If evidence proved Moon landing was fake...

[rambaldi]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Hmm.  Seems the OP is happy to start 'discussions', but then vanishes rather than engage..

Actually this time i can't really fault him. Granted, his hypothetical "what if" is really far fetched, but it would have been nice for the answers to stick to the scenario, instead of telling him the landing was  not faked.

 

[aztek]

'if evidence proved....."

that reminds me of russian saying, "if grandma had balls.........

[Abaddonire]

9 hours ago, openozy said:

Sorry to spoil your childhood fantasy but as I said this can't be proven, the same as anything paranormal.Vids or pics are easily faked,they prove nothing.

You think the photographs are the only evidence?

 

Bwahahahahahahahaha

[Big Jim]

Honestly, I don't have an opinion either way, anything is possible.  But if ever there was strong motivation to fake something this would be it.  President Kennedy had promised 6 years earlier that we would land on the moon before the end of the decade.  The space race became a proxy contest for the cold war.  America's might and pride was riding on the outcome.  Maybe even peace or war.  There were only 6 months left to fulfill his promise.  No doubt that NASA had been working feverishly towards accomplishing the goal.  All the science and spin off products were real.  If you were in charge, whether as the President or head of NASA, and you realized in spite of all your efforts you weren't going to make it, what would you do?  At that point even the appearance of winning was better than the admission of failing. The hopes of all Americans and the awe of our enemies lay in the balance.  Not to say we never went to the moon, just that maybe we didn't make it on the arbitrary deadline we set for ourselves.

[Obviousman]

4 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Honestly, I don't have an opinion either way, anything is possible.  But if ever there was strong motivation to fake something this would be it.  President Kennedy had promised 6 years earlier that we would land on the moon before the end of the decade.  The space race became a proxy contest for the cold war.  America's might and pride was riding on the outcome.  Maybe even peace or war.  There were only 6 months left to fulfill his promise.  No doubt that NASA had been working feverishly towards accomplishing the goal.  All the science and spin off products were real.  If you were in charge, whether as the President or head of NASA, and you realized in spite of all your efforts you weren't going to make it, what would you do?  At that point even the appearance of winning was better than the admission of failing. The hopes of all Americans and the awe of our enemies lay in the balance.  Not to say we never went to the moon, just that maybe we didn't make it on the arbitrary deadline we set for ourselves.

Hi Jim,

The problem is that everything - EVERYTHING - associated with the Apollo programme has been scrutinised time & time again and it has always been shown to be correct.

It is kinda like asking what you'd do if you found out that gravity didn't exist, and in fact the Earth just sucked.

[Abaddonire]

1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

Honestly, I don't have an opinion either way, anything is possible.  But if ever there was strong motivation to fake something this would be it.  President Kennedy had promised 6 years earlier that we would land on the moon before the end of the decade.  The space race became a proxy contest for the cold war.  America's might and pride was riding on the outcome.  Maybe even peace or war.  There were only 6 months left to fulfill his promise.  No doubt that NASA had been working feverishly towards accomplishing the goal.  All the science and spin off products were real.  If you were in charge, whether as the President or head of NASA, and you realized in spite of all your efforts you weren't going to make it, what would you do?  At that point even the appearance of winning was better than the admission of failing. The hopes of all Americans and the awe of our enemies lay in the balance.  Not to say we never went to the moon, just that maybe we didn't make it on the arbitrary deadline we set for ourselves.

Kennedy died in what year exactly?

Cold war space race? Sure. Why didn't the Soviets point out the hoax?

Why did none of that NASA employees notice, given that the vast majority were not NASA employees?

If I were head of NASA I would tell the truth.

And you are exactly calling the lunar missions into question.

 

Everything you posted is abject lies and JAQing off.

 

Now what?

[Big Jim]

2 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Hi Jim,

The problem is that everything - EVERYTHING - associated with the Apollo programme has been scrutinised time & time again and it has always been shown to be correct.

It is kinda like asking what you'd do if you found out that gravity didn't exist, and in fact the Earth just sucked.

I can't dispute what you say.  It probably did, in fact, happen just as we've been told.  But as for your example about gravity, I would only say that gravity exists independent of the government and the Space Program is a product of the government.  And we know that products are never hyped and the government never lies, right?

[Big Jim]

6 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Everything you posted is abject lies and JAQing off.

I'm sorry.  I assumed everyone here knew the difference between speculation and lying.

[Abaddonire]

45 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I can't dispute what you say.  It probably did, in fact, happen just as we've been told.  But as for your example about gravity, I would only say that gravity exists independent of the government and the Space Program is a product of the government.  And we know that products are never hyped and the government never lies, right?

Sure. Governments lie aplenty.

 

But gravity does not.

 

Orbital mechanics does not.

 

Technology does not.

 

The bottom line is, it either works or you are dead.

 

And why on earth are you posting here when you think the big ebil gubmint controis all of it and you are using a device provided by the very science you denigrate?

 

You are using the very science you denigrate to post your denigration.

[aztek]

21 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

 

 

Technology does not.

 

 

 

[openozy]

14 hours ago, Obviousman said:

So that means you must consider nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons, things that "can't be proven either way". That's really good thinking.

Argument from ignorance

 

Thank you.

[Big Jim]

34 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

And why on earth are you posting here when you think the big ebil gubmint controis all of it and you are using a device provided by the very science you denigrate?

First of all, I don't think that the government controls everything.  What could have possibly given you that idea?  Secondly, I'm not denigrating science at all.  I love and respect science.  But that doesn't mean we have never been fooled, or can't be.  And lastly, I post here for my own amusement.  None of this is worth getting upset about.

[ChrLzs]

Openozy.... no wait, this is for people with more sense than Openozy...

Earlier I suggested that if you are in doubt about everything, like OO is, then you might want to calm down and consider what you really should accept as proven.  That's why I raised the concept of 'axioms'.  OK, axioms are a rather limited set of things that really truly ARE things that you should accept as 'proven', but they are a good starting point.

Right now you are reading this message, and I think you'd havta concede a few basics, eg ... that you exist.  That you can read.  That it is 2020, using an 'accepted' calendar that is pretty much proven to work...  That the technology required to connect you and me, virtually instantaneously, to the rest of the world all works, reasonably well, despite being based on some very complex scientific theories and lots of complicated technical equipment..

OK, theories are a little less 'proven' than axioms, but given the huge array of technical stuff that you use and rely on every day, it would surely be a complete and utter MORON to now start yelling "prove all that!!"  There are some things that sensible folks just accept as proven beyond reasonable doubt..

There are lots of ways to collect reams of evidence and then check it, if you just educate yourself.  If you don't (OO, are you listening) then your doubts are not in any way reasonable.  One might better use the terms 'misinformed' or even 'deluded'....

Anyway, OpenOzy can lazily and ignorantly demand proof, but it won't be coming to him (or rather it won't convince him) - as he won't educate himself sufficently, instead preferring to let tinfoilhat websites do his thinking.

I was 12 years old when Apollo 11 made it to the moon.  At that time I soaked up everything I could learn about the missions, I have lots of documents, magazine articles, souvenir books, and even a couple letters and replies I got from NASA at the time.  And as I grew to adulthood and now old age, I spent a lot of my time learning more about the space sciences, and general physics along with photographic analysis and other disciplines that assist in investigation.  Now, I can modestly say that my knowledge of not only the missions, but also all aspects from politics through to the crude but effective computers they used, is at a VERY high level.  In fact I'd be delighted if OO or the OP or anyone asked any question they like, or if they want to point to some evidence or even a hunch they have.....  Go for it.

OK, I'll concede I'm not so good at orbital mechanics (it's way to complicated and non-intuitive), but on everything else, I'm confident...

Anyway, apart from all that, Apollo is without doubt the most well-documented large scale technological event in history, and it's ALL accessible, checkable, and verifiable by anyone who chooses to look.  Preferably with informed eyes and brain in gear, and/or go do the required research.  Or just pick a different hobby, like building sand castles perhaps?

 

And to drag it back 'ontopic', I reject the hypothetical nature of the suggestion.  As othes have pointed out, this is rather like suggesting that evidence might arise that proves USA does not exist, or that the Earth is flat.  Such evidence will not arise, and I'd rather spend my time pointing out that this type of thing is just a first step towards disappearing under a large tinfoilhat..  Learn how to investigate, people, don't be so dam lazy...

Edited March 18, 2020 by ChrLzs

[aztek]

what proof can one present in what if argument???

[Rlyeh]

On 3/17/2020 at 7:51 PM, psyche101 said:

I know right.....

 

Dude. Image that 

I wonder all the time about it. I drink CC and dry now. 

That would explain the taste.

[aztek]

cuz beer isn't really a beverage, but a vodka chaser

[psyche101]

20 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

That would explain the taste.

 

[stereologist]

On 3/17/2020 at 6:33 PM, Big Jim said:

Honestly, I don't have an opinion either way, anything is possible.  But if ever there was strong motivation to fake something this would be it.  President Kennedy had promised 6 years earlier that we would land on the moon before the end of the decade.  The space race became a proxy contest for the cold war.  America's might and pride was riding on the outcome.  Maybe even peace or war.  There were only 6 months left to fulfill his promise.  No doubt that NASA had been working feverishly towards accomplishing the goal.  All the science and spin off products were real.  If you were in charge, whether as the President or head of NASA, and you realized in spite of all your efforts you weren't going to make it, what would you do?  At that point even the appearance of winning was better than the admission of failing. The hopes of all Americans and the awe of our enemies lay in the balance.  Not to say we never went to the moon, just that maybe we didn't make it on the arbitrary deadline we set for ourselves.

Actually, just 6 weeks before his assassination there was a meeting with Kennedy in which he decided that it was time to end the race to the Moon. He had bullied the Russians up to that time and got them to make concessions. He earned the political capital he wanted. He felt he no longer needed to win a race to the Moon. When Johnson took over he was the real space nut. He loved it and made sure that the program continued. This information came to light years after the Moon landings and can be found in recent books written around the time of the 50th anniversary of the Moon landings.

Lunar mappers from other countries have photographed the Moon. Not sure if the Indian or Chinese probes photographed footprints

[Abaddonire]

On 3/18/2020 at 6:46 AM, openozy said:

Prove it.

You can start with 380 pounds of moon rock. 

But I already know what your knee-jerk response is going to be.

[openozy]

1 minute ago, Emma_Acid said:

Go and take a look at how science actually works and get back to us.

Seeing that would take a lifetime and with science never standing still,there isn't much point.With science the know it alls of today are tomorrows misinformed.

[Emma_Acid]

Just now, openozy said:

Seeing that would take a lifetime and with science never standing still,there isn't much point.With science the know it alls of today are tomorrows misinformed.

I said look at how science works, not what is says. 

[openozy]

5 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

I said look at how science works, not what is says. 

And different aspects of this are changing all the time or being refined.

[Emma_Acid]

12 minutes ago, openozy said:

And different aspects of this are changing all the time or being refined.

Not in how science works, no, The fact that the scientific consensus on matters changes is exactly the point of science. It is about being proven wrong, not right. It changes with new evidence. Apply the scientific method to the things you believe and see how they stand up. This is a strength, not a weakness, of the process.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Emma_Acid
spellings

[openozy]

2 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

It is about being proven wrong, not right

Ok, and that's good,but they are not dismissed at once mostly, unlike anything paranormal which can't be proved wrong by anybody but still denied by most.

[Emma_Acid]

4 minutes ago, openozy said:

Ok, and that's good,but they are not dismissed at once mostly, unlike anything paranormal which can't be proved wrong by anybody but still denied by most.

So it's not just about being proved wrong. For that to happen you have to build a framework. This means testing, experiments, predictions, replication. The "paranormal" doesn't fulfill any of these criteria. And these are criteria that have built the modern world, by the way. Computers, space ships, smart phones, groundbreaking medical research - this all happened because of the scientific method. Literally no other reason.

It doesn't matter who "denies" this stuff. It matters if it stands up to scientific scrutiny. And the "paranormal" doesn't. And believe me, its been tested.