Sub-thread pulled from here: Ouch, Phil gets spanked BAD


I couldn't agree with you more, Jay. But I have to point out the burden of proof is not on the person who questions a scientific achievement, but on the one who makes the claim of making that accomplishment. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative. What I want to see is your proof that it was possible and that it was neccesary to use men to place the refelctor, which we know didn't require precise allignment.

I think the Apollo missions have been sufficiently shown to be real already.

We're just waiting on the hoax believers to come up with a good, robust counter. So far they have failed.

I am not quite sure why someone who managed a scientific achievement would need to prove it over and over again.

I had the foresight to copy David McGowan's five part "Wagging the Moondoggie" before it became unavailable.

If anyone here would like an archived copy of "Moondoggie," in the ZIP (5.86 MB) or 7z (5.30 MB) format, just send me a PM and I will email it to you. Moderators: Please let me know if this is unacceptable.

Welcome to BAUT, CONSPIRACY REALIST.

Ignoring an argument is not disproving it, nor is ridiculing it.
There is no real evidence that cannot be cast into doubt of a manned landing on the moon. I challenge you present examples, one at a time. I cannot prove a negative, but I can show how the evidence could have been faked. The most compelling evidence the NASA presents is the expenditure of billions of dollars. Put the shoe on the other foot. Present your most solid evidence, and I will explain to you why it it not valid proof. There is no valid proof of something that did not occure that cannot be called into question.

I can prove I went to Pittsburg in 1977. Can NASA prove it went to the moon in 1969?

I certainly agree that everything can be called into question.
If you want something to cry fake over, here is a film showing a trench being dug on Apollo 15. The path of the dirt is nice and parabolic without dispersion suggesting a vacuum. You can go ahead and claim slow-motion film for the speed, I'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w

Edit:
Again, it doesn't need to do that again. The moon landings have been sufficiently shown to be real. The ball is now in the hoax believer's court. They have yet to assemble a good, robust counter.

Actually, no you cannot "prove" you went to Pittsburg in 1977.

Any evidence you show me- I can just claim that you faked. What would you show me? Receipts? Plane tickets? Photographs?
NASA has provided ongoing evidence that we went to the moon in 1969. Photographs, recordings, signals that were traced and live feeds (At the time) that were traced and monitored by nations around the world. NASA has provided far, far more evidence that we went to the Moon than you could EVER provide that you went to Pittsburg.

This is why YOU have the burden of proof. You must demonstrate that the missions were faked.

Yes, and it has. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Over and over. At this point, the weight of evidence is such that NASA is deemed to have proven its point--and therefore, yes, the burden of proof is on the people who say it isn't true. At very least, by calling a piece of evidence into question, it's only reasonable to explain why you think it's dubious and what knowledge you have in the relevant field which would show you understand enough so that it's not just "I don't understand this, so it must be wrong."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Just to expand on the point a bit- NASA has not sought to 'prove' that it went to the Moon. It has just made a great deal of the information on the Apollo missions readily available.

And in reality, even if NASA did seek to 'prove' the moon landings were real, it would still be debated. It's said that on the joint Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 mission, they brought newspapers published the day after the craft they returned in was launched. No one doubts the authenticity of the mission I am sure, but one could claim that the soviets lied about the launch date.

I guess my point is that, regardless of how much 'proof' there is, someone can always cry fowl.

They can cry chicken?

Haha, that should be foul.

That's very different than proving that it was faked.

Take the reflector issue (mentioned earlier). Someone can claim that they were not placed by Apollo crews - that they were instead placed remotely like the Russian ones.

Certainly that's essentially possible, but that doesn't prove that they were placed that way. Who designed these remote reflector placement craft? When were they launched? Who controlled them? Why were they not seen? etc. Where's the proof of that claim?

It's always going to be possible to concoct some alternate story for something like this - but that is not proof of fakery.

Plenty of Hoax Believers have been down this path, trying to gain some small victory by trying to force some admission that "it's 'possible' the missions were faked"; but in the face of all the evidence (and detail) available on the Apollo missions it comes to nothing.


If you claim the Moon landings were faked, fine, bring your "evidence".

But start a new thread for your claims. Thanks.


You may find this thread usefull: Strongest Forensic Evidence Proving Apollo Mission

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I can prove that I went to Pittsburg in 1977 beyond any reasonable doubt by presenting evidence and witnesses that have no reason to lie. I can call into evidence men of high stature and good reputation that saw me there, and photographs of me standing in front of landmarks that are known to be in Pittsburg. The difference between my evidence and NASA's is 1) I don't possess the resources to fake all of these things and buy people's cooperation.2) I have no motivation to lie about it.

You can argue that if NASA did as they claim they have no motivation to lie, but what about if they didn't? We are talking about what is inarguably the greatest achievement in the history of mankind, NASA's say so is not good enough, and the evidence it has simple has not been confirmed by an independant recreation of the 'experiment', so those scrutinizing the evidence should be allowed the benefit of the doubt, not the other way around. If I had a million dollars to spend on it I could prove things like radiation would have damaged the film recored and the dosimeter readings were fabricated. It takes money to do these things, and I am afraid the motivation to get to the truth does not justify the expenditure.

The way you write this, it seems you think that radiation would have noticibly damaged the film record and that dosimeter readings were fabricated.

...even though you haven't spent a million dollars on the proof.

Just to be clear:

Q: Do you think the Moon landings were faked?

Q: Do you intend to try to prove they were?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Replace "Pittsburg" with "Luna", "1977" with "1969 - 1972". A minor change.

Do you have any evidence to suggest it? So far, all I've seen is "what if" but nothing real.

I seem to recall that the Indian Chandrayaan-1 claims to have detected the halo around the landing site, and I think Kaguya did so as well. That's fairly independent. Also, with Russia (very independent from us at the time) tracking us to the moon, if anyone had a reason to cry foul, it would have been them. Even Russia knew that America had done it.

The film was kept enclosed and protected from solar radiation. Please realise that the people who were at NASA at the time weren't that absent-minded.

Umm...your kidding right? We don't need just NASA's say so, we have plenty of other people around the world that say the same thing. And no, you do not get the benefit of doubt just because YOU can not recreate it. How about you try to create some doubt that we did not go to the moon?

As has been said so around here so many times, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. NASA has provided there evidence, now where is yours?

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Exactly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I am not making an extraordinary claim. I am saying that doing something in 1969 that is well beyond our ability to accomplish in 2009 for whatever reason is an extraordinary claim, and no extraordinary evidence has been presented. As you know, scientific achievements are not verified strictly on the evidence the one claiming to have made the achievment presents. Absent extraordinay indpendantly obtained evidence, the NASA moonlanding will always be in question, that is why we are having this conversation. You cannot simply claim that I am scientifically illiterate and that is the cause of my confusion, because it is the opposite that is true. IN response to the other reply, the one emplying that Russia would have blown the whistle, let's just say you're a bit ignorant about the difference between the politics that are presented for public mass consumption, and reality.

To my knowledge no one has recreated it, nor can they. And it is 40 years later.

So you're saying that "we didn't go back".

So?

What makes you think it's beyond our ability now? The only reason it's not being done now is because of political will and funding. The technology isn't really that complex, just basic rocket science, computing, and materials technology. Russia put Lunokhod 1 and 2 on the moon. I don't know what's so hard about it.

Did you ignore my bit about the Indian and Japanese missions?

Can you tell me why a nation that was aiming nuclear weapons on the US and engaged in a constant propaganda war would not love to indulge themselves in blowing the whistle and make the US look pretty lame?

It isn't beyond our ability right now, considering there are plans on the table to go back to the moon.

Yes it is. It is the evidence that must be verified, that is how science works.

It is only a question to people that don't know how to properly educate themselves on the subject of the moon landings.

I never claimed that you were.

Now, in what way is going to the moon right now beyond our ability?

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

And where did you hear this 'propaganda'?
Are you aware that the cold war was a fabricated reality, a hegelian dialectic?
I am not expecting everyone to know waht I do on this subject, and I recognize the majority believe what they hear in the media and publishing industries as fact. They just cannot comprehend that a conspiracy could be controlling both 'sides'. but in every war in the 20th century it was and is a fact

Evidence?

Alright, so the moon landings were faked, the cold war was faked.

Would it just be easier to tell us what wasn't faked?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Well, the main issue is radiation. The moons surface is known to be covered with radioactive isotopes and the space enviroment presents radioactive hazards that presnt technollogy cannot mitigate. Shielding does it but as the Russians discovered, the rocket to launch an adequate mass into orbit is extremely difficult to engineer. The solution is of course assembling the spacecraft in orbit using several heavy lift vehicles to get it there. The Apollo 'all in one' package was doubted by everyone, from Grissom to Von Braun. Have you ver seen Von Brauns' comments about it, and his early moon rocket designs? Pretty revealing, I tell you.

US SU
Sure, it's simplistic , but let's start there. DO you know what hegelian dialectic means?

And this is where I tell you to do some research. I would also suggest a search of the forum about this issue since it has been covered more times then I can count. I also know for a fact that one or more people will be coming along as some point to give a lot more information about radiation in space then I could even think of explaining.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

So am I to understand that my opponent can cite political considerations as evidence, but I am not allowed to answer to them?
I think I understand. Why are you replying to my post instead of the one that required my response?