revisiting Apollo

"NJ" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
I would remind the reader that It's up to scientists and
claimants of this or that fact to provide proof of their claims.
That's how it works in science and to do this scientists use
something called "the scientific method". When they are done
presenting their case anyone may examine it for errors and
so forth. If we find flaws or errors in their method or in the
results of their scientific work then we may call in to question
the validity of their claims. It's just not up to us to prove
that man did or did not walk on the Moon. We are only to show that
the evidence as presented to us is faulty, contrived or in some
way unrepresentative of what we know and we may then throw the
evidence out.

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" by
weighing the evidence for and against- but there is no scientific way to
absolutely confirm or deny its truth, since it's history, it has been and
gone, there is no experiment that others can repeat.

Personally, I believe that Edward VIII abdicated the British throne, but I
have no personal proof that he did so, or even that he existed. There is
much documentary evidence which agrees that he did. Older family members
remember it being reported in the newspapers. There is newsreel footage of
this supposed king, and of the situation surrounding his abdication. But it
is possible that he never existed; that all the newsreels were faked, that
the press was seeded with stories about this imaginary king and his
imaginary abdication, for some secret reason known only to the British
establishment. But that is enormously unlikely. The conspiracy would have
had to have been huge. Further, had it been discovered, the resulting
fallout for the British ruling classes would have been catastrophic.

Likewise, the "Moon Hoax". This immense supposed conspiracy is enormously
unlikely. Again, the fallout from its discovery would have been catastrophic
for the US; and remember, the USSR would hardly have helped a cover-up. It
is very very very slightly possible; on the grounds that just about any
historical event could be a manufactured hoax- but since all evidence
available is consistent with a genuine moon landing having occurred, we must
conclude that it happened.

If nothing else, bear in mind that if there were really flaws in NASA's
portrayal of the science of the missions, e.g. the hazard from radiation,
the US's fierce rivals the USSR, which was jam-packed with world-class
physicists and aerospace engineers with access to scads of their own
independent data on the space environment from their own space programme,
would have wasted no time in debunking the whole thing.

Which they didn't. Unless they were in on it too, and the whole "Cold War"
was a sham, and....

Ian

"CeeBee" wrote in message
.84...
"Jaxtraw" wrote in sci.astro:

snip

I really shouldn't add to this kind of threads, but recently I heard a
nice description of people obsessed with Moon hoax theories; their
behaviour was called "cultural vandalism".

They're the people feeling the need to scratch their names like in
objects of arts, historical buildings or landmark scientific
performances of human civilization.

Lacking any capability to contribute anything themselves they try to
damage the amazing performance of others with their imprint, with the
idea that hiking with truly gifted makes the hitchhiking vandal a bit
gifted too.

To give us a sad reminder of the fact that there are gifted people and
people without any gifts at all. It may sound as if they're despicable
weren't their behaviour so sad and pityful.

--

I'm reminded of a quote I read recently (tho sadly I can't remember who its
originator is )

"The jealous man believes that if his neighbour breaks his leg, he will walk
better himself".

Ian

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

"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?

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.

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...

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.

Ian

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ian

"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

vonroach wrote:
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.

Herein lies the problem. There are different standard of proof for
historical and scientific facts, which was Jaxtraw's point. For a
scientific fact to be considered a fact it must be repeatable, this is
not possible with historical facts, which must be decided on the
weight of evidence at the time.

I very much doubt you were a first-hand witness to both events, unless
you happen to be a previously unknown royal and have your own radio
telescope. Certainly reading about something in a range of newspapers
and seeing and/or hearing about it in a range of other media is a good
indication of something having actually happened, but the fact remains
you are relying on second hand sources and cannot repeat the
experiment yourself.

A case in point: It has only recently become common knowledge that the
Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved my a mutual agreement to remove
missiles from locations close to the other party's country: The USSR
agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba in return for the USA removing
its missiles from Turkey. The USA's concession was kept pretty much
secret, which deeply coloured the historical view of that event till
recently.

Note that I don't doubt the moon landings took place, or that Edward
VIII abdicated, but I have more faith in the fact that Hooke's law
works because I have tested it under controlled conditions in a lab
(along with a number of other theories).


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.

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.


Ian


The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon. And to top it all off,
Stanley Kubrick is the man responsible for the moon landing hoaxed
pictures. In fact nothing was televised from the moon missions to any
home in the entire world. What people watched was made in a studio.
For example there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud. Secondly
many of the pictures show a completely black background to space and
cameras would never show such a thing, especially when you have a
billion dollar project. For the guys at NASA to spend enormous cash on
getting there only to send the cheapest radio shack camera available?
C'mon the public is smarter than that. Or do you expect the world to
believe that 'flags on the moon flutter in the wind' and the glare,
shadows are all the default of the camera?

This blackness to space proves that someone is doctoring the photos or
the photos themselves are a complete hoax. In fact even in many of the
promotional videos made to show satellites, one can clearly see stars in
the background, and if one looks carefully at many images released by
NASA and JPL, sometimes you get to see the fact of distant stars in the
background. I believe these are "accidental errors' in the editing
room, but hey JPL and NASA, thats what you get for lying to the public
from the start of the so called space race. The claim that stars
wouldn't appear in any image because of the relflection of the Sun on
the earth or moon is patently ridiculous, only a naive person would
believe. Heck even in sci-fi movies, which attempt to be extremely
realistic such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, you see stars in the distant
backdrop. Many other such special effects movies could be listed to
prove my point, but those who are convinced against what science tells
us will remain ignorant of simple optical science anyways, regardless of
what you point out to them.

Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC. It featured interviews with many
of the people involved in the hoax, and the reasons for the hoax. The
government felt it needed to show the public something to justify all
the money spent..and a happy good lucky 'one small step for man...'
kinda thing is just what Kubrick proposed albeit unwillingly. Another
thing featured on the documentary was how all those nifty pictures of
'gold leaf' on satellites, the lander was Kubricks idea from the start.
He felt it would look better. In fact the gold leaf doesn't even exist.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

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.




The US government openly admitted recently
snip bilge

So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars hoaxing
a moon landing, but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong,
and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood
special effects?

Hmm, now there's a convincing hypothesis. Yes indeedy.

Ian

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

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.


Ian


The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon. And to top it all off,
Stanley Kubrick is the man responsible for the moon landing hoaxed
pictures. In fact nothing was televised from the moon missions to any
home in the entire world. What people watched was made in a studio.

I'm sorry... please point me to the government documents and/or offiicials
who "openly admitted" the moon pictures were hoaxed. Names please, not
"unnamed" or "highly placed" sources.