conspiracy theory -did we land on moon

[D H]

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.

Your little interior scientist does not know how to do a search for scientific articles. Just a smattering:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/171/3968/282

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/4020/363

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/182/4113/681

 

 

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

StringJunky is spot on here. These "debates" are pretty much worthless for the simple reason that there is no debate. We went to the Moon.

 

 

dichotomy and hemantc007: You are the ones making the elaborate claims. The burden of proof lies on you to prove your claims, not us to disprove them.

[dichotomy]

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

 

Okay, the problem with media being the messenger of science is that it can be manipulated at too many points to mention. Think of the German population in WW2. Do you think the Nazi's would allow the truth to establish itself from outside their ideological boarders? No, and if it did succeed getting through it would be discredited and laughed upon by the Nazi hierachy and the general population would generally believe they are in the right. Extreme example I know.

 

The point is that mainstream Russian media have recently given a lot of credibility to some hoax/propaganda theories. I'm not saying it was a hoax. I'm saying that the Russians appear to not be completely convinced. You would be surprised how little real news we get from Russia, even today. And you would also be very surprise at just how filtered western media is, both to and from China and Russia, and from us to them.

 

Besides, I'm 95% certain. Just like the scientific Method recommends! If it's good enough for the method, it's good enough for this suburban slob

[insane_alien]

so you ask for russian media but then you say russian media isn't sufficient? ffs make up your mind.

[dichotomy]

Your little interior scientist does not know how to do a search for scientific articles. Just a smattering:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/171/3968/282

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/4020/363

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/182/4113/681

 

Thanks, I'll take a look, and so will Egbert, my scared little inner scientist.

 

We went to the Moon.

Yes, but unmanned.

 

dichotomy and hemantc007: You are the ones making the elaborate claims. The burden of proof lies on you to prove your claims, not us to disprove them.

 

That's right, but the burden back on those with meager resourses to do it. I am trying to disprove the hoax!!! So, where are the independant references, citations, etc. I'll even take a signed scribbled note (from a russian national) on some dunny paper at present. All it needs to say is -"Yep, can be done and was done". Taddah!!!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

so you ask for russian media but then you say russian media isn't sufficient? ffs make up your mind.

 

FFS, All I wanted was a "Russian Scientific Reference", to state that it was indeed done. And you know that. I know I'm not taking to hill children here...Or...????

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

so you ask for russian media but then you say russian media isn't sufficient? ffs make up your mind.

 

FFS, All I wanted was a "Russian Scientific Reference", to state that it was indeed done. And you know that. I know I'm not talking to hill children here...Or...????

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

Besides, I'm 95% certain. Just like the scientific Method recommends! If it's good enough for the method, it's good enough for this suburban slob

 

Welcome to the club :cool:

[Mokele]

Dichotomy, I'd love to see you take a course in paleontology. If you can't handle the minor gaps in coverage and data on this issue, paleontology would make your head explode.

 

Remember what I said a few pages back, about considering *all* the evidence as a whole?

 

Think about it - this isn't *just* newspapers, *just* astronaut testimony, *just* NASA papers. It's a vast pile of information. The probability of it *all* being wrong is vanishingly tiny, and the possibility of successfully orchestrating a conspiracy of such vast and deep scope is effectively nil. We can't even keep a vindictive bastard of a vice-president from spilling the names of undercover CIA operatives, and you think we can coerce tens of thousands of people into silence? Furthermore, the cost and difficulty of orchestrating such a conspiracy would easily eclipse the cost and difficulty of *actually* sending people to the moon.

 

And if it was a conspiracy, why do it multiple times? I mean, the first time accomplished the political goal, so why push their luck?

[hemantc007]

you were not able to prove those evidence (evidence in the videos ) scientifically ........i am not against NASA ........but i want to know how , can i see things from different angle , for that you have to prove it ....!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[iNow]

No. That is not correct, hemantc007.

[Klaynos]

A guy I work with is a russian scientist (he has a russian passport, has a phd in physics and is an active researcher in physics), when asked "Did the americans walk on the moon" he answered "Yes".

 

This is about as good as you're likely to get... The above conversation did actually happen, his name is George, a really nice guy and phenomenally smart...

[iNow]

Yeah... except now he thinks YOU are a nutter since you asked him whether or not we actually landed on the moon.

[AzurePhoenix]

It's best for George that he be aware of that particular truth I think

[mooeypoo]

you were not able to prove those evidence (evidence in the videos ) scientifically ........i am not against NASA ........but i want to know how , can i see things from different angle , for that you have to prove it ....!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The videos were proven to claim false claims in them multiple times in this thread, my friend. I will repost the site I posted initially just to summarize the main points: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

 

But beyond that, not too long ago new and brighter pictures of the surface of the moon were acquired and you can *clearly* see the landing places + vehicles + human tracks from the various apollo missions to the moon, INCLUDING the first landing.

(here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html and here: http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html are two examples)

 

If you still claim that's not good enough proof, then perhaps you need to reassess how you define "proof" in the first place.

 

~moo

[dichotomy]

Yeah... except now he thinks YOU are a nutter since you asked him whether or not we actually landed on the moon.

 

Well then, does a scientific mind just accept things like a religious zealot, or does it inquire on many levels? iNow, I know you are being facetious, but ridicule is a science killer or a nervous reaction from someone whom isn't so sure, IMO.

 

Dichotomy, I'd love to see you take a course in paleontology. If you can't handle the minor gaps in coverage and data on this issue, paleontology would make your head explode.

 

It's funny, because paleontology is "stuff of the earth" I more familiar with, I think I could accept the gaps more readily, I totally accept the concept of evolution for example. I just don't personally know anyone who has walked on the hostile surface of the moon. I mean, we haven't even got a man down to the deepest depths of the oceans yet, or have we?

 

But beyond that, not too long ago new and brighter pictures of the surface of the moon were acquired and you can *clearly* see the landing places + vehicles + human tracks from the various apollo missions to the moon, INCLUDING the first landing.

(here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html and here: http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html are two examples)

~moo

 

You had me all exited then , I thought they might be updated high res images, but it’s the same pre school finger painting that I’ve already posted in this thread.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Welcome to the club :cool:

 

I intend to look at the Moon Rocks information more closely so I can potentially be 100% convinced! The holy grail!!!

 

What the **** is a holy grail anyway?

[iNow]

Well then, does a scientific mind just accept things like a religious zealot, or does it inquire on many levels? iNow, I know you are being facetious, but ridicule is a science killer or a nervous reaction from someone whom isn't so sure, IMO.

 

You sound like the morons who tell me that evolution isn't true. It has nothing to do with "accepting things like a religious zealot," and nothing to do with a "nervous reaction from someone who isn't so sure."

 

It's about the fact that I've looked at the evidence... the MOUNTAINS of evidence... and how it all shows remarkable confluence and points to the same conclusion... the conclusion that YES, we fuc*ing landed on the moon EXACTLY as we said we did, and people who keep claiming otherwise are a bunch of retards. It's about the fact that I am easily annoyed by the continuation of such ridiculous questions despite the fact that every objection you've put forth has been heartily addressed.

 

 

Religious zealot? Nervous reaction? Seriously? I'm done with you.

[Mokele]

I just don't personally know anyone who has walked on the hostile surface of the moon. I mean, we haven't even got a man down to the deepest depths of the oceans yet, or have we?

 

Why is someone who, by random chance, happens to know you more reliable than anyone else?

 

Oh, and we have actually been to the deepest point in the ocean, several times, since 1960.

 

Except, by your standards, we haven't, since we have even less evidence of that than of going to the moon.

 

Hell, it's easier to go to the moon. A spacecraft only has to resist 1 atm of pressure difference between inside & outside.

[Klaynos]

Please try and keep it civil everyone!

[dichotomy]

You sound like the morons who tell me that evolution isn't true. It has nothing to do with "accepting things like a religious zealot," and nothing to do with a "nervous reaction from someone who isn't so sure."

 

It's about the fact that I've looked at the evidence... the MOUNTAINS of evidence... and how it all shows remarkable confluence and points to the same conclusion... the conclusion that YES, we fuc*ing landed on the moon EXACTLY as we said we did, and people who keep claiming otherwise are a bunch of retards. It's about the fact that I am easily annoyed by the continuation of such ridiculous questions despite the fact that every objection you've put forth has been heartily addressed.

 

 

Religious zealot? Nervous reaction? Seriously? I'm done with you.

 

Gee, post a simple fact and iNow spits the dummy . The truth hurts. Ok, so what you seem to assume is that people whom inquire here have to take iNow’s word for it just like Forest Gump type morons or **** off. Speaks volumes about your level of true emotional maturity. And even more about your dubious powers of reason. Agree with iNow on everything or he won’t help with anything, sad! So do you regularly explode into reptilian fight/flight states when someone disagrees with your god like knowledge of moon walks?. What a ****ing dictator! Strike a light! And ****ing grow up!

 

Keep taking your pills iNow, you’ll eventually benefit, I hope. I done with you too, on account of your pathetic childish temperament and your overreactive disposition.

 

iNow, POWER and CONTROL FREAK, extraordinaire ...

 

Why is someone who, by random chance, happens to know you more reliable than anyone else?

Not necessarily more reliable, they are easier to judge on their previous track record. I have "SOLID" personal experience of this, I'm sure you do to.

 

Oh, and we have actually been to the deepest point in the ocean, several times, since 1960.

 

Thanks chief. I honestly wasn’t sure. Is it a crime on SFN to not know something now?

 

Except, by your standards, we haven't, since we have even less evidence of that than of going to the moon.

 

That's it keep up the insults grownup.

 

Please try and keep it civil everyone!

 

What, with these Hill Children???

If they agree to stop throwing there sad childish stones, then I will too. It's a Triune brain model thing...it's worked for millennia.

 

Sheesh, talk about precious.

 

Note to self, don't ask questions about things that are sacred cows.

[iNow]

Ok, so what you seem to assume is that people whom inquire here have to take iNow’s word for it just like Forest Gump type morons or **** off. Speaks volumes about your level of true emotional maturity. And even more about your dubious powers of reason. Agree with iNow on everything or he won’t help with anything, sad!

Yes, you're right. My frustration has nothing to do with people blatantly disregarding the extreme surplus of evidence available to us, and everything to do with my profound need for people to accept everything I say unquestioningly like gospel.

 

Good call. You really hit the nail on the head with that one. Guilty as charged.

 

 

Keep taking your pills iNow, you’ll eventually benefit, I hope. I done with you too, on account of your pathetic childish temperament and your overreactive disposition.

 

iNow, POWER and CONTROL FREAK, extraordinaire ...

Good on ya, mate.

[swansont]

Well then, does a scientific mind just accept things like a religious zealot, or does it inquire on many levels? iNow, I know you are being facetious, but ridicule is a science killer or a nervous reaction from someone whom isn't so sure, IMO.

 

I think ridicule is what happens after a certain amount of evidence and argument has been ignored. Patience in the face of anti-science is a finite resource.

 

 

It's funny, because paleontology is "stuff of the earth" I more familiar with, I think I could accept the gaps more readily, I totally accept the concept of evolution for example. I just don't personally know anyone who has walked on the hostile surface of the moon. I mean, we haven't even got a man down to the deepest depths of the oceans yet, or have we?

 

 

 

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, though. Which means the failure to accept a scientific finding or fact is not occurring because of a scientifically valid reason.

[hemantc007]

The definition of "proof" is the same for me , that is for the time being ..........

 

And any way i don't want you to prove your evidence , but insted disprove those evidence given in the videos ,

and not only one but all of them..................

that's what i want form you all....!!!!!!!

[Klaynos]

The video has been gone over, look at the links mooey gave to you above.

[hemantc007]

But beyond that, not too long ago new and brighter pictures of the surface of the moon were acquired and you can *clearly* see the landing places + vehicles + human tracks from the various apollo missions to the moon, INCLUDING the first landing.

(here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html and here: http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro...11-images.html are two examples)

 

if you call those evidence strong then it is useless to demand evidence form you

[Klaynos]

But beyond that

 

You claimed to not be changing the goalposts?

 

Also, your links don't work. How much do you understand about optics, resolving powers and finance? It was never financially worth while for the scientific gain to put cameras in orbit around the moon to take photos with a high enough resolution to take photos of the landers until now as IA states above.

 

Are you going to continue to just change the goalposts in a circular way whenever anyone presents you with information that shows your point to be inconsistent with forming the conclusion that it was a hoax?

[hemantc007]

ALL OF YOU "STOP" YOUR NONE SENSE

Enough with what you think and what you don't ........talk interms of science ..don't give none sense about .........if you have logical and scientific explanation then post those explanation " AND NOT YOU RUBBISH "................ok

 

IN THIS WAY YOU ARE INSULTING THE TOPIC ,THE DEBATE , AND THE SCIENCE ............................THINK AND CALM DOWN , AND HAVE A PROPER DEBATE , BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE........

 

" COME ONNN ALL OF YOU, LETS MAKE IT A PROPER DEBATE "

[Klaynos]

Re read the post and notice how it is circular. Please.