"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:38:37 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
wrote:

"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:38:37 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
wrote:

No. The claim that "Man Went To The Moon" is not a scientific claim;
it's
an
historical claim. Historians can only decide the validity of an
historical
assertion; for instance "Edward VIII abdicated the British throne"

You have confused a `claim' with an historical fact. As a witness to
both events, there is absolutely no doubt as to the facts.

I was simply making the point that history is not science; and it's
difficult to defend the position that there is any such thing as an
historical fact (well, a caveat: there is an absolute objective factual
history, but no human can ever truly prove it). Did Richard III kill the
princes in the tower? Did Marco Polo really go to China? Did Jesus exist?

In addition
there is an historic coincidence often over looked: the Moon landing
and first walk - the culmination of a dream proposed by John F.
Kennedy occurring almost on the same day as the culmination and abrupt
termination of hopes of his brother for political advancement after an
orgy on Chappaquidock Island.

Well, there you go. Nobody really knows what happened at Chappaquiddick.
There are a number of theories. And who really shot JFK? Was it the lone
gunman, or was he the patsy for a conspiracy?

Well there I go again telling the historical facts contained in police
records, court hearings, and eye-witness accounts. And there you go
again revising historical facts to better suit your fancy. Apparently
the education system has become so incompetent and pathetic that it
can no longer teach historical fact. The lone gunman that shot JFK in
the kitchen of an LA hotel is still incarcerated in the California
Prison System. His name is Sirhan, just another mideast muslim
extremist. Police investigation and court records are also available
in this case.

Er, JFK wasn't shot in the lobby of an LA Hotel. He was shot in a motorcade
in Dallas. By Lee Harvey Oswald. I think you are thinking perhaps of his
brother Robert.

As to revising facts, I did no such thing. I said that there are alternative
viewpoints on most historical issues. There are very few historical "facts",
because history is based upon the *intepretation* of a limited amount of
evidence. With history, in general, one is stuck with what evidence survives
and, unlike science, one cannot go do another experiment to gain more.

You should also bear in mind that police records, court hearings and
eye-witness accounts are evidence, but do not generally constitute a
scientific level of proof. Lots of people have seen the Loch Ness Monster,
including a few police and other trustworthy professionals. It's unlikely
they're lying. Is this proof of a family of plesiosaurs in the loch? I think
most scientists would say no, and I'd agree with them.

The successful moon walk was followed
closely by several other missions. All are documented in detail. As
was the failure of Apollo13.

Yes, and as I said, there is no doubt in my mind that the Apollo missions
took place just as the history books say they did. A very lucky bunch of
men
walked on the moon; and I'm appalled frankly that malcontents want to
deny
them that glorious achievement.

But my point was, that the OP was claiming that this issue is one of
science
and thus the scientific method applies; whereas I am saying it is a
matter
of history, and thus one applies historical principles; i.e. the weighing
of
available documentary evidence, which is of course overwhelmingly in
favour
of the position that the moon landings took place. It isn't science, it's
history.

It is important to gain a wide knowledge of history so as not to be
fooled by revised history written from a biased point of view.

Like learning the names of the Kennedy brothers before pontificating on
their history, for instance?

The abdication of Edward VIII in order to marry an American divorcee
followed several months of scandal and constitutional crisis in the
UK. His abdication was demanded by parliament despite urgent attempts
by the PM to save him. He was a rather weak character with nazi
sympathies, so it all came out for the better. I believe he ultimately
settled in France and is buried there. His abdication was the only
noteworthy event in his life.

Who tried to save him is rather a matter of debate; IIRC Ramsay Macdonald
was PM at the time and was the one who pretty much forced him (rightly)
to
abdicate. Whether he was truly a nazi sympathiser or just a weak upper
class
idiot is again a matter of opinion. There was a great deal of nazi
sympathy
prior to the war...

`Forced him to abdicate' after exhausting every resource in an attempt
to save him. Edward VIII's nazi sympathies are on the record in his
own words. His life certainly suggests he was a weak upper class idiot
despite of spin doctors of the day portraying him as a strong leader
concerned with the plight of the working class as in visits to mines,
etc.

Well, we are now far from the idea of a "fact". These are all opinions.
Valid ones, true. But what Ramsay Macdonald really wanted to achieve is,
frankly, a matter for Ramsay Macdonald. All the rest is conjecture. History
is always an imperfect picture. Please note, I'm not saying you are *wrong*.
I am saying that you must consider the possibility that you are not *right*.
As to Edward, there's plenty of evidence (again hearsay though) that he
enjoyed hobnobbing with the German ambassador, and indeed visited Hitler
IIRC, and that the UK govt was deeply concerned about him being a security
risk (one reason Macdonald wanted shot of him). Whether he sympathised more
broadly with nazi policy in detail is more a matter of debate.

Anyway, my general point was that staring goggly eyed at moon photos
looking
for "scientific" evidence of a hoax is simply a fundamentally flawed
approach, and it sure as heck isn't science. It is up to a scientist with
a
hypothesis to prove their hypothesis; but the onus of proof regarding
Apollo
is *not* on NASA, because the moon landings are not a scientific
hypothesis.
They're a historical event.

The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can
share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain.
It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin
put on the facts.


You still haven't got my original point have you? It's not an issue for
science. It's an issue for history. That was my point.

Ian