Quote:
Originally Posted by Beethoven
...
|
Well, the burden of proof on those who claim that man has walked on the moon.
Agreed, and it has been provided. You have samples returned, visual records, and examples and documentation of the equipment and procedures used to do it, among other things. Apollo is one of the most extensively and scrupulously documented events in human history.
If you, on the other hand, claim that all that evidence is not the artifacts of an actual event but rather produced by an elaborate hoax, then you have proposed an affirmative rebuttal to explain away that evidence. An affirmative rebuttal assumes a burden of proof.
Now, please provide us with details of what shielding (if any) was on the Apollo craft.
Nominally 7-8 grams per square centimeter.
Should be simple for you to provide, right ?
No, not if you understand how effective shield values must be computed for such a spacecraft. Give me, for example, the thickness of your car body from all points on the exterior to the nearest interior point.
40 years later science is still waiting for this basic information.
Why do you imply that scientists have suffered under controversy for 40 years? True, for 40 (well, closer to 30) years the
conspiracy theorists have raised these same ignorant objections, ignoring the answers and pretending there's some grand dilemma. But that's not the same.
The world's engineering community, without exception, accepts the Apollo spacecraft as real, viable spacecraft. The world's astrophysics community, without exception, agrees that the Moon missions were real. 40 years later we're still waiting for the conspiracy theorists to pass basic physics.