revisiting Apollo

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

"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

NJ wrote in message ell.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones


Of course the greatest proof that the Moon mission was a hoax is in
those photos supposedly taken from the Moon showing the globe of the
Earth hanging in the sky!

Hell, everybody knows the Earth is flat, right Nathan?

Double-A

NJ wrote in message ell.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones


Of course the greatest proof that the Moon mission was a hoax is in
those photos supposedly taken from the Moon showing the globe of the
Earth hanging in the sky!

Hell, everybody knows the Earth is flat, right Nathan?

Double-A

Dear Double-A:

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
NJ wrote in message
ell.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones


Of course the greatest proof that the Moon mission was a hoax is in
those photos supposedly taken from the Moon showing the globe of the
Earth hanging in the sky!

Hell, everybody knows the Earth is flat, right Nathan?

He's got all that covered. The photos are forgeries. Or the photos were
shot by robots. Or the photos were shot by Apollo missions that went
around the Moon, but didn't land.

And when we go back, and we find the relics there, why we took them up with
us to cover our asses. You cannot win against voluntary blindness, against
anti-science for pay.

"Jones" makes his payment by feeding the gullible, the tripe they want. He
is advertising here. I suspect it is also to collect email addresses for
spamming campaigns.

I asked them (Jones and Min) if they'd be willing to go there *right now*
to witness them, and got a resounding "no". They are without honor.

David A. Smith

Dear Double-A:

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
NJ wrote in message
ell.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones


Of course the greatest proof that the Moon mission was a hoax is in
those photos supposedly taken from the Moon showing the globe of the
Earth hanging in the sky!

Hell, everybody knows the Earth is flat, right Nathan?

He's got all that covered. The photos are forgeries. Or the photos were
shot by robots. Or the photos were shot by Apollo missions that went
around the Moon, but didn't land.

And when we go back, and we find the relics there, why we took them up with
us to cover our asses. You cannot win against voluntary blindness, against
anti-science for pay.

"Jones" makes his payment by feeding the gullible, the tripe they want. He
is advertising here. I suspect it is also to collect email addresses for
spamming campaigns.

I asked them (Jones and Min) if they'd be willing to go there *right now*
to witness them, and got a resounding "no". They are without honor.

David A. Smith

"NJ" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones

Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

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. Claims based on discredited evidence have no
scientific validity and may be ignored or discarded altogether.

And the reader reminds you that YOU are the one making the extrordinary
claim that historical fact is wrong, therefore the ENTIRE burden of proof
lies with you. The Status Quo is presumed to correct until proven otherwise.
So yes, it just IS up to you to prove that man did NOT walk on the moon,
because no evidence for any claim is being presented to you, YOU are making
a CLAIM that history did not happen. So all we have to do is examine your
case for errors and show the evidence you present is faulty. By your own
logic your claim is based on discredited evidence, has no scientific
validity and may be ignored or discared altogether.

"NJ" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones

Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

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. Claims based on discredited evidence have no
scientific validity and may be ignored or discarded altogether.

And the reader reminds you that YOU are the one making the extrordinary
claim that historical fact is wrong, therefore the ENTIRE burden of proof
lies with you. The Status Quo is presumed to correct until proven otherwise.
So yes, it just IS up to you to prove that man did NOT walk on the moon,
because no evidence for any claim is being presented to you, YOU are making
a CLAIM that history did not happen. So all we have to do is examine your
case for errors and show the evidence you present is faulty. By your own
logic your claim is based on discredited evidence, has no scientific
validity and may be ignored or discared altogether.

"NJ" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
SNIP

Either:
NJ is right, and the Russians, who in the '60s and later were deeply
involved in a race over national prestige, and the Russians, who had
technology, and the capability to expose the "hoax" NASA perpetrated, yet
chose to keep the hoax secret even when they had the opportunity to
embarrass the US in ways from which they would never have recovered (never
mind the French, the Chinese, etc).
or:

NJ is a Kook.

The evidence suggests the latter is the correct interpretation.