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.

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

In fact, these so-called questions are only asked by Jones the ignoramus. He
then goes away for another 6 weeks before cut-and-pasting the tired old script
once more.

No one with any knowledge asks them!

All the silly people: "Where do they all come from?"

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

In fact, these so-called questions are only asked by Jones the ignoramus. He
then goes away for another 6 weeks before cut-and-pasting the tired old script
once more.

No one with any knowledge asks them!

All the silly people: "Where do they all come from?"

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

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 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.

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.

Nathan's ghost wrote:

All the silly people: "Where do they all come from?"

Unfortunately they seem to think they all belong here ...

--
Odysseus