dichotomy Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 dichotomy, I think a 10% doubt is very unreasonable, for reasons gone over in this thread. However, I'll try to provide what you're asking for. I can't find online archives of Soviet or Chinese newspapers from 1969 (let alone English translations), but the very first Google result for "Soviet newspapers moon landing" is this interview with Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita) from Scientific American about Apollo 11, including how it was portrayed in the state-run media. It was not and has never been contested. Sorry, this is not independant enough, but thanks for trying, why? - "Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev, son of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, now resides in the United States where he is a Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Khrushchev A massive conflict of interest. If he was still a Russian national, I'd completely accept his words. You had my hopes up then! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedthe lunar landers are relatively small and such high resolution cameras have never been deemed necessary to fulfill scientific missions hence none have ever been sent till now. the satellite that took that photograph isn't in its final orbit yet. those pictures are from about 3 times further away than the design altitude When they talk of something like '30' meters per pixel images, what size pixel are they referring too? Apollo 14 did not have a lunar rover. it was well within design specifications. also, it wasn't that heavy. on the lunar surface a human could lift it up(fair enough, the dimensions would make it awkward and difficult to get off the ground but it wasn't weight that was the problem. Fair enough, I would just love to see a moon buggy up there. And take a ride!
insane_alien Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 when they talk of a pixel size of 30m it means that if you drew a square on the moon 30 meters to a side on the moon and took a photograph with the camera at the reference distance then the square would occupy a single pixel(although only if perfectly lined up, more likely it would have a partial signal in up to 4 pixels.) that image there has a 3 meter pixel size when it is in the final orbit we should be able to get down to a 1 meter pixel size. a photograph of the rover would be maybe 6 or so pixels. you're not going to get brilliant pictures, the satellite wasn't sent up there to take pictures of apollo landers, it was sent to provide high resolution maps of the lunar surface to scout landing sites for future moon missions. 1
Mokele Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 What's missing, here, dichotomy, is one key question: What will it take for you to accept that it did happen? The problem, as I see it, is your constantly shifting goalposts. Nothing is ever good enough, and you seem intent of requiring something that simply isn't possible simply due to the remoteness of the location. If you won't accept testimony of the folks who actually went there, or photos of the landing site, or photos/video taken while up there, or rocks they brought back, or testimony of hundreds of thousands of NASA folks, or newspaper reports, or reports from tracking stations, or laser ranging using devices left up there, or signal delays, then what do you want? The problem is that you claim to be following the scientific method, but aren't. The scientific method is never about absolute proof - such a thing doesn't exist. The actual scientific method would say "if we went to the moon, what evidence would there be?", and compile a list of predictions. "People who actually went there" is pretty damned high on the list, along with all the other evidence mentioned, more than enough. You also have some pretty big misconceptions about the scientific literature. Nobody wastes time publishing "Hey, men landed on the moon" because a) it's in all the papers and everyone watched the video and b) it's not a hypothesis with predictions, an experiment and results, which is what scientific papers contain. The closest analogy to what you're after is species descriptions and other purely descriptive science, which is usually confined to the back of minor journals with minimal circulation and no detectable impact factor. Absolute, definitive evidence doesn't exist. For anything. Ever. Science realized that decades ago. Hell, we've even *quantified* how certain we need to be - 95%. There has to be a less than 5% chance that any result could be due to chance in order for it to be publishable. That standard has held up for decades. Last, but not least, you need to look at the evidence as a whole. Even if there's a chance that something's not right with any given piece of evidence, if there are several thousand independent bits of evidence, that counts for a LOT.
Sisyphus Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) dichotomy, So, just so I know what we're talking about here, you would be satisfied if you saw a contemporary Soviet newspaper about it, but you estimate a 10% chance that Khruschev is lying about the newspapers (and nobody is calling him on it), being brought into the conspiracy upon coming to the United States? Since, as far as I can tell, there are no online archives from that period (and I don't speak Russian anyway - do you?), how many/what second hand accounts would convince you that it's all not a staggeringly enormous, staggeringly successful conspiracy? How about Roald Sadeev, former director of the Soviet Space Institute: http://www.theworld.org/2009/07/20/former-soviet-space-official-on-us-moon-landing/ Edited August 12, 2009 by Sisyphus
insane_alien Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 dichotomy, have you ever tried looking for the evidence yourself? it seems only you know what will convince you and the fact you thought apollo 14 hada rover indicates that you have done very little if any research yourself. i suggest you take an hour or two to google around and read up on stuff.
Klaynos Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 Read about the Apollo mission on wikipedia, and work from there... Very interesting stuff. A simply amazing feat of human achievement.
StringJunky Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 What's missing, here, dichotomy, is one key question: What will it take for you to accept that it did happen? The problem, as I see it, is your constantly shifting goalposts. Nothing is ever good enough, and you seem intent of requiring something that simply isn't possible simply due to the remoteness of the location. If you won't accept testimony of the folks who actually went there, or photos of the landing site, or photos/video taken while up there, or rocks they brought back, or testimony of hundreds of thousands of NASA folks, or newspaper reports, or reports from tracking stations, or laser ranging using devices left up there, or signal delays, then what do you want? The problem is that you claim to be following the scientific method, but aren't. The scientific method is never about absolute proof - such a thing doesn't exist. The actual scientific method would say "if we went to the moon, what evidence would there be?", and compile a list of predictions. "People who actually went there" is pretty damned high on the list, along with all the other evidence mentioned, more than enough. You also have some pretty big misconceptions about the scientific literature. Nobody wastes time publishing "Hey, men landed on the moon" because a) it's in all the papers and everyone watched the video and b) it's not a hypothesis with predictions, an experiment and results, which is what scientific papers contain. The closest analogy to what you're after is species descriptions and other purely descriptive science, which is usually confined to the back of minor journals with minimal circulation and no detectable impact factor. Absolute, definitive evidence doesn't exist. For anything. Ever. Science realized that decades ago. Hell, we've even *quantified* how certain we need to be - 95%. There has to be a less than 5% chance that any result could be due to chance in order for it to be publishable. That standard has held up for decades. Last, but not least, you need to look at the evidence as a whole. Even if there's a chance that something's not right with any given piece of evidence, if there are several thousand independent bits of evidence, that counts for a LOT. I agree Mokele Dichotomy: Here's the URL for the Russian Space Agency- See if you can find some reference to the moonlandings in the 'News Archives' there, I tried but can't handle the Google Translator from Russian! http://www.roscosmos.ru/index.asp?Lang=ENG PLEEEASE MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY AND TELL US YOU YOU FEEL CERTAIN IT HAPPENED!
dichotomy Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 What's missing, here, dichotomy, is one key question: What will it take for you to accept that it did happen? The problem, as I see it, is your constantly shifting goalposts. Nothing is ever good enough, and you seem intent of requiring something that simply isn't possible simply due to the remoteness of the location. If you won't accept testimony of the folks who actually went there, or photos of the landing site, or photos/video taken while up there, or rocks they brought back, or testimony of hundreds of thousands of NASA folks, or newspaper reports, or reports from tracking stations, or laser ranging using devices left up there, or signal delays, then what do you want? The problem is that you claim to be following the scientific method, but aren't. The scientific method is never about absolute proof - such a thing doesn't exist. The actual scientific method would say "if we went to the moon, what evidence would there be?", and compile a list of predictions. "People who actually went there" is pretty damned high on the list, along with all the other evidence mentioned, more than enough. You also have some pretty big misconceptions about the scientific literature. Nobody wastes time publishing "Hey, men landed on the moon" because a) it's in all the papers and everyone watched the video and b) it's not a hypothesis with predictions, an experiment and results, which is what scientific papers contain. The closest analogy to what you're after is species descriptions and other purely descriptive science, which is usually confined to the back of minor journals with minimal circulation and no detectable impact factor. Absolute, definitive evidence doesn't exist. For anything. Ever. Science realized that decades ago. Hell, we've even *quantified* how certain we need to be - 95%. There has to be a less than 5% chance that any result could be due to chance in order for it to be publishable. That standard has held up for decades. Last, but not least, you need to look at the evidence as a whole. Even if there's a chance that something's not right with any given piece of evidence, if there are several thousand independent bits of evidence, that counts for a LOT. "Roald Sagdeev who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland. He once was the Director of the Soviet Space Institute. He is right now at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California looking at photos for evidence that there is frozen ice in craters on the moon." - again with the conflict of interest. Sorry, this still makes me 5% short of being convinced, according to the scientific method. "What will it take for you to accept that it did happen?" you already know what it will take. Reference please... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeddichotomy, have you ever tried looking for the evidence yourself? Yes, but I thought it more astute to ask the experts. Besides, this is part of the evidence I'm accumulating. I thought this would be the critical path. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged http://www.roscosmos.ru/index.asp?Lang=ENG PLEEEASE MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY AND TELL US YOU YOU FEEL CERTAIN IT HAPPENED! I'd be the first to be happy that this space monkey was off my back! Thanks for the link. I know it's a pain in the arse searching/translating 'cause I've been trying it my self....masochist!!! :-(
padren Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 I'd be the first to be happy that this space monkey was off my back! Thanks for the link. I know it's a pain in the arse searching/translating 'cause I've been trying it my self....masochist!!! :-( Maybe you can give us more perspective by telling us other percentage certainties you have: How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States? How certain are you that we invaded Iraq? How certain are you that the Cuban Missile Crisis was genuine and not a joint effort political ruse? How certain are you that Obama was born in Hawaii?
dichotomy Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Maybe you can give us more perspective by telling us other percentage certainties you have: How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States? How certain are you that we invaded Iraq? How certain are you that the Cuban Missile Crisis was genuine and not a joint effort political ruse? How certain are you that Obama was born in Hawaii? Honestly, I'm not even certain that I have a clean pair of black socks in my draws at present, so I better go look. Gotta go! Cheers.
StringJunky Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 "Absolute, definitive evidence doesn't exist. For anything. Ever. Science realized that decades ago. Hell, we've even *quantified* how certain we need to be - 95%. There has to be a less than 5% chance that any result could be due to chance in order for it to be publishable. That standard has held up for decades."-Mokele "Roald Sagdeev who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland. He once was the Director of the Soviet Space Institute. He is right now at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California looking at photos for evidence that there is frozen ice in craters on the moon." - again with the conflict of interest. Sorry, this still makes me 5% short of being convinced, according to the scientific method"- Dichotomy If you are a scientific man, as you claim, your statement above says you are 95% certain. This means you have reached the probability threshold necessary for something to be accepted scientifically, as described by Mokele
iNow Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Seriously, dichotomy. I was already despairing and losing hope for humanity. You're not helping me whatsoever with this thread, my man.
dichotomy Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 If you are a scientific man, as you claim, your statement above says you are 95% certain. This means you have reached the probability threshold necessary for something to be accepted scientifically, as described by Mokele Damn, you're ****ing right! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSeriously, dichotomy. I was already despairing and losing hope for humanity. You're not helping me whatsoever with this thread, my man. iNow, you're lucky. I lost hope years ago...I'm hoping for a homosapien speciation, not unlike chimps and bonobos. I'll be a well dressed baboon of couse!
StringJunky Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Damn, you're ****ing right! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Spoken like a true scientist!!!
John Cuthber Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 "How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States? " A bit more so than these folks.
Mokele Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 "What will it take for you to accept that it did happen?" you already know what it will take. Reference please... No, I don't know. You've never explicitly elaborated, and when you have made explicit requests, they've been met, only to have you move the goalposts.
dichotomy Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 No, I don't know. You've never explicitly elaborated, and when you have made explicit requests, they've been met, only to have you move the goalposts. I’ve never moved the goal posts. Ok Mokele, one last time for your benefit. Even though I made it perfectly clear in my earliest post. I require one, yes that’s right 1, Russian, and or Chinese scientific reference to confirm a "MOON (lunar) WALK, BY AT LEAST ONE HOMO SAPIEN". The reference can not be produced by a non Russian/Chinese national, unless, it was produced while they where still a confirmed national. I’ve attempted to search the Russian science links kindly provided, but to no avail at this point in time. BTW. I’m 95% sure it happened now. And according to the scientific method this makes me certain it happened. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States?" A bit more so than these folks. Was'nt Reagan one of those Disney animatronix? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSeriously, dichotomy. I was already despairing and losing hope for humanity. You're not helping me whatsoever with this thread, my man. Lord iNow, model citizen.
swansont Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Come on guys! You are science people, not god botherers. This supposed photographic proof in the year 2009 is totally laughable. If the Russians have sent multiple unmanned craft to take moon samples from 1969, if mars rovers are currently sending back data, then surely we could get some detailed high resolution image evidence today. From someone? I know the Japanese recently tried and failed with there probe. Can you make out footprints with Google maps, or the equivalent, which use airplanes vs satellites? The laughable thing here is that the "coverup" demanded requires more advanced capability than the original landings.
dichotomy Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Can you make out footprints with Google maps, or the equivalent, which use airplanes vs satellites? The laughable thing here is that the "coverup" demanded requires more advanced capability than the original landings. Well, simple to prove outright. Provide a Russian satillite image of a single moon landing site that shows tracks.
Mokele Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Ok Mokele, one last time for your benefit. Even though I made it perfectly clear in my earliest post. I require one, yes that’s right 1, Russian, and or Chinese scientific reference to confirm a "MOON (lunar) WALK, BY AT LEAST ONE HOMO SAPIEN". The reference can not be produced by a non Russian/Chinese national, unless, it was produced while they where still a confirmed nationa In spite of the fact that I clearly explained what the scientific literature consists of and why you won't find anything? Hell, there's nothing in the US scientific literature about the moon landing. Because that's not what the scientific journals are there for. Now, how about answering with something that's actually *possible*.
dichotomy Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 In spite of the fact that I clearly explained what the scientific literature consists of and why you won't find anything? Hell, there's nothing in the US scientific literature about the moon landing. Because that's not what the scientific journals are there for. Now, how about answering with something that's actually *possible*. So, the moon landings are not truely science then? Does this confine them to the world of politics??? If moon landings are not in scientific journals, then my little interior scientist says, they are A. Highly possible but unproven B. Pure propaganda and politiking C. A mass delusion, on par with belief in a deity - in that exact order of probability.
Mokele Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 So, the moon landings are not truely science then? No, they aren't. They were, for all their great achievement, a political stunt. They did not test any particular hypothesis. If moon landings are not in scientific journals, then my little interior scientist says, they are A. Highly possible but unproven B. Pure propaganda and politiking C. A mass delusion, on par with belief in a deity - in that exact order of probability. What do you think the scientific literature is? Have you ever read it? Any of it? Not "Discover" or "New Scientist". Real journals, like Journal of Morphology or Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry. It's not a general repository of information, of anything and everything that happens that might even vaguely of interest. You cannot find news articles, or how to keep various animals, or anything like that. It consists solely, and almost exclusively, of papers which describe a specific experiment done by the authors. There are occaisional meta-studies, review papers, and methods papers. Sometimes, rarely, there will be simple reports of unusual or interesting occurrences, but these are things that people would never find out via news (such as something odd observed while deep in the jungle). Go actually read the scientific literature, and come back with an actual suggestion that's meaningful.
dichotomy Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Ok, I see I have bottomed out here in my quest. The only references I have to rely on to join the dots are the Murdoch style tabloid newspapers and media reports. Gee, no wonder civilized history is so obscured. A total reliance on taking someone’s word for it. Just like the word of GOD. BTW I’m not blaming anyone here; it’s just our inherent human limitations shining through. Thanks anyway. I have learnt much here in a short space of time. I just hope in the future something like Science Daily publishes more about manned interplanetary space travel. What I will do is look more closely at the returned moon rocks as evidence of a manned lunar walk. They seem like the most solid bits of evidence to me anyway. Very convincing from an Aussie forum - "Moon rocks are similar to Earth rocks, indicating a common origin. But they are different enough from Earth rocks that if you were to give a Moon rock to a geologist without telling her where it came from, she could tell you with certainty that it didn’t come from the Earth. Moon rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, which was obviously expected. But they are also essentially free of water, and contain little in the way of other volatile chemicals, which wasn’t universally expected. Finally, it’s worth noting that at least some of the rocks scientists have studied from the Moon were selected during the missions by looking at the television pictures beamed back live from the Moon. Yes, there are lunar meteorites which have been collected on the Earth. But their surfaces have been weathered by passing through the Earth’s atmosphere. By contrast, the Apollo rocks are covered with tiny craters caused by the impact of microscopic dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres a second. We don’t have the technology to recreate those craters. So in other words, the Apollo rocks weren’t collected from the Moon by robots, and they weren’t collected on the Earth. The only solution left is that they were collected by humans from the Moon." Edited August 14, 2009 by dichotomy
StringJunky Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Dichotomy: Given the the level of political hostility and competitiveness between the two countries do you honestly think Russia would let the US get away with a scam of that magnitude if they didn't do it? Think of their resources that they had (and have now), compared to ours here on this forum, and yet they are quiet and have been for 40 years. Think of the political points Russia would gain from showing it was scam. "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. " - Abraham Lincoln I can't say anymore
hemantc007 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Posted August 14, 2009 Dichotomy: Anybody that tries to start a thread again on this subject in the future should have it shut down immediately by a moderator. that is bulll shit............... because i think that debates are very useful (except the non-sense debates like "who should be dominating male or female" , "technology good or bad" because they have no end and you can not go either side ,as both are important .. ) you might not be knowing that in a debate both side of parties are in profit ( if they want to have it )...........you are getting more knowledge to decide for your self what is right and wrong........ my motive in this debate is that ,i should get to know how those evidence can be disproved with proper scientific explanation (other perspective of view {thinking}) I wan to expand my knowledge , by in taking more and more information. but till now i have got very less info like "moon reflecting surface responseble for not seeing stars (might be)" and some more ....... i request to give proper scientific reason like mention above..........
Recommended Posts