| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| AlienAbductee
User ID: 312874
10/16/2007 12:23 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I was just looking for some reasonable debunking for the hammer/feather video. It looks fairly reasonable to me. I spent some time working for the Gov in my youth and they were pretty lazy about keeping up their lies. They'll tell plenty of them, but I never saw them spend that much on making them believable. This excludes 'black ops' money. I wish they'd leave my social security alone and start funding that crap with the senator's paychecks. :)
On the other side of this, I have been to the other sites and most of the arguments I've seen are fairly one-sided. Usually only one side of the debate cares to make intelligent, rational discussions. The other side is more intent on DEFINING what the truth is rather than debating or discovering it. After that, if they can't bully first side, they'll declare them unwilling to listen, claim victory and declare the matter closed for posterity. But I heard from a friend this is a pretty open site and thought I'd check it out.
I saw that Japan has a new satellite in orbit about 60 miles out that just split into some surveying equipment. What's the chances of any decent resolution shots? Someone on this site was talking about resolving strength a while back. (I forgot the obligatory "if there's anything to see"). If they do catch leftover equipment, will anyone here take it as credible evidence? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/16/2007 2:19 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If , if if.
Get back to us with the pics. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/16/2007 2:28 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I saw that Japan has a new satellite in orbit about 60 miles out that just split into some surveying equipment. What's the chances of any decent resolution shots? Quoting: AlienAbductee
The best resolution that the Kaguya instruments can manage is 10 meters per pixel, so it's about an order of magnitude too low to reveal anything significant about the Apollo sites.
The US Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter to be launched next year will have a resolution of about 50cm/pixel, so the descent stage of one of the LMs will be visible, but only just.If you've seen the pictures from the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter of the rover sitting next to a big crater, then that will give you an idea of the level of detail to expect.
Of course, that will be a US orbiter, so I'm sure that any evidence it provides will be summarily dismissed by hardcore hoax believers. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/16/2007 2:50 AM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The US Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter to be launched next year will have a resolution of about 50cm/pixel, so the descent stage of one of the LMs will be visible, but only just.If you've seen the pictures from the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter of the rover sitting next to a big crater, then that will give you an idea of the level of detail to expect.
Of course, that will be a US orbiter, so I'm sure that any evidence it provides will be summarily dismissed by hardcore hoax believers. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Very good Barls, its finally sinking into your brain, after the repeated posting of "The scientific standard of evidence is independent verification, and the alleged moon walks utterly fail that test. It is scientifically classifiable as an anecdotal legend."
One witness(NASA) needs at least two other INDEPENDENT witnesses(space agencies of other countries, like Russia or China) to prove that NASA is telling the truth about something. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/16/2007 3:22 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The best resolution that the Kaguya instruments can manage is 10 meters per pixel, so it's about an order of magnitude too low to reveal anything significant about the Apollo sites. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Isn't that convenient? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/16/2007 6:01 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One witness(NASA) needs at least two other INDEPENDENT witnesses(space agencies of other countries, like Russia or China) to prove that NASA is telling the truth about something. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Oh, come ON!
You and your compatriots have already declared that the second largest space-faring nation on Earth is not independent enough to "verify" Apollo. Every time the competing Soviet program and the Cold War "race to the Moon" is brought up someone declares they were bribed or bought off with wheat (or something) -- or maybe the entire Cold War was faked anyhow.
You've also declared the evidence of Parkes inadmissable -- as the Australians were friends of the US and there were NASA people in communication with them. You dismiss geologists world-wide, amateur observers world-wide, and the engineers and space scientists of Asia and the EU.
But, oh, if only two nations that weren't the US could provide one photograph each of a lunar lander or a footprint! Then we'd believe in the entire Apollo Program for sure!
Yeah, right.
I don't care what nation or civilian organization comes up with what kind of evidence. You've dismissed mountains for specious reasons already. What's to hold you to a promise to suddenly accept one more among many?
A page or two back someone laughingly suggested the Lunar Laser Retro-Reflectors were made up. They bet that no-one could show a photograph of a laser being aimed at the Moon.
I provided that link. An entire site of a civilian observatory that is currently doing science with those reflectors. Photographs and pages of description of the equipment and the experiments. Pictures and names and contact information for the scientists involved, even.
Feel that wind? That's the goal-posts lifting up and trotting down the field.
Dear IDW claimed that no rocket had ever made a powered descent. I provided links to at least one that had. Hear that bird chirping? It is chirping in the utter silence of no retraction, no comment, no recognition, no apology.
Admit it, SpaceCadet. Your mind was made up years ago. There is no evidence on Earth or on the Moon that would sway you. You are only pretending you might look at some new evidence because it makes you look like a thoughtful, reasonable guy. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/16/2007 6:09 AM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One witness(NASA) needs at least two other INDEPENDENT witnesses(space agencies of other countries, like Russia or China) to prove that NASA is telling the truth about something.
Admit it, SpaceCadet. Your mind was made up years ago. There is no evidence on Earth or on the Moon that would sway you. You are only pretending you might look at some new evidence because it makes you look like a thoughtful, reasonable guy. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
Oh come on nomuse-hairgel(NIL) don't be like that, I'm a very open minded guy to what the truth is. The world is full of very many mysteries, truths & untruths. If NASA would open up to the rest of the world about what the real truth actually is, just maybe greater minds than themselves could help look at the problems they are having with 'whatever' technology they actually have.
Many hands make light-travel work. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 6:10 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Then reproduce the event.
Simple. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:56 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Not quite the same game, though. When the scientific community challenged Pons and Flieschmann, no-one cared if it was possible to replicate the exact experiments they made (except for forensic purposes; to attempt to discover where the error had been made.)
Pons and Flieschmann did not claim "We set up a lab with this sort of beaker and this sort of power source, and oh yes the table was wood...." They claimed, in their paper, to have detected evidence of cold fusion.
It was that claim that was tested by others (and that ultimately failed verification).
Reproducibility in most of science focuses on results, not on methods. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
No, reproducibility focuses on both methods and results.
There were two reactions to Pons and Fleischmann:
1) Some people took for granted that the experiment did what was claimed, and tried other experiments to see if the effect occurred in other circumstances, or could be made to occur more efficiently, etc.
2) Other people did not believe the experiment had been conducted properly, and that the results were therefore invalid. Such people did want to know the details of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment in order to attempt to reproduce it exactly--or more precisely, they wanted to show that the effect would not occur.
In the case of NASA's alleged moon walk:
1) If, within a reasonable time frame (e.g., 10 years), other nations had also gotten to the moon, most people would simply assume that NASA was telling the truth, and would not quibble over details.
2) Because 35 years has passed since the last alleged moon walk, and neither the United States nor any other country has been able to leave earth orbit since then, the criteria have become stricter. In order to believe NASA's story, a Chinese landing on the moon today is not nearly good enough, because the Chinese have the advantage of 35 years of technology. For scientific credibility, NASA would now have to reproduce the method and apparatus of the experiment, in order to prove to us that it was able to land on the moon with 1969 technology.
Alternatively, if NASA is willing to forgo scientific credibility and focus merely on legal credibility, we could conduct a civil trial in which the astronauts and other NASA personnel would give us sworn testimony, subject to cross-examination, as to what exactly they were doing during the Apollo years. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313075
10/16/2007 9:12 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It cant be proven either way.Even if Nasa sent someone up there, again... nobody would believe it all over again.Or it would be said that the new evidence is faked. The reason the Russian's didn't say anything if it was faked, is that they couldn't prove it was faked, just like no side can prove it totally now.Im pretty sure that if they made Hubble stare at a landing site for a few days they would be able to see individual footprints, never mind the lander.They can see to the other side of the universe with that thing, yet it wont see the moon?Come on!I dont buy that.
If they did fake Apollo, then it wouldn't be the 1st time they lied to everyone to make money. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 9:19 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im pretty sure that if they made Hubble stare at a landing site for a few days they would be able to see individual footprints, never mind the lander.They can see to the other side of the universe with that thing, yet it wont see the moon?Come on!I dont buy that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313075
I've lost track of how many times I've said this on this thread.
The maximum resolution of a telescope is a function of the wavelength of light you are observing and the size of your optics. Look up Rayleigh Criterion on Wikipedia to get an explanation.
If you plug the numbers for Hubble into the equation, you find that the best possible resolution it can get on the Moon is about 100 meters across. About two orders of magnitude too low to see the Apollo remains.
Note that this limit is one imposed by physics, it is due to the way light refracts. There is no way at all to make Hubble more precise than this. No matter how much you want it to. The only way to get better resolution is to move the telescope closer (not going to happen with Hubble) or build a bigger telescope - one the size of a football field if you want to see the Apollo remains from the ground or near Earth orbit.
Galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 9:28 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im pretty sure that if they made Hubble stare at a landing site for a few days they would be able to see individual footprints, never mind the lander.They can see to the other side of the universe with that thing, yet it wont see the moon?Come on!I dont buy that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313075
This is a perfect example of the mentality of a true HB. No grasp on the science at all. How can one ever explain anyting to someone who hasn't the fist clue about angular resolution, etc. Just "stare at the site for a few days"...uh, yeah. If you knew anything about Hubble, you'd also know that it cannot track the moon's motion for any length of time since it's designed to stay pointed in one direction for days on end...and the moon moves in its orbit around the earth way too fast for Hubble to track. Please do just a little research on your own before you display your ignorance for all the world to see.
[link to www.checktheevidence.com]
[link to www.nasa.gov] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 9:30 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im pretty sure that if they made Hubble stare at a landing site for a few days they would be able to see individual footprints, never mind the lander.They can see to the other side of the universe with that thing, yet it wont see the moon?Come on!I dont buy that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313075
Another thought...
You seem to be suggesting that duration of exposure affects maximum angular resolution. This is not the case. Long exposures make faint objects brighter, they do not help make objects bigger. By that logic, if you stared at the Moon with your naked eyes long enough you would be able so see things you could normally only see through a telescope. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 9:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Hubble is irrelevant, anyway.
Reproduce the event, with the same 1969 technology.
If you dont, or cant, then its a legend/myth/anecdotal.
Whether you want to reproduce it-irrelevant.
Whether you have the $$ to reproduce it-irrelevant. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 9:50 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your arbitrary and illogical conditions - irrelevant.
One does not need to reproduce an event with total fidelity in order to prove that it happened. By that logic, the only way you could prove that Hillary and Tenzing reached the top of Everest would be to replicate it with identical equipment. It's a fallacy that nobody in the real world can take seriously. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 9:54 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Hubble is irrelevant, anyway.
Reproduce the event, with the same 1969 technology.
If you dont, or cant, then its a legend/myth/anecdotal.
Whether you want to reproduce it-irrelevant.
Whether you have the $$ to reproduce it-irrelevant. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
You're really getting desperate with your childish "logic", aren't you? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 10:15 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Hubble is irrelevant, anyway.
Reproduce the event, with the same 1969 technology.
If you dont, or cant, then its a legend/myth/anecdotal.
Whether you want to reproduce it-irrelevant.
Whether you have the $$ to reproduce it-irrelevant.
You're really getting desperate with your childish "logic", aren't you? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Desperate? Im not saying Nasa accomplished anything. So nothing to be desperate about.
I dont believe they went to the moon, and I know they can not now send anyone to the moon.
If they could, they would.
(And childish is thinking they cant see the moon up close, regardless of what they tell you) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 10:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your arbitrary and illogical conditions - irrelevant.
One does not need to reproduce an event with total fidelity in order to prove that it happened. By that logic, the only way you could prove that Hillary and Tenzing reached the top of Everest would be to replicate it with identical equipment. It's a fallacy that nobody in the real world can take seriously. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
The conditions are compeltely logical. Thats the standard used- reproducibility.
They cannot reproduce the event. Not with 1960's technology, not with today's technology.
Logic then dictates that it did not actually happen.
Mr Spock would agree. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 10:24 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If they could, they would. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Platitudes count for nothing.
The Concorde hasn't flown for a few years now. The powers that be would have you believe that it was grounded for economic reasons. BUT! That means that there are no supersonic passenger aircraft in service at the moment. People like getting to their destination fast, so if they could have supersonic planes, they would. Economics? Irrelevant.
See the logical fallacy there? Lack of economic and political will does not equate to technical inability.
(And childish is thinking they cant see the moon up close, regardless of what they tell you) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Ignorance is bliss, eh? The laws of physics Do. Not. Care. about your disbelief. If you can't be bothered looking at the details of the Rayleigh Criterion, and thus satisfy for yourself that magnification cannot be arbitrarily large, then that is your problem. If there are no practical limits to angular resolution, then why don't you take a magnifying glass out into your back yard and look at the Apollo footprints for yourself? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 10:31 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If they could, they would.
Platitudes count for nothing.
The Concorde hasn't flown for a few years now. The powers that be would have you believe that it was grounded for economic reasons. BUT! That means that there are no supersonic passenger aircraft in service at the moment. People like getting to their destination fast, so if they could have supersonic planes, they would. Economics? Irrelevant.
See the logical fallacy there? Lack of economic and political will does not equate to technical inability.
(And childish is thinking they cant see the moon up close, regardless of what they tell you)
Ignorance is bliss, eh? The laws of physics Do. Not. Care. about your disbelief. If you can't be bothered looking at the details of the Rayleigh Criterion, and thus satisfy for yourself that magnification cannot be arbitrarily large, then that is your problem. If there are no practical limits to angular resolution, then why don't you take a magnifying glass out into your back yard and look at the Apollo footprints for yourself? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Nonsense. Supersonic air travel is an everyday event. An F-14 can fly supersonic.
The Concorde flew for years, daily. It was repeated daily. (reproducibility). Thats proof.
You cannot reproduce this alleged event.
Ergo, myth/legend/anecdote. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 10:40 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If they could, they would.
Platitudes count for nothing.
The Concorde hasn't flown for a few years now. The powers that be would have you believe that it was grounded for economic reasons. BUT! That means that there are no supersonic passenger aircraft in service at the moment. People like getting to their destination fast, so if they could have supersonic planes, they would. Economics? Irrelevant.
See the logical fallacy there? Lack of economic and political will does not equate to technical inability.
(And childish is thinking they cant see the moon up close, regardless of what they tell you)
Ignorance is bliss, eh? The laws of physics Do. Not. Care. about your disbelief. If you can't be bothered looking at the details of the Rayleigh Criterion, and thus satisfy for yourself that magnification cannot be arbitrarily large, then that is your problem. If there are no practical limits to angular resolution, then why don't you take a magnifying glass out into your back yard and look at the Apollo footprints for yourself?
Nonsense. Supersonic air travel is an everyday event. An F-14 can fly supersonic.
The Concorde flew for years, daily. It was repeated daily. (reproducibility). Thats proof.
You cannot reproduce this alleged event.
Ergo, myth/legend/anecdote. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
I don't follow your reasoning. Certainly it could be reproduced with the technology of the time. Given enough money to reproduce a Saturn 5 and the Apollo spacecraft and lander,. it certainly could be done again. But why? Just to satisfy a few internet kooks?
These devices were designed for a specific one time purpose...to get there and stay for one or two days at the most and get back. The next generation will have a larger payload ability and the ability to stay for much longer periods. Thus requiring a completely new systems design. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 10:45 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nonsense. Supersonic air travel is an everyday event. An F-14 can fly supersonic. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Irrelevant. I was talking about passenger/ aircraft. You have not met my arbitrary criteria, therefore your argument is invalid. Supersonic passenger flights can't be reproduced right now, so therefore they never happened.
The voyage of the Trieste to the bottom of the Marianas Trench can't be reproduced right now, today, therefore it never happened.
The trek of Amundsen to the South Pole isn't being replicated with 1912 technology right now, so it never happened.
You are consistently misusing the scientific method in your argument. Reproducibility applies to experiments, not events. Experiments are a method of testing hypotheses that probe unvarying laws of nature. Events occur in a certain time and place and are verified not by Xeroxlike recreation, but by examination of the corroborating evidence. Your trolling is getting boring. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 10:51 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nonsense. Supersonic air travel is an everyday event. An F-14 can fly supersonic.
Irrelevant. I was talking about passenger/ aircraft. You have not met my arbitrary criteria, therefore your argument is invalid. Supersonic passenger flights can't be reproduced right now, so therefore they never happened.
The voyage of the Trieste to the bottom of the Marianas Trench can't be reproduced right now, today, therefore it never happened.
The trek of Amundsen to the South Pole isn't being replicated with 1912 technology right now, so it never happened.
You are consistently misusing the scientific method in your argument. Reproducibility applies to experiments, not events. Experiments are a method of testing hypotheses that probe unvarying laws of nature. Events occur in a certain time and place and are verified not by Xeroxlike recreation, but by examination of the corroborating evidence. Your trolling is getting boring. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28648
If thats what you wish to believe. I stick to what i wrote; the Concorde flew for many years, daily, carrying hundreds of thousands of passengers, if not millions.
Thats daily reproducibility.
And when you interview SST pilots, they dont act like sullen kids who just got caught throwing a rock through a neighbor's window.
As for "troll", I'd say thats an ad hominem. So no real reason to adress that. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 10:54 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yet another thought that occurred to me after hitting "Post":
As any HB will tell you, video evidence counts for nothing. Eyewitnesses are easily duped, and officials can be bought or threatened.
So the only way that a world record 100m sprint can be confirmed is to get the winning athlete to replicate his run and get the same time, every time. If his record run isn't reproducible at an arbitrarily chosen time, then they are a liar who probably has never run a race in their life.
Your notion of proof of events is purely your own.
The litmus test for me as to whether someone who posts in this thread is a troll or a misguided true believer is if they think their arguments can convince a regular member of the public who has never been near a conspiracy site. IDW, for instance, seems to genuinely believe that he is the greatest genius in human history, and that his arguments are unaddressable by the scientific community, and when published will strike the public like a hammer blow and sweep away all pretence of maintaining the hoax.
Then you have someone liek SpaceCadet and his "runnig down the track" nonsense that he likes to trot out at any given opportunity. I keep asking him when he's going to forward his argument to Sibrel or Percy for inclusion in their next books. I mean, he believes his own nonsense, right? He genuinely believes that it is an argument that will stand up to public scrutiny, right? Because the alternative is that he is spouting silly nonsense that not even he believes, purely in order to wind people up.
So go on. Take your argument to the masses. I'm sure you won't be ridiculed as illogical and trollish. Go on. Really. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 10:55 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nonsense. Supersonic air travel is an everyday event. An F-14 can fly supersonic.
Irrelevant. I was talking about passenger/ aircraft. You have not met my arbitrary criteria, therefore your argument is invalid. Supersonic passenger flights can't be reproduced right now, so therefore they never happened.
The voyage of the Trieste to the bottom of the Marianas Trench can't be reproduced right now, today, therefore it never happened.
The trek of Amundsen to the South Pole isn't being replicated with 1912 technology right now, so it never happened.
You are consistently misusing the scientific method in your argument. Reproducibility applies to experiments, not events. Experiments are a method of testing hypotheses that probe unvarying laws of nature. Events occur in a certain time and place and are verified not by Xeroxlike recreation, but by examination of the corroborating evidence. Your trolling is getting boring.
If thats what you wish to believe. I stick to what i wrote; the Concorde flew for many years, daily, carrying hundreds of thousands of passengers, if not millions. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
A half million people around the world worked for a decade on the Apollo program. Do you discount them all? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 10:58 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If they could, they would.
Platitudes count for nothing.
The Concorde hasn't flown for a few years now. The powers that be would have you believe that it was grounded for economic reasons. BUT! That means that there are no supersonic passenger aircraft in service at the moment. People like getting to their destination fast, so if they could have supersonic planes, they would. Economics? Irrelevant.
See the logical fallacy there? Lack of economic and political will does not equate to technical inability.
(And childish is thinking they cant see the moon up close, regardless of what they tell you)
Ignorance is bliss, eh? The laws of physics Do. Not. Care. about your disbelief. If you can't be bothered looking at the details of the Rayleigh Criterion, and thus satisfy for yourself that magnification cannot be arbitrarily large, then that is your problem. If there are no practical limits to angular resolution, then why don't you take a magnifying glass out into your back yard and look at the Apollo footprints for yourself?
Nonsense. Supersonic air travel is an everyday event. An F-14 can fly supersonic.
The Concorde flew for years, daily. It was repeated daily. (reproducibility). Thats proof.
You cannot reproduce this alleged event.
Ergo, myth/legend/anecdote.
I don't follow your reasoning. Certainly it could be reproduced with the technology of the time. Given enough money to reproduce a Saturn 5 and the Apollo spacecraft and lander,. it certainly could be done again. But why? Just to satisfy a few internet kooks?
These devices were designed for a specific one time purpose...to get there and stay for one or two days at the most and get back. The next generation will have a larger payload ability and the ability to stay for much longer periods. Thus requiring a completely new systems design. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Not buying it.
The next generation?? When? The shuttle should have been the "next generation", and it can only go up a few hundred miles.
A natural progression of events would be that moon missions ´would be routinely happening. Better engines, better payload, able to go further distances, IE MArs, etc.
Human nature requires us to keep advancing, going further into space. Thats how it would normally be.
Could this event be reproduced?
We will only know when it happens.
Until then, it remains legend.
As for "internet kooks", thats an ad hominem. A sign of desperation. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 10:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
IDW, for instance, seems to genuinely believe that he is the greatest genius in human history, and that his arguments are unaddressable by the scientific community, and when published will strike the public like a hammer blow and sweep away all pretence of maintaining the hoax. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
IDW has been shown to be one of the biggest fools on the net. His lack of basic scientific knowledge on just about any subject is hilarious. Although he'll try to tell you he's a genius, in reality he's a laughing stock. His "debate" with communications engineers recently about the Apollo television system is a classic. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 10:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Thats daily reproducibility. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
There's a prime example of how you are deliberately choosing arbitrary criteria that you know can't be met. Why "daily"? Why is that necessary?
Apollo was reproduced. There were six landings. All the supporting evidence, which you insist counts for nothing, shows that they did what they said they did. Your argument, and yes I believe you are trolling, is fatuous. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313111
10/16/2007 11:01 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im pretty sure that if they made Hubble stare at a landing site for a few days they would be able to see individual footprints, never mind the lander.They can see to the other side of the universe with that thing, yet it wont see the moon?Come on!I dont buy that.
This is a perfect example of the mentality of a true HB. No grasp on the science at all. How can one ever explain anyting to someone who hasn't the fist clue about angular resolution, etc. Just "stare at the site for a few days"...uh, yeah. If you knew anything about Hubble, you'd also know that it cannot track the moon's motion for any length of time since it's designed to stay pointed in one direction for days on end...and the moon moves in its orbit around the earth way too fast for Hubble to track. Please do just a little research on your own before you display your ignorance for all the world to see.
[ link to www.checktheevidence.com]
[ link to www.nasa.gov]
Im undecided when it comes to Apollo & if you read my post(or quoted me in full, instead of selectively)you would see that.So dont tar me with the same brush as others just because i have doubts.If there are doubts its not my fault, fone NASA & tell them to do their job properly, you do pay them after all & even though you do, they still treat you like shit & lie to you.
I know as much as any layman regarding Hubble, its a powerful space telescope, one that takes real nice pictures of Galaxy's & other space shit. & like most other people, i thought that if it cn take those pictures of stellar nurseries light years away, then the moon must be cake walk in comparison, to see.I didnt realise that the thing is so crap that it cant do that, or that it couldnt keep up with something that takes a whole fucking month to orbit the earth!If thats ignorance, then im ignorant.But at the end of the day, you still cant proove beyond any doubt that Apollo is real. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 11:02 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The next generation?? When? The shuttle should have been the "next generation", and it can only go up a few hundred miles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
You really know very little about the history of the space program, don't you? What grade are you in?
The shuttle was designed and built SPECIFICALLY for low earth orbit for an entirely different purpose.
Keep it up...you demonstrate perfectly my contention that those who are most critical of Apollo are precisely those who know the least about it. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
