Missing Moon Landing Tapes Found
Friday July 3, 2009
In late 2006, I wrote an article dealing with the Lost Apollo 11 Tapes. These tapes, as you may know, covered the historic moon landing, and mankind's first steps on the moon.
Now, there were copies of the original transmissions, but they were third and fourth generation tapes, and highly compressed, in other words, they were a low quality video.
We have just been told that these tapes have been found, and NASA is planning on airing these soon as part of the 40th celebration of the event.
Parkes Observatory in Australia contained the first generation, high quality transmissions, and these tapes were stored in Perth, and have now been found.
Another interesting aspect of a good quality showing of Armstrong's first steps, and the subsequent events, is that supposedly this will dissuade those who believe that the American's never landed there. It is thought that these new, high grade recordings will put an end to this belief.
See all of the details of the recent find at NASA Finds Missing Moon Landing Tapes.
Do you think that the recently found recordings will make a difference to those who believe that the moon landing in 1969 was just a hoax?
[link to ufos.about.com] “Skepticism is the easiest way: believe nothing, do nothing.
It is like religion, when someones mind is made up, it will remain so, despite appeals to logic and reason. In this case the believers in the falsification of this event will interpret the recent discovery of these tapes as more proof of its falseness, by saying that they have waited till the technology was good enough to produce these tapes to silence the naysayers.
Skeptic the First User ID: 716362 7/3/2009 10:58 AM
In this case the believers in the falsification of this event will interpret the recent discovery of these tapes as more proof of its falseness, by saying that they have waited till the technology was good enough to produce these tapes to silence the naysayers.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 712753
If you going to dabble in science, please try to learn to think like a scientist.
Let's say that 40 years ago, Joe Schmoe claimed to have achieved cold fusion. No one ever reproduced his experiment with their own equipment; no one else was ever allowed to use Joe's equipment to reproduce the experiment; and no independent evaluators were permitted to examine all of Joe's equipment closely and (more importantly) collect sworn depositions from him and his employees. Joe then dismantled his equipment and sat around doing nothing for 40 years. He and his employees refused even to answer questions about their now-ancient experiment.
Today, Joe announces that for $100 billion, he will reproduce his notorious experiment of 40 years ago. Alternatively, Joe says, he will now provide 40-year-old video of his almost-forgotten experiment--video that he had previously claimed was "lost."
Does anyone doubt that the scientific community would treat Joe as a charlatan and a scoundrel?
If you going to dabble in science, please try to learn to think like a scientist.
Let's say that 40 years ago, Joe Schmoe claimed to have achieved cold fusion. No one ever reproduced his experiment with their own equipment; no one else was ever allowed to use Joe's equipment to reproduce the experiment; and no independent evaluators were permitted to examine all of Joe's equipment closely and (more importantly) collect sworn depositions from him and his employees. Joe then dismantled his equipment and sat around doing nothing for 40 years. He and his employees refused even to answer questions about their now-ancient experiment.
Today, Joe announces that for $100 billion, he will reproduce his notorious experiment of 40 years ago. Alternatively, Joe says, he will now provide 40-year-old video of his almost-forgotten experiment--video that he had previously claimed was "lost."
Does anyone doubt that the scientific community would treat Joe as a charlatan and a scoundrel?
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
Let's say that a poster at GLP makes up shit, describing an imaginary version of an expedition, then makes arguments based on that imaginary version.
Equipment was and is available for independent investigation. The same technology is in use not just by every other space-faring nation, but in tens of thousands of similar applications on Earth. At no place in any NASA documents does the phrase "black box goes here" appear. Instead, the properties and vendor of every rocket motor, every battery, every switch is listed.
NASA released at the time, and continues to release, transcripts, data, samples, recordings. The launches were open to civilian watchers, and the television broadcasts were made real time. People also observed the spacecraft in visual tracking, radio tracking, and (at least at a government scale) radar tracking.
NASA has spent time and money explaining their efforts in space to the general public. NASA also spends a great deal of effort -- among various devices, a publication I used to subscribe to -- bringing their scientific and technical discoveries to industry. They sponsor educational programs. The astronaut corps give lectures, many lectures. Most of the surviving Apollo astronauts are still out there writing, lecturing, et al, even though most of them have not been in NASA's employ for decades.
Let's get back to Joe, shall we? Joe didn't discover cold fusion; he discovered the Higg's Bosun. To do so, he needed the LHC at CERN. So ten thousand people worked with Joe over a period of fifteen years, building a machine so expensive it could only be afforded by a very small number of governments and supranational organizations.
Joe released ream after ream of information about the LHC, held tours, did outreach programs, etc. The physics of the LHC was well understood by the scientific community, of course, even if most of them lacked the funding to build one themselves. They did have LOTS of smaller particle accelerators built on identical principles, however.
Now we're getting a little closer to an analogy with Apollo.
Equipment was and is available for independent investigation.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
You are now claiming that NASA made the Saturn V, Apollo Mission Control Center, 100%-oxygen space capsule, space suits, and other equipment of the Apollo program freely available to government and corporate buyers and lessors? You claim that the Soviet Union could simply have leased all the American equipment, and gone to the moon itself? Show us evidence of this.
The same technology is in use not just by every other space-faring nation, but in tens of thousands of similar applications on Earth.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Tens of thousands of earthbound applications make use of the Saturn V, space capsules, Apollo space suits, etc.? Please elaborate.
At no place in any NASA documents does the phrase "black box goes here" appear.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Unless NASA made a piece of equipment available for purchase or lease, or at least for exhaustive independent international inspection and testing, it was indeed a black box, whether labeled as such or not. Paper spewed forth by the bureaucracy is worthless without independent verification of both construction and operation.
NASA released at the time, and continues to release, transcripts, data, samples, recordings.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
All of which are utterly worthless without sworn depositions from actual workers (not just deceitful executives) as to their honesty. Again, paper from a bureaucracy is meaningless.
Most of the surviving Apollo astronauts are still out there writing, lecturing, et al, even though most of them have not been in NASA's employ for decades.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
But not about the Apollo program, and not under oath with cross-examination. I have already mentioned a "lecture" (really, a motivational talk) given by Gene Cernan. He barely mentioned Apollo, except to say that "If it was a simulation, it was good enough to fool me." Faint praise indeed.
So ten thousand people worked with Joe over a period of fifteen years, building a machine so expensive it could only be afforded by a very small number of governments and supranational organizations.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
If all those people worked for one giant military-industrial-intelligence complex with a shocking record of continuing prevarication, and no one ever duplicated their results, their work is utterly worthless to science even if perchance it actually occurred.
You are now claiming that NASA made the Saturn V, Apollo Mission Control Center, 100%-oxygen space capsule, space suits, and other equipment of the Apollo program freely available to government and corporate buyers and lessors?
You claim that the Soviet Union could simply have leased all the American equipment, and gone to the moon itself? Show us evidence of this.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
NASA didn't make any of that in the first place. It was made by contractors, thousands of contractors big and small. Most of those contractors are still in business, and much similar technology has been built then and since.
The Shuttle suit is very similar to the Apollo-era pressure suit, for instance. The engines from the Saturn upper stages continued to fly in other vehicles. The stuff isn't peculiar to Apollo or confined to Apollo.
Sure, the Soviets could have used our technology and infrastructure. If we were in the business of leasing it! Would hardly be much of a publicity coup, though, would it?
Tens of thousands of earthbound applications make use of the Saturn V, space capsules, Apollo space suits, etc.? Please elaborate.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
It would take time. But I must disabuse your quaint notion that technology is an artifact. Is the only thing we learn from making a Model T Ford how to to make a Model T Ford? Is the only technology in a Model T a "car" part, or are there rubber tires, steel springs, internal combustion engine, and other developments that can find there way into non-automotive applications?
Read some back issues of NASA Tech Briefs and you might get a picture. And I find it interesting you concentrate only on the Earthbound technological fallout. What's wrong with Skylab, the GPS network, the ISS, the Shuttle, weather satellites, Mars probes, communications satellites, ICBMs, Voyager.........?
Unless NASA made a piece of equipment available for purchase or lease, or at least for exhaustive independent international inspection and testing, it was indeed a black box, whether labeled as such or not. Paper spewed forth by the bureaucracy is worthless without independent verification of both construction and operation.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
Answer in three parts.
The original items are largely available for inspection. Civilians can and have looked closely at the inside of a CM, a pressure suit, etc., etc.
Similar items are still in service -- and outside of NASA.
Nothing that NASA built ever required, at any level of description or paperwork, unobtanium. Nothing NASA built called for unknown physical principles. Every single bit of equipment built for the Apollo Program can be worked out from first principles. So it wouldn't even matter if we didn't have one to investigate, didn't have paperwork on how it worked, and didn't have a similar one in service elsewhere; we can calculate on known science and engineering to see if something of that general size and shape and using those materials would work in that application.
I've done some of this work on pressure suits...working from first principles, from ideal gas law and the chemical equation covering carbon dioxide absorption by lithium hydroxide. And I didn't get numbers back saying the oxygen tanks had to be bigger than a man, or the battery needed a power density higher than zinc-alkaline.
I've tinkered with link budgets, ascent engines, radiation shielding....just doing first-order calculations. So far, every where my magpie eye has chosen to look at Apollo, their numbers and mine have matched well within a magnitude of each other.
This has given me a great confidence that those things I have not calculated would also show true if I were to do so.
So ten thousand people worked with Joe over a period of fifteen years, building a machine so expensive it could only be afforded by a very small number of governments and supranational organizations.
If all those people worked for one giant military-industrial-intelligence complex with a shocking record of continuing prevarication, and no one ever duplicated their results, their work is utterly worthless to science even if perchance it actually occurred.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
Feel free to tell CERN that when they discover the Higg's Bosun.
It is like religion, when someones mind is made up, it will remain so, despite appeals to logic and reason. In this case the believers in the falsification of this event will interpret the recent discovery of these tapes as more proof of its falseness, by saying that they have waited till the technology was good enough to produce these tapes to silence the naysayers.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 712753
The "We missed the Moon" nutters must be on vacation. We should be at 20 pages right now.
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 8:22 PM
Sure, the Soviets could have used our technology and infrastructure. If we were in the business of leasing it! Would hardly be much of a publicity coup, though, would it?
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Gad, you still don't understand scientific method, do you? If NASA wants people to believe it went to the moon, NASA is obligated to provide others with the same means NASA itself employed, on reasonable terms. It's not a choice but a requirement, if NASA wants people to believe its story.
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 8:29 PM
Is the only thing we learn from making a Model T Ford how to to make a Model T Ford?
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Please try to concentrate. We are not talking about a vehicle and its travels which were subsequently duplicated and exceeded by others. Rather, we are talking about "miraculous" vehicles and travels which have never again been duplicated by that same organization or any other. All the constituent parts and details are meaningless if the total results cannot be duplicated.
More specifically, Tang and Space Food Sticks are quite useless without a trip to the moon to make them palatable.
Sure, the Soviets could have used our technology and infrastructure. If we were in the business of leasing it! Would hardly be much of a publicity coup, though, would it?
Gad, you still don't understand scientific method, do you? If NASA wants people to believe it went to the moon, NASA is obligated to provide others with the same means NASA itself employed, on reasonable terms. It's not a choice but a requirement, if NASA wants people to believe its story.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
Heh. I'd like to see you try that at Lawrence Livermore.
"Hello, I run a small three-person science lab. We don't believe you actually discovered Lawrencium. So please loan us your Bevatron until we can get around to running our own experiment."
How about, hell no, you want to publish in Physical Review, build your own accelerator!
You really think it's as simple as rolling a giant-size roll of Saran Wrap around a Saturn V and sending it on a barge down the Volga?
Of course, these days, scientists on both sides of what had been the Iron Curtain are visiting each other's facilities, and astronauts are riding in each other's spacecraft (and training with the other side, and working with them...and oh also European and Japanese astronauts and....)
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 8:44 PM
The original items are largely available for inspection. Civilians can and have looked closely at the inside of a CM, a pressure suit, etc., etc.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Are you actually asserting that NASA will let critical international investigators test the ability of an Apollo space suit occupant to change lenses and film in a vacuum?
Every single bit of equipment built for the Apollo Program can be worked out from first principles.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Your statement is worse than lunacy, it is downright homicidal. Even today, NASA is discovering, and indeed still investigating, dangers associated with travel to the moon:
Your reckless claim that neither scientific investigation nor comprehensive engineering tests are required to make lunar travel safe is tantamount to depraved indifference.
If all those people worked for one giant military-industrial-intelligence complex with a shocking record of continuing prevarication, and no one ever duplicated their results, their work is utterly worthless to science even if perchance it actually occurred.
Feel free to tell CERN that when they discover the Higg's Bosun.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Are you claiming that CERN has a record of prevarication that rivals that of the American military-industrial-intelligence complex?
I don't get it. In the documentary Was it only a Paper Moon, they show, leaked NASA tapes, of Apollo 11, in orbit around the earth, faking it to look like they are near the moon, using a cover over the porthole. I mean it is as clear as day, including a prompter, who tells them when to speak, to fake the transmission delay.
Get over it. It is 100% Hollywood.
America in no way walked on the moon, and they have confessed, by leaking NASA tapes, to a documentary, which was exposing the fraud so well using physics, they felt they needed to confess.
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 8:53 PM
I'd like to see you try that at Lawrence Livermore.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
LL scientists know perfectly well that any claims they publish are considered dubious until reproduced independently. If considerable time goes by without such, LL scientists know that they must then make their own materials and equipment available to other researchers, in order to achieve the independent reproducibility that science requires, or otherwise risk rejection of their claims by the rest of the field.
Alternatively, LL could simply pull the same Mafia-style stunts that NASA pulls, and bludgeon the rest of the field into "accepting" their claims. But then LL would simply be another part of the vast American military-intelligence-industrial complex.
Oh, I forgot. They are!
Of course, these days, scientists on both sides of what had been the Iron Curtain are visiting each other's facilities, and astronauts are riding in each other's spacecraft (and training with the other side, and working with them...and oh also European and Japanese astronauts and....)
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
That's exactly what NASA should have done in the Apollo program, if it had wanted scientific acceptance of its claims.
Please try to concentrate. We are not talking about a vehicle and its travels which were subsequently duplicated and exceeded by others. Rather, we are talking about "miraculous" vehicles and travels which have never again been duplicated by that same organization or any other. All the constituent parts and details are meaningless if the total results cannot be duplicated.
More specifically, Tang and Space Food Sticks are quite useless without a trip to the moon to make them palatable.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
Hey, I'm not the one doing the Gish Gallop here. You want to talk about one point at a time? Don't keep changing the subject then!
Anyhow.
The point you miss -- because you haven't the background in the basic sciences involved -- is that there's nothing miraculous in a journey to the Moon. Space isn't the "Darkest Africa" of a turn-of-the-century adventure book. We know what's up there. Apollo didn't go from "space we know about" to "mystery area only NASA knows about."
The only differences between a journey to the Moon, and a journey to orbit and back, are differences of degree. Going to the Moon takes more thrust, more steps, you might be out longer. No significant differences in kind.
That's why no-one in the international space community, nor the vast majority of engineers, scientists, and other people with a technical background and education, don't see the point in most of the Hoax Believer's issues. They also understand going to the Moon is basically doing what you are already doing in orbit, but further, longer, and taking more fuel.
Actually, one of the big problems facing us right now as potential space explorers is that space (suborbital and beyond) is close to the margin of what we can practically manage on existing fuels. The payload carried by the Space Shuttle to LEO (it can do a bit better to GEO) is under 1% of the launch weight of the shuttle stack.
We can't do it with any old system; we need the most efficient chemical fuels we have, or exotic systems that have yet to be engineered.
The Moon, however, is a bit less than half again the energy requirement (that's speaking in terms of pure velocity change; the need to carry the energy source means you've got to do some sort of creative staging to make it happen.)
That means that we can't just fly to the Moon. It's like taking a cross-country trip by car. You have to gas up several times, you have to figure out how to pull over and sleep, etc. It's a technical, fidgity process imposed by the mechanics of practical chemical rockets (which are currently the most practical way to put the energy density needed where it needs to be).
But there is no bright line in the process. It isn't like the difference between taking a log canoe on a lake, and taking it out on open ocean. It's just more energy, more time. It's like a really big lake...not a whole new environment.
LL scientists know perfectly well that any claims they publish are considered dubious until reproduced independently.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
Not exactly "dubious." A major lab trades on reputation, and the fact that they are a member of the community; they've been sharing data and swapping researchers and doing guest stuff for decades. So there's probably some guys at Fermilab hoping they can dispute Lawrencium, but they are going to have an uphill battle convincing the institute director to gamble with them with expensive accelerator time.
Instead, they'll focus on the lifetime and decay particles, seeing if they can do the experiment the Lab did, but better, with better data, and stuff the Lab missed.
Unless there's indication in the papers, the documentation, the general practice, or the underlying mathematics that suggest they were wrong. Similar happened over the mass of the electron, if I'm remembering right; the wrong value was accepted until new theory indicated it should be something else. And the original researcher was the first to go back and re-measure the electron and get it right.
If considerable time goes by without such, LL scientists know that they must then make their own materials and equipment available to other researchers, in order to achieve the independent reproducibility that science requires, or otherwise risk rejection of their claims by the rest of the field.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
Doesn't happen that way. If a guy at Fermilab wants to prove the Lawrencium team wrong, he's got two options; do the work at Fermilab, with their equipment, or join Lawrence Labs and work there. They aren't gonna open the doors and say, "Hey, take over our lab, we don't mind!"
Same through most of the sciences I'm familiar with. Get your own cell lines, your own sequencers, do your own lab work. Or show there are errors in the way the original work was done. The chart doesn't match the test data. The conclusions aren't logically drawn from the observations. The wrong statistical method was used. Your claim that A = C disagrees with two other papers that claim A = B but B <> C. Your underlying mechanism is wrong. Your math is wrong.
There are lots of ways a result can be tested without borrowing the lab used to make it.
Plus, only a moron would try to replicate a result on the same test setup used to make it in the first place! If there was an error in the original experiment, by using the same setup you leave yourself open to the same error. Did you see a SINGLE scientist ask to borrow Pons and Fleishman's apparatus so they could do the same test run P and F did? You're crazy! They did want to inspect the apparatus, but that's because they suspect P and J had made errors, and the source for those errors might be visible in the equipment. Most of them, tho, tried to replicate the results using their own tests -- not just their own gear, but experiments they designed themselves.
That's exactly what NASA should have done in the Apollo program, if it had wanted scientific acceptance of its claims.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
Who did they leave out? Press, civilian scientists, contractors, and foreign scientists and dignitaries all had access of various kinds.
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 9:13 PM
The only differences between a journey to the Moon, and a journey to orbit and back, are differences of degree.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
You need to re-take Engineering 101 as well as Engineering Ethics 101.
Landing an object on the moon, then bringing it back to earth, is a quantum leap in technology. As far as I can find, America has never accomplished this successfully, unless one wishes to swallow the dubious Apollo program. The Soviet Union may have accomplished this in 1970, but as the head of NASA said, the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in the space race near the end of 1968 and would remain in that position for some time.
Human survival on the moon's surface is a quantum leap in several areas. Even today, NASA is clearly scared witless (spelled with an 'sh') about what might happen to a human on the moon. Any sane, ethical engineering of such a mission would require, at the very least, a test with a live animal first.
Here is one example of an experiment that must be run before even considering the landing of a human on the moon:
[link to dsc.discovery.com]
--- LRO is carrying patches of fake human tissue that will help NASA assess radiation risks to future crews and develop countermeasures.
...
"When you get about a tenth of the way to the moon, you're basically in deep space and at those altitudes we really don't have a good idea of how radiation interacts with human tissue," Spence said.
CRaTER was turned on about an hour after launch to begin collecting data about how radiation fields change as they pass through sensors layered within patches of synthetic human tissue. Scientists will then use the information to determine how the radiation might increase cancer and other health risks.
...
"We're able to see how the primary cosmic radiation would come through, for instance, the hull of a spacecraft, encounter the first little bit of human tissue, go through the small volume of human tissue, look at how the radiation field has evolved, and then finally all the way to the depth that would be equivalent to, say, a blood-forming organ," Spence told Discovery News.
---
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 9:20 PM
Who did they leave out? Press, civilian scientists, contractors, and foreign scientists and dignitaries all had access of various kinds.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
If you're not even going to bother reading what you yourself wrote, you are not worth further response.
You yourself wrote: "...astronauts are riding in each other's spacecraft..." That is exactly the kind of independent confirmation that Apollo would have required.
You yourself wrote: "...astronauts are riding in each other's spacecraft..." That is exactly the kind of independent confirmation that Apollo would have required.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
Are you claiming that no Russian has ever been in an American Spacecraft (or vice versa?)
Well, what can I expect of someone who apparently has never heard of test pilots.
In this case the believers in the falsification of this event will interpret the recent discovery of these tapes as more proof of its falseness, by saying that they have waited till the technology was good enough to produce these tapes to silence the naysayers.
If you going to dabble in science, please try to learn to think like a scientist.
Let's say that 40 years ago, Joe Schmoe claimed to have achieved cold fusion. No one ever reproduced his experiment with their own equipment; no one else was ever allowed to use Joe's equipment to reproduce the experiment; and no independent evaluators were permitted to examine all of Joe's equipment closely and (more importantly) collect sworn depositions from him and his employees. Joe then dismantled his equipment and sat around doing nothing for 40 years. He and his employees refused even to answer questions about their now-ancient experiment.
Today, Joe announces that for $100 billion, he will reproduce his notorious experiment of 40 years ago. Alternatively, Joe says, he will now provide 40-year-old video of his almost-forgotten experiment--video that he had previously claimed was "lost."
Does anyone doubt that the scientific community would treat Joe as a charlatan and a scoundrel?
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
So you think that Apollo and the Moon mission was a science project?
That alone indicates that you are a wacko.
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 9:37 PM
Instead, they'll focus on the lifetime and decay particles, seeing if they can do the experiment the Lab did, but better, with better data, and stuff the Lab missed.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Exactly: independent reproducibility of results, a requirement for scientific acceptance.
Unless there's indication in the papers, the documentation, the general practice, or the underlying mathematics that suggest they were wrong.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Lack of reproducibility is itself a strong argument for error or fraud.
Similar happened over the mass of the electron, if I'm remembering right; the wrong value was accepted until new theory indicated it should be something else.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
A much better example is the number of human chromosomes. In 1923, the preeminent cytologist Theophilus Painter published his count of the number of chromosomes in an ordinary human cell: 48. Because of his "reputation," 33 years of researchers were unwilling to publicly disagree with him. They all claimed to count all 48 of those chromosomes!
Only in 1956 did Tjio and Levan have the courage to point out that there were only 46 human chromosomes, despite others' delusions and deception.
To be fair, Painter himself was simply making his best estimate. The deception occurred over the succeeding 33 years, as researcher after researcher fudged the number rather than publicly challenge Painter's.
If a guy at Fermilab wants to prove the Lawrencium team wrong, he's got two options; do the work at Fermilab, with their equipment, or join Lawrence Labs and work there. They aren't gonna open the doors and say, "Hey, take over our lab, we don't mind!"
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
LL can say that if it wants, but it must then either admit that its claim is irreproducible and therefore dubious, or bludgeon everyone else into public submission Mafia-style as NASA does.
Get your own cell lines, your own sequencers, do your own lab work. Or show there are errors in the way the original work was done. The chart doesn't match the test data. The conclusions aren't logically drawn from the observations. The wrong statistical method was used. Your claim that A = C disagrees with two other papers that claim A = B but B <> C. Your underlying mechanism is wrong. Your math is wrong.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
You forgot the most obvious: "You're a liar and a scoundrel."
There are lots of ways a result can be tested without borrowing the lab used to make it.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
And if the test fails--i.e., the result is irreproducible--the claim is consigned to the junk heap where it belongs.
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 9:38 PM
So you think that Apollo and the Moon mission was a science project?
Quoting: Chong 712683
So you admit that the Apollo program was not a scientific endeavor? Thank you! That's a major point of agreement, and something that the NASA fanboys continually fail to admit.
So you think that Apollo and the Moon mission was a science project?
So you admit that the Apollo program was not a scientific endeavor? Thank you! That's a major point of agreement, and something that the NASA fanboys continually fail to admit.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
I did my laundry last Sunday. Admittedly I wasn't very scientific about it.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
