accepted = all the burden.

The world is a sphere = no burden

The world is flat = all the burden

The sky is blue = no burden

The sky is green = all the burden

Apollo was real = no burden

Apollo was faked = all the burden.

Accepting something as 'true' doesn't necessarily mean it IS true.

Yes, you already said that:

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.

This was my answer:

And he's back. I wondered how long before you resorted to dishonest tactics. Here we have a straw man argument. I didn't say that because it was the accepted truth it must be the truth? Why do you think I used the word accepted?

If you'd like to point out which part of that you didn't understand I'll rephrase it in simpler form for you.

Your own example (which like so much of what you post proves you wrong if only you could understand it) shows that the accepted truth is changeable. We humans are not gods. We don't know everything absolutely. Science accepts this. It doesn't claim to know absolutely what is true, only what has the most supporting evidence. That which is best supported by the evidence is accepted as true unless or until evidence comes along that overturns the accepted view.

You have failed spectacularly to provide any such evidence. I challenge you again, if you genuinely believe the evidence supports your case then send it to the FIA in Paris. You and I both know you wont be doing that.

This is why it has the burden of proof. Like Apollo does.

Wrong as usual. The geocentric view has a burden of proof because it is not accepted. Apollo is accepted. Can you grasp the difference between "not accepted" and "accepted"? In this respect Apollo has the same burden of proof as the heliocentric view, NONE.

If science worked the way YOU think it should (it is logical, rational and evidence based so it most certainly doesn't) then EVERYTHING would have the burden of proof all of the time. If just one person claimed that the sky was green then science would have to prove it wasn't. More over it would have to do this again and again every time another nutter came along. This is (to any rational person) clearly a nonsense. This is why the ACCEPTED truth does not and should not have the burden of proof. There would be no progress, nothing would ever be considered true and superstitious nonsense would reign supreme.

There can be NO exceptions to this. It applies to all circumstances equally. Now that proves inconvenient to those with a belief and bugger all evidence (like those that believe the world to be flat, the sky to be green or that Apollo was faked) but that is how it is.

Apollo didn't meet the burden of proof whatsoever. It was seen on TV, and people just accepted it as 'true'.... !

If you would just turn your ego down and your IQ up you would see this is just your opinion. Your opinion counts for nothing. You don't get to decide for everyone else whether Apollo was true or not (unless you are a member of the FAI). My opinion counts for nothing either. The opinion of the FAI DOES count. They do get to say whether Apollo passed it's burden of proof, and in 1969 they accepted it. Apollo will remain officially accepted unless enough evidence is produced to overturn their decision. So it's not just a mater of formal logic, but it is a reality that the burden of proof lies with you.

Keep reading this until you understand it. Try looking up burden of proof on other sites, read those until you understand it. Alternatively keep posting nonsense and looking ignorant and foolish. Your choice.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf
several typos corrected and additions made.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

It may come as a shock to you, but governments have been known to lie at times!!

As have you turbonium. We all remember you inventing a quote then trying to pretend it was all a joke. Are we to apply the same logic to you? Are we to assume that every post you make is a deliberate lie because you are a known liar? Can we use you as an example to warn everyone that Hoax Believers are liars and can't be trusted in anything they say on any subject?

That would be moronic logic... but it's the logic you are using.

Hypocrisy from turbonium? There's unusual

[turbonium]

As have you turbonium. We all remember you inventing a quote then trying to pretend it was all a joke. Are we to apply the same logic to you? Are we to assume that every post you make is a deliberate lie because you are a known liar? Can we use you as an example to warn everyone that Hoax Believers are liars and can't be trusted in anything they say on any subject?

This has been explained to you over and over, and you still look for any chance to bleat about it endlessly!

As I've repeatedly told you, it was not a lie, it was a joke.

I'n sure you know that a quote is something said by a person? Sure you do. And who would be the person I falsely quoted here?

I didn't actually 'invent' that quote for anyone, did I? If I had intended it to be perceived as a real quote, then I'd need to attribute the quote to a person.

You are completely oblivious to that fact, in your borderline-psychotic desire to slander my character.

I didn't add a smiley-face emoticon in the post. Of course, all jokes must be posted with at least one smiley-face or it's not considered to be a joke. And should you forget to add a smiley-face, you will be declared a liar.

That's the biggest joke here.. .

[turbonium]

Citation please

Of course..

Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid. It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.

http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

How DARE we try to understand them more! The nerve! Gee, you think if they want to travel back and forth more often that a better understanding might be nice to more trajectories could be plotted? Or they could go deeper into the thick parts? The trajectories used for Apollo won't work every day of the month.

Actually, they view it as a critical requirement, from the doscuments I've read. Not because it's "nice" to know more about them!

We want to stay longer with more people. Gee, maybe we need to bring more stuff with us, you think?

We want to go to Mars too. But the first missions they planned to do are just short-stay lunar missions.

[turbonium]

No but I can see see the flaw in yours. That you can't is amazing to me, how can anyone have something explained to them that many times and still not get it? I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be THAT stupid, in which case your failure to accept the burden of proof is deliberate. I repeat what I said earlier, the only reason for not accepting the burden of proof is that you know you can't meet it.

Read this VERY slowly.

When the geocentric view of the universe was the ACCEPTED truth it had NO burden of proof, it was considered proven (that it was wrong is irrelevant, that it was accepted as true IS relevant). The new hypothesis, the heliocentric view DID have the burden of proof (again that it was true is irrelevant, that it was not, at that point, accepted as true IS relevant).

Since the evidence supported the heliocentric view it replaced the geocentric as the ACCEPTED truth. As such the heliocentric view no longer has the burden of proof. Anyone that NOW claims that the Earth is the centre of the solar system WOULD have the entire burden of proof.

It's really not difficult. Read it again and again, it might sink in eventually. When it does progress to this next part.

Apollo IS the ACCEPTED truth so, just like the heliocentric view of the solar system, or the world being spherical, or the sky being blue it has NO BURDEN OF PROOF (as with the geo/heliocentric models of the solar system whether it is ACTUALLY true is not relevant, that it is accepted as true is).

The Apollo Hoax theory IS NOT the ACCEPTED truth therefore it HAS the entire burden of proof.

See how it works:

Accepted = no burden

Not accepted = all the burden.

The world is a sphere = no burden

The world is flat = all the burden

The sky is blue = no burden

The sky is green = all the burden

Apollo was real = no burden

Apollo was faked = all the burden.

Yes, you already said that:

This was my answer:

If you'd like to point out which part of that you didn't understand I'll rephrase it in simpler form for you.

Your own example (which like so much of what you post proves you wrong if only you could understand it) shows that the accepted truth is changeable. We humans are not gods. We don't know everything absolutely. Science accepts this. It doesn't claim to know absolutely what is true, only what has the most supporting evidence. That which is best supported by the evidence is accepted as true unless or until evidence comes along that overturns the accepted view.

You have failed spectacularly to provide any such evidence. I challenge you again, if you genuinely believe the evidence supports your case then send it to the FIA in Paris. You and I both know you wont be doing that.

Wrong as usual. The geocentric view has a burden of proof because it is not accepted. Apollo is accepted. Can you grasp the difference between "not accepted" and "accepted"? In this respect Apollo has the same burden of proof as the heliocentric view, NONE.

All claims have a burden of proof. Some claims are accepted by meeting the burden of proof, and some claims are accepted without meeting their burden of proof. All claims need proof, it is up to those who make those claims to prove them. It is their responsibility, their burden.

Do you think scientists don't need to show proof for anything? Yes, they do - they have the burden of proof for their claims. Accepting the claim as true without any proof does not magically absolve them of the responsibility - their burden - to prove the claim IS true.

.

The geocentric view has a burden of proof - whether it is accepted as 'true', or is not accepted as 'true'. The whole reason it was later found to be false is because it failed to meet its burden of proof when it was first accepted as 'true'!!

The claim of Apollo being genuine has a burden of proof, like all claims have a burden of proof. Just because a claim is accepted does not free them of meeting that burden.

A claim that is accepted as 'true' without any proof is simply A BELIEF. It is a viewpoint, or a theory, or an opinion.

A religion is widely accepted, so would you say it does not need to be proven either? It has no burden of proof? That the burden of proof is on those who dispute the accepted 'truth'? If the accepted view is Christ, or Buddha, or whatever, is it up to those who dispute it tp prove it is not true?

Think about it....

Edited April 7, 2013 by turbonium

[skyeagle409]

Of course..

Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

It is evident why you are not credible at all. Apparently, you haven't figured out that the astronauts did not travel through the most dangerous area of the Van Allen belts which explains how the astronauts passed safely through the Van Allen belt.

Even a caveman could have figured it out, but it is evident that you are having a bit of a problem.

The claim of Apollo being genuine has a burden of proof, like all claims have a burden of proof. Just because a claim is accepted does not free them of meeting that burden.

The rest of the world confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions, so there you are! Why should anyone believe a person who has been proven wrong with facts and evidence time after time after time. in other words, your track record is not credible at all.

Edited April 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

All claims have a burden of proof.

The burden of proof regarding the reality of the Apollo moon missions has been met, however, you have failed in your endeavor to refute the evidence. The Apollo moon missions were a reality and you can do nothing to re-write that history from the comfort of your keyboard. Simple as that!

[skyeagle409]

This has been explained to you over and over, and you still look for any chance to bleat about it endlessly!

No, it has been explained to you over and over. You are just making a mockery of yourself in front of us all.

[skyeagle409]

Of course..

Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

Now, let's do it again and this time pay attention.

Doug Millard

"You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long,"

Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did the Apollo astronauts get past the van Allen belt?

The Van Allen belts are areas of highly charged particles, mainly electrons and protons, but also with smaller amount of alpha particles.

The dangers to the craft are in the form of radiation which can interfere with, disrupt and damage sensitive electrical equipment. In some space flights electrical equipment has been turned off whilst passing through the belts in order to prevent damage. Of course, space craft also have built-in screening to minimise radiation risks.

To protect astronauts from radiation dangers, spacecraft are fitted with various types of shielding, such as aluminum shielding, and the astronauts also wear protective clothing during this part of their journey. Also the courses/paths were plotted so that the craft would travel through the parts of space where the Van Allen belts are at their thinnest. Despite these precautions, there were and are still serious radiation considerations.

Using calculations of the amount of radiation, the actual time spent passing through the belts, and the shielding used by the Apollo crew, scientists reckoned that the Apollo spacecrafts would pass through the Van Allen belts so quickly that space travellers would not receive any significant life or health-threatening levels of exposure to radiation risks during their flights.

But the matter is not clear cut. There was and is a risk, even if infinitely small. For example, cancers are caused by cell mutation. And sometimes it takes many years for cancer to become evident in a person exposed to harmful radiation. In the Apollo missions the probability of risk was considered to be so small as to be 'nil' for all practical purposes.

Post-flight Developments: In more recent years NASA has reported cases of eye cataracts developing in the majority of astronauts after returning to earth, some within 4 to 5 years of returning, other cases taking 10 or more years to become apparent. Scientists have long known that there is a causal relationship between radiation exposure and cataracts, but whether the astronauts' eye disorders occurred as the direct consequence of passing through the Van Allen belts, or by other radiation in space, or by entirely non-space-flight-related factors is unknown.

Summary: The astronauts got through the Van Allen belts by speed, shielding and carefully planned flight paths, but whether they did so without harm has yet to be determined.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Apollo_astronauts_get_past_the_van_Allen_belt

Van Allen radiation belt

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside the earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads(1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity

Radiation from Space

During a complete Apollo mission, astronauts were exposed to widely varying radiation sources. These included the Van Allen belts, cosmic rays, neutrons, and other subatomic particles created in high-energy collisions of primary particles with spacecraft materials. Spacecraft transfer from low Earth orbit to translunar coast necessitated traverse of the regions of geomagnetically trapped electrons and protons known as the Van Allen belts. When beyond these belts, the spacecraft and crewmen were continuously subjected to high-energy cosmic rays and to varying probabilities of particle bursts from the sun. In addition, the individual responsibilities of the crewmen differed, and with these, their radiation exposure. Free-space extravehicular activity, lunar surface activity and intravehicular Command and Lunar Module activity imposed varying radiation doses.

Van Allen Belts

The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km (? 300 nautical miles)] when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly. Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.

Particles within the Van Allen belts, in spiraling around the Earth’s magnetic lines of force, display directionality. This directionality varies continuously in angular relationship to the trajectory of the spacecraft. Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation for use in the Van Allen belts had relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux would be measured accurately. The Van Allen belt dosimeter was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

Simple to understand. After all, you don't refuse chest X-rays, do you?

[frenat]

Of course..

Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid. It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.

http://www.buzzcreek...N/articles1.htm

I see nothing in there about the "spaceship would need a shield so thick it would be too heavy to lift off". They did have extra shielding and as already mentioned they planned their trajectory to minimize the risks.

Actually, they view it as a critical requirement, from the doscuments I've read. Not because it's "nice" to know more about them!

I should have known better than to use sarcasm. Yes, it would be critical if you want to go back and forth more often because you can't always plan a way around the belts like you did wth Apollo and the exposure is cumulative. What would be ok for one trip would not be ok for 10.

We want to go to Mars too. But the first missions they planned to do are just short-stay lunar missions.

And if that was ALL they were thinking about then they would be short-sighted. They are looking at longer stays with more people, even if the first few are short they need to have different equipment that can be expanded for later.

[postbaguk]

You simply assume they are all properly pressurized spacesuits, without any documentation?

It states in the video which tests are done unpressurised, and which are done at 3.5psi. You can visibly see the difference between tests pressurised, and unpressurised.

I recall a document on knee flex with data, I'll try and find it for you.

We did that dance a year ago.

Can you document your suits, or not?

I don't need to. You are making a claim that it's impossible to substantially bend a pressurised suit at the knee. For your claim to hold any water, it must explain this...

...and it must explain this:-

I can't find anything on the famous Apollo suits regarding this either, can you?

You're the one making spurious claims, I'm assuming you did that based on research and evidence?

How about a video that shows the actual pressurization of those suits? How come we don't see it before to after it puffs up, in the videos?

How about a video that shows the actual pressurization of those suits? How come we don't see it before to after it puffs up, in the videos?

How about you just admit you were wrong? How come you seem to lack that ability, which most of us accept is simply part of what makes us human?

Edited April 7, 2013 by postbaguk

[Waspie_Dwarf]

This has been explained to you over and over, and you still look for any chance to bleat about it endlessly!

As I've repeatedly told you, it was not a lie, it was a joke.

I'n sure you know that a quote is something said by a person? Sure you do. And who would be the person I falsely quoted here?

I didn't actually 'invent' that quote for anyone, did I? If I had intended it to be perceived as a real quote, then I'd need to attribute the quote to a person.

You are completely oblivious to that fact, in your borderline-psychotic desire to slander my character.

I didn't add a smiley-face emoticon in the post. Of course, all jokes must be posted with at least one smiley-face or it's not considered to be a joke. And should you forget to add a smiley-face, you will be declared a liar.

That's the biggest joke here.. .

For it to be slander it has to be false. You and I both know that you tried to pass off a false quote as genuine (something the Mayor of London got sacked from the Times of London for doing. He's not been allowed to forget it so why should you?)

The facts are that:

• You included the quote amongst several others which were genuine.
  
• You claimed the quotes supported you.
  
• You only admitted that the quote was false AFTER you were asked to provide a source.
  
• Having been caught out only then did you claim that it was a joke.
  
• At the time this site had a rule expressly forbidding posting information that was known to be false.

I told you at the time that the reason you were not being punished for rule breaking was because the damage it would do to your credibility would be greater than anything I could dish out as a moderator. That still holds true.

You can claim it wasn't a lie all you like, the fact is you invented an untrue quote and you were caught out. No slander to you character, you damaged your own reputation.

When you are saying that some people should not be believed because they sometimes lie I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to remind you that you were caught lying too. No matter how you try and explain it a way you made a false claim, FACT! By your own logic nothing you say should ever be believed.

My point though, in case you missed it, is that just because someone lies it doesn't mean that they don't tell the truth too. It is your logic I am rejecting, I simply needed an example of the falsity of your logic, and your past indiscretion makes a perfect example (so thank you for that).

The claim of Apollo being genuine has a burden of proof, like all claims have a burden of proof. Just because a claim is accepted does not free them of meeting that burden.

WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!

The claim of Apollo being genuine HAD a burden of proof. Once a claim is accepted it is deemed to have met the burden of proof

The genuine nature of Apollo was officially accepted in 1969.

Since Apollo is deemed to be true (and I repeat here, it doesn't matter if Apollo actually IS true, just that it is deemed to be true) ANY theory opposing that has the burden of proof?

A claim that is accepted as 'true' without any proof is simply A BELIEF. It is a viewpoint, or a theory, or an opinion.

Like the Apollo hoax theory for exaqmple, a theory which not one of its believers has ever been able to produce a single, irrefutable piece of supporting evidence for.

A religion is widely accepted, so would you say it does not need to be proven either? It has no burden of proof? That the burden of proof is on those who dispute the accepted 'truth'? If the accepted view is Christ, or Buddha, or whatever, is it up to those who dispute it to prove it is not true?

There is a difference here. Apollo is not a religion, it is something which is considered to be proven scientifically. It doesn't matter how many people believe Apollo, it is accepted to be true because the official bodies which recognise aeronautical and astronautical records consider it to be true.

Christ and Buddha, whilst having millions of believers are not considered to be proven scientifically. There is no one religion "officially" recognised as being correct. Thus they have the burden of proof, Apollo does not. What you are not comprehending is that I do not "believe" in Apollo in the same way as people believe in Christ. Apollo has a mountain of evidence which supports it. I accept Apollo as it HAS passed the burden of proof. If there was an officially, scientifically recognised religion, it would have no burden of proof whilst all the others, not matter how many followers they had, would have the burden of proof.

With this nonsense you are confirming what I have believed all along. You simply do not understand the concept of a scientific theory. To equate it to a religious belief shows a misconception on a monumental scale.

To get back to your fact dodging, logic avoiding, Apollo truth denier beliefs: your claims do not pass that burden. Not once have you put forward a claim that doesn't contain the words "might have", "possibly", or "could have". Not one of your claims can has ever been shown to ONLY be true if Apollo was faked, all have alternative explanations which are consistent with Apollo being genuine. Sure, you all ways reject those explanations out of hand with no evidence or rational argument. Usually you just call them "excuses". That is why you refuse to accept the burden of proof, because you fail to meet it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I say it again, if you truely believed your evidence was strong, you would accept the burden of proof with open arms. The only possible reason that you try to avoid it is because you know your arguments can't pass it. In 1969 NASA accepted the burden of proof and EVERY SINGLE relevant authority on the planet considered that they had passed it. Not one of them has changed that opinion in 44 years. That is the reality of the situation whether you like it or not.

Your arguments; rejecting evidence out of hand, cherry-picking, quoting out of context, substituting supposition for evidence and hoping that no one will notice, this is the behaviour of a "true believer". This is the behaviour of some one that follows a religion.

Unless you can provide evidence I will continue to entirely reject your religion. Like so many others it has no supporting evidence but an awful lot of irrational fanatics that are beyond redemption.

If you want to argue that your case has scientific value then you must argue within the confines of scientific convention and that means accepting the burden of proof lies with you. That means accepting that which is already considered proven does not need to be proven. This is what any scientist with a new hypothesis accepts. The accept that it will live or die on whether enough supporting evidence can be found to unseat the perceived wisdom of the day. It is what Kepler had to achieve... and he did. If you are prepared to do that then good, you will fail, but good.

However if you are not prepared to accept those constraints then have the honesty to admit yours is a strongly held belief, not a scientific hypothesis.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf
typos.

[Czero 101]

The facts are that:

• You included the quote amongst several others which were genuine.
  
• You claimed the quotes supported you.
  
• You only admitted that the quote was false AFTER you were asked to provide a source.
  
• Having been caught out only then did you claim that it was a joke.
  
• At the time this site had a rule expressly forbidding posting information that was known to be false.
  

It still does, too....

Cz

[Gaden]

... Are we to assume that every post you make is a deliberate lie because you are a known liar? Can we use you as an example to warn everyone that Hoax Believers are liars and can't be trusted in anything they say on any subject?

Works for me.

[turbonium]

[/i]

It is evident why you are not credible at all. Apparently, you haven't figured out that the astronauts did not travel through the most dangerous area of the Van Allen belts which explains how the astronauts passed safely through the Van Allen belt.

Even a caveman could have figured it out, but it is evident that you are having a bit of a problem.

I guess you'd have to be a caveman to accept that load of tripe.

Alan Bean had no idea what a Van Allen Belt was, and didn't know where the Belts were until Bart Sibrel told him!

Clearly he would know how to avoid the Belts, even though he doesn't know they exist yet, or that he's supposedly flown right around them so he can get to the moon, and avoid the Belts getting back to Earth!!

You are in fine company, iyes indeed

Edited April 13, 2013 by turbonium

[frenat]

I guess you'd have to be a caveman to accept that load of tripe.

Alan Bean had no idea what a Van Allen Belt was, and didn't know where the Belts were until Bart Sibrel told him!

Clearly he would know how to avoid the Belts, even though he doesn't know they exist yet, or that he's supposedly flown right around them so he can get to the moon, and avoid the Belts getting back to Earth!!

You are in fine company, iyes indeed

Why? Why should he know how to avoid them? You think he had to manually fly around them, dodging and weaving Buck Rodgers style? Did he plan the trajectory or did someone else? You're funny turbo.

[turbonium]

For it to be slander it has to be false. You and I both know that you tried to pass off a false quote as genuine (something the Mayor of London got sacked from the Times of London for doing. He's not been allowed to forget it so why should you?)

The facts are that:

• You included the quote amongst several others which were genuine.
  
• You claimed the quotes supported you.
  
• You only admitted that the quote was false AFTER you were asked to provide a source.
  
• Having been caught out only then did you claim that it was a joke.
  
• At the time this site had a rule expressly forbidding posting information that was known to be false.
  

I told you at the time that the reason you were not being punished for rule breaking was because the damage it would do to your credibility would be greater than anything I could dish out as a moderator. That still holds true.

You can claim it wasn't a lie all you like, the fact is you invented an untrue quote and you were caught out. No slander to you character, you damaged your own reputation.

When you are saying that some people should not be believed because they sometimes lie I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to remind you that you were caught lying too. No matter how you try and explain it a way you made a false claim, FACT! By your own logic nothing you say should ever be believed.

My point though, in case you missed it, is that just because someone lies it doesn't mean that they don't tell the truth too. It is your logic I am rejecting, I simply needed an example of the falsity of your logic, and your past indiscretion makes a perfect example (so thank you for that).

So let's look at my entire post ...

38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.

In 1961, JFK announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade. And so we did, 8 years later.

But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.

In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.

To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.

Others are puzzled as to why the return trip apparently will require two rockets, when they only needed one rocket, back then.

The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!

For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was during the Gemini program in the mid-60's when NASA coined their now-famous phrase...."What you don't know can't hurt you!"

As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit.

I can't wait.

• And what you said..
  
• 
  
• "You included the quote amongst several others which were genuine."[/i[
  
• 
  

So where do you see "several others"? I'd like you to answer this...

[turbonium]

• You claimed the quotes supported you.
  
• You only admitted that the quote was false AFTER you were asked to provide a source.
  
• Having been caught out only then did you claim that it was a joke.
  
• At the time this site had a rule expressly forbidding posting information that was known to be false
  

I don't see any of these quotes and yet I claim that they support me? It's about time you prove these accusations..

I would like you to look at this, first is MID's quote, tand hen my reply...

Posted 26 May 2007 - 02:13 AM

Quote

I have to argue with you Turb...

It was indeed difficult. Trying, dangerous, and costly in a manner that I sometimes wish to forget.

This I could likely not agree with more, in certain respects.

We do indeed know more now than we did in 1961.

Twice as long involves the fact that we have to develop spacecraft and launch vehicles not only to go to the Moon again, but to serve the long-term plans of the manned space program far into the future, in lunar exploration, planetary exploration, and EO operations.

This is actually a much more complex scenario, and it does not involve a political threat, or a need to prove ourselves better than the Soviet Union, which, if it existed today, might push the program along at a breakneck pace. We will now take our time, and develop a versatile, multi-purpose STS that can serve us long into the future. This is a very different program from Apollo.

I shall have to argue this as well.

Space radiation has the potential to be lethal now, just as it did then.

As I've pointed out, radiation's effects are exposure influenced. It was well understood what the exposures would be in a two week Apollo Moon mission, and the program was designed and constructed to deal with those exposures. The fact is, we did know about the radiation, and it wasn't an operation problem because we understood it and planned for the exposures that would be encountered.

Now, we plan for extended stays on the lunar surface, and will of course be planning missions to Mars. The exposures increase the dangers, and planning, research and experimentation is being done to adress this well known threat. This is not a mystery. It is prudent scientific development surrounding a somewhat known quantity, or at least a quantity that we need to know more about specifically, so we can design around it.

I think it has been thoroughly explained why the development of two launch vehicles is prudent, and very wise, given the use of each one and the plans for manned exploration and Earth orbital spaceflight requirements in lieu of the Shuttle. It is high-end engineeering being done.

I think the statement about Apollo capsules "running on fumes" is a little nebulous, and essentially incorrect.

.....

Thus I am a little confused at this assertion of the little known fact that the Apollo CMs were "running on fumes".

...

But the bottom line is, Apollo CMs were absolutely not running on fumes when they returned to the Earth, and neither will Orion be when she returns from a lunar mission.

Aw, MID. I'm disappointed in you.

My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

"Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!

You're much too serious these days, my old friend....

I explained to MID,,,,,,THAT IT WAS MOSTLY MEANT TO BE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK

I also explained the 'quote' was meant as a joke, I figured that it was much too goofy to be taken any other way, or so I assumed.

[turbonium]

So the next post was this, first one is me and then comes the reply

Posted 26 May 2007 - 02:24 AM

Quote

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Do you have a source for that? I thought I was pretty well informed about manned spaceflight, but I've never come across that before.

This is AFTER I EXPLAINED MY POST WAS NOT SERIOUS,

AND THE QUOTE WAS ALL MADE UP AS A JOKE

I have proven my case, that I did not lie.

You've falsely accused me of lying - for years - I think you should apologize for this, ...

[Iron_Lotus]

So the next post was this, first one is me and then comes the reply

Posted 26 May 2007 - 02:24 AM

Quote

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Do you have a source for that? I thought I was pretty well informed about manned spaceflight, but I've never come across that before.

This is AFTER I EXPLAINED MY POST WAS NOT SERIOUS,

AND THE QUOTE WAS ALL MADE UP AS A JOKE

I have proven my case, that I did not lie.

You've falsely accused me of lying - for years - I think you should apologize for this, ...

i don't. liars don't deserve apologies.

[skyeagle409]

I guess you'd have to be a caveman to accept that load of tripe.

On the contrary, it is as simple as understanding why a normal chest X-ray doesn't kill people during an examinaton.

Alan Bean had no idea what a Van Allen Belt was, and didn't know where the Belts were until Bart Sibrel told him!

The fact of the matter is, the Apollo astronauts did not travel though the most hazardous region of the Van Allen belts, but it seems that you were unaware of the fact.

[skyeagle409]

But the bottom line is, Apollo CMs were absolutely not running on fumes when they returned to the Earth, and neither will Orion be when she returns from a lunar mission.

Did the Voyager missions require frequent stops to refuel?

I guess I was wrong!