#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
revisiting Apollo
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The apollo faq | the inquirer | Astronomy Misc | 11 | April 22nd 04 06:23 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 7th 03 08:53 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ v4 | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 4th 03 11:52 PM |
If Liberty bells hatch hadnt blown? | Hallerb | History | 28 | August 30th 03 02:57 AM |