Completely Denied Conspiracy
-
Which part of it is science?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Stunned that this is necessary, but hey ho...[^]
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
Care to elaborate?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
But still my point remains, based on what evidence? I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying there is enough doubt as to it being possible that until it is proved to a scientific standard then it is only on Nasa's say so. I hope it is true, but it would be bad science to accept it as truth as it is not repeatable or provable empirically, and there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test
...except, of course, the test of William of Okham's ontology parsimony - Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate - although, personally, I believe Bertrand Russell derived a more usable version.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
Care to elaborate?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
Is it repeatable? Is the Theory backed up by independant evidence? Can it be shown that the results cannot be obtained via different means? Three Questions, the answer to each is NO. Therefore, not scientific.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
But still my point remains, based on what evidence? I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying there is enough doubt as to it being possible that until it is proved to a scientific standard then it is only on Nasa's say so. I hope it is true, but it would be bad science to accept it as truth as it is not repeatable or provable empirically, and there are enough holes in the theory for it to fail any acceptance test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
It ain't rocket science (:-)): if you have 2 light sources you will see 2 shadows. If the terrain is not flat the shadows will not be perfectly straight: they will follow the terrain and that can make them look as if they are wrong. The sun is 1 light source; the earth is another. Further, the different colors of dust on the surface will also reflect light and cast faint shadows as would sunlight/earth-light reflecting off the lunar lander.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Is that really representative of the Apollo conspiracy theories? Most of that stuff was totally idiotic - I mean 'Why is the flag waving'? I mean the only people who are going to take that seriously are complete fucking idiots.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
I mean the only people who are going to take that seriously are complete f***ing idiots.
I've had to explain the basic laws of motion to far to many people who believed the crap here. None of it is convincing. Hell, I'd be more likely to believe the XKCD riff on it, 'The moon landing was shot in a soundstage on mars', at least that's interesting. Remember for a moment how much the average person knows and understands of the world. Now remember that somewhere in the realm of 50% of people know and understand less than that.
-
It ain't rocket science (:-)): if you have 2 light sources you will see 2 shadows. If the terrain is not flat the shadows will not be perfectly straight: they will follow the terrain and that can make them look as if they are wrong. The sun is 1 light source; the earth is another. Further, the different colors of dust on the surface will also reflect light and cast faint shadows as would sunlight/earth-light reflecting off the lunar lander.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Just for reference, in high school while arguing with someone who believed this I took a pencil, stood it on a table in one of the darker corners. Gasp, 3 shadows. There were 3 different light sources! I crumpled up some paper and placed it into one of the shadows, GASP! The shadow wasn't straight. This is no where close to rocket science.
-
Just for reference, in high school while arguing with someone who believed this I took a pencil, stood it on a table in one of the darker corners. Gasp, 3 shadows. There were 3 different light sources! I crumpled up some paper and placed it into one of the shadows, GASP! The shadow wasn't straight. This is no where close to rocket science.
This is the one that always amuses me as it is glaringly obvious: still, I'm glad we shed some light on the subject and brightened our day. :laugh:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Dust in the landers feet (Lack Thereof) Photos from two different missions hundres of miles from each other with the same background. The fact that given the sheer number of photos the astronauts would have to be taking one every 3 seconds, all perfect, all focussed, all centered on what they were trying to snap, in a clumsy spacegloved hand and a camera with no viewfinder. And the main one, they couldn't go back today with 40 years of Tech Improvement. Been to the moon? Pah!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
Sounds a bit like WMD's are everywhere honest !
-
"The camera used to televise Neil Armstrong's first steps onto the lunar surface was mounted inside the base of the Apollo lander. It was located in a compartment called the Modular Equipment Storage Assembly, or MESA. This storage compartment contained much of the equipment and tools used by the astronauts on the Moon." How long do you think dust remains suspended in a vacuum?
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
i would of thought quite a while in such low gravity, but not long in a Hollywood Basementyour right.
-
i would of thought quite a while in such low gravity, but not long in a Hollywood Basementyour right.
Here, dust stays up a long time because it's only slightly denser than the air around it... In a vacuum, there's nothing pushing it up, so it falls down just as fast as, say, a person. Think of the old experiment... Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast. Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Mythbusters is not a source of scientific truth. They are a pair of grotesquely hirsuit special effects doods. Sure, nice guys and entertaining, but they lack the qualifications to make statements that a court would accept.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
As the claims are that they were faked by hollywood style effects, I would suggest that experianced Holywood special effect geeks were EXACTLY the type of expert a court would except. Since science excepts that it may not be possible to prove something beyond doubt, it is exceptable to use reasonable proof unless the evidence against is strong enough to refute it. so the evidence that says they did go (NASA + evidence that something was transmitting from the landing sites at the time the landings occured, and that a launch, orbit and outward/return trip to the moon was observed by third parties) has to be weighed against the evidence that they didnt. And frankly the evidence they didnt go is very slight, relying on bad science and poor understanding. a classic one I have read, is that a mountain range appears in photos from two different landings. But as evidence of fakery? would not the apearance of this ranage in ONE photo be a, evidence of a massive fake b, a missfiling of a photo which is the more likely? science often works on the balance of probability rather than always being absolute truths, so until either side can prove beyond doubt, the balance is heavly towards them going, so the burden of proof should lie with the sceptics as per excepted science.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
As the claims are that they were faked by hollywood style effects, I would suggest that experianced Holywood special effect geeks were EXACTLY the type of expert a court would except. Since science excepts that it may not be possible to prove something beyond doubt, it is exceptable to use reasonable proof unless the evidence against is strong enough to refute it. so the evidence that says they did go (NASA + evidence that something was transmitting from the landing sites at the time the landings occured, and that a launch, orbit and outward/return trip to the moon was observed by third parties) has to be weighed against the evidence that they didnt. And frankly the evidence they didnt go is very slight, relying on bad science and poor understanding. a classic one I have read, is that a mountain range appears in photos from two different landings. But as evidence of fakery? would not the apearance of this ranage in ONE photo be a, evidence of a massive fake b, a missfiling of a photo which is the more likely? science often works on the balance of probability rather than always being absolute truths, so until either side can prove beyond doubt, the balance is heavly towards them going, so the burden of proof should lie with the sceptics as per excepted science.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Ow... Painful post... Not the content, but the grammar. EXCEPT = Synonym for "but". As in, "Everyone went to the party EXCEPT for Bob" ACCEPT = Agree or consent to, as in, "Joe ACCEPTED the award," or "The court ACCEPTED the evidence" Sorry... needed to be said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ow... Painful post... Not the content, but the grammar. EXCEPT = Synonym for "but". As in, "Everyone went to the party EXCEPT for Bob" ACCEPT = Agree or consent to, as in, "Joe ACCEPTED the award," or "The court ACCEPTED the evidence" Sorry... needed to be said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)sorry
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
I don't think science can proof anything. It can provisionally confirm hypotheses i.e. say they have not been refuted but can never decisively prove they are true. It just seems to me to be a mistake to ask for scientific proof in cases such as this. All you can ask is which is more likely, that it happened or it was a hoax. All the alleged evidence that it was a hoax seems to be explicable under the hypothesis that it happened. And, as I said before, if it had not happened the USSR would have blazed it to the skies. And that did not happen, so I guess that the landings did happen. Alternatively, there was some super national conspiracy to suppress the fact that the transmission from the moon were all fake.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Here, dust stays up a long time because it's only slightly denser than the air around it... In a vacuum, there's nothing pushing it up, so it falls down just as fast as, say, a person. Think of the old experiment... Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast. Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast.
That's because fairies like feathers, and support them during the fall.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
That's because fairies die in a vacuum. Prove me wrong! (From some otherwise unmemorable film I saw years ago.)
Bob Emmett Which? Race - Your monthly guide to genocide. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast.
That's because fairies like feathers, and support them during the fall.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
That's because fairies die in a vacuum. Prove me wrong! (From some otherwise unmemorable film I saw years ago.)
Bob Emmett Which? Race - Your monthly guide to genocide. Published by the New World Order Press.
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
What about the Apollo 11 & 15 laser retro-reflectors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment[^] If you have a powerful enough laser and telescope, you might be able to see the reflection. (and according to the article, the soviets sent up two reflectors themselves. So, if the landings were fake why wouldn't they say anything?) These reflectors are mostly used for range finding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation[^]
-
What about the Apollo 11 & 15 laser retro-reflectors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment[^] If you have a powerful enough laser and telescope, you might be able to see the reflection. (and according to the article, the soviets sent up two reflectors themselves. So, if the landings were fake why wouldn't they say anything?) These reflectors are mostly used for range finding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation[^]
Oh gosh, I forgot about that, damn, only humans could have placed them, machines could never have done that.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]