Moon Landing? [Archive]

John Carter

02-23-2003, 05:35 PM

Like the fact of no stars, if it were just a back-drop I don't think even the Americans would be stupid enoguh to forget stars, so many the amount of light from the sun blocked them out like on Earth.

Oh, I don't know, we're pretty damned stupid over here.

That's why we needed the head of the WW2 German rocket program to figure out how have multiple-stage rockets to get there, and needed the impetus of not letting the Russians get there first to actually spend enough money to do the deed.

Hard evidence needed, eh? I touched the little moon-rock shard in the Air and Space Museum when I was kid, but of course I didn't do a chemical analysis of it to see if it came from a place not of this earth.

Of course, by dhama's standards of evidence, had I not visited the UK a couple of times, I'd have absolutely no proof of its existence. ;)

"... If you believe they put a man on the moon -- man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up their sleeve
Then nothing is cool...

bene

02-23-2003, 05:45 PM

''............ I don't think even the Americans would be stupid enoguh to forget stars, so many the amount of light from the sun blocked them out like on Earth. ''

Above is an excerpt from Artic_Wolf....................I feel magnanimous tonight so I'll let it speak for itself without further comment.

ragsy

02-23-2003, 05:51 PM

Time to resolve this issue once and for all

see Moontruth (http://www.moontruth.com)

Xcom

02-23-2003, 05:53 PM

I have actually never heard about people questioning this histrorical event...up until today. :D But, apparently, there is quite a debate going on about this. :eek:

Interesting website:

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

John Carter

02-23-2003, 05:58 PM

Yep, NASA is spending my tax dollars in an attempt to convince the non-believers of the moon landing.....not sure which is more appalling, that, or the use of English distance figures to program a Mars probe designed to use metric figures, sending probe into surface at high speed and wasting even more of my tax dollars.

HikingBoots

02-23-2003, 07:47 PM

That's pretty haughty for us to even think NASA made all this up. I for one believe in the moon landing, and I question neither Neil Armstrong nor Buzz Aldrin's integrity about it all. I don't beleve it was far-fetched, even for the late 60's, to land on the moon. I'm gonna become an astronaut, and I'll show you all ;):D

AlphaOmega

02-23-2003, 08:35 PM

So you won't believe it unless you see it with you own eyes?

Never having been to New York, I guess the WTC attack was a fake too, guess the government is only trying to make up and excuse to go to war.

I never saw Columbia explode either, guess NASA and the American Government made that up to generate more interest in the Space program.

The holocaust must never happened either, guess it's just a ploy by the governments of the world to make Nazi's look bad.

Clearly it's a fake. Now excuse me while I read the rest of my National Enquirer and wait for Jesus to return to take me to heaven with the rest of my militia-members.

Furthermore: Maybe watch the video instead of regurging info on a geocities website:

1) The flag is waving in the wind....there is no wind in Space.
- "to compensate for the lack of an atmosphere on the lunar surface, the flag assembly included a horizontal crossbar to give the illusion of a flag flying in the breeze " On every film clip there just happens to an astronaut holding the flag pole which explains the movement caused to the flag.

If you don't believe me then watch out for any film clips of the flag moving whilst not being touched. I haven't seen one yet, have you?

Another example of simply reading one website and fully believing it. Do yourself a favor and watch the videos, then at least you can make a fair judgment. It's stupid not to even watch it and just repeat what you have heard.

2) The astronauts have shadows going in different directions.
-NOWHERE in the video does this happen, I'm looking at it right now. Show me your picture and prove me wrong. (staticon, you are pre-disqualified :D)
3) The Apollo fire disaster occurred right around the time, and the astronauts killed in the fire were opposed to the moonwalk, and outspoken about whether it happened or not.
-Again, learn before you copy paste some website. The actual timeline goes like this:

1965, March - Project Gemini is launched. The mission plays an important role in preparing the space program for a trip to the moon, including completing the first U.S. space walks, practicing docking maneuvers in space, and successfully completing longer space flights. The space flight of Gemini 12, the final mission, was completed in November 1966. <- Since the United States never actually planned to go to the moon, what happened to the billions of dollars put into this program? They must also have faked the research, inventions, REAL DATA and KNOWLEDGE learned, facilities built and rockets now in museums.

1967, January 27 - Project Apollo, the mission charged with reaching the moon, suffers a shocking setback when a fire in the Apollo command module kills three astronauts, delaying further manned flights for almost two years.

<note the 2 year gap between the fire and moon landing, to me, that doesn’t seem right around that time, in fact it's EARLIER, so how could the astronauts have believed it never happened? (Where you got that little "fact" I have no idea.) The astronauts killed in the fire wanted to go to the moon themselves, as every astronaut in the Apollo program did, or they wouldn’t be there. I find it sick that you made that up. 3 astronauts burned to death in that capsule, and it was televised, do you think the Americans would have purposely burned their own hard trained astronauts then spent millions of dollars trying to make the space program safer and finding out what went wrong? NO. When the government kills someone, they disappear, it doesn't go on TV. And again, the American government had no reason to kill them, because they weren’t being "outspoken" about the "fake" moon landing BECAUSE IT HADN'T HAPPENED YET. Sicko. (Guess 95 people weren’t killed in a nightclub last week, government must have hated some of them for being outspoken and burned them all.)>

1969, July 20 - Moon landing.

4) You can't see the stars.
- Of course you cant see the stars! Can you see them from earth in the daytime? NO! Same deal, only the "sky" of the moon is black because it has no atmosphere. Ours only appears blue because of the chemicals in it. It's not as if the atmosphere goes away at nighttime so you can see the stars.

5) You can't see any further then the nearby hills.
- Those hills are fairly high, and most hills in that area would be around the same size. The landing was not near any mountain ranges, it was on the edge of a "sea" a relativly flat area shaped by molten rock during the moons development. I cant see any hills higher then those around my house, does that mean there are none, or do they just block my view?

The lesson of the day: RESEARCH BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION. Or just be horribly wrong and embarrass yourself. Either way.

Lucky

02-23-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by PtTe2
I think I saw this just outside of Las Vegas once.
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS17/10075972.jpg

And this could be a rock from almost any mafic or ultramafic intrusive, here on Earth.

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS12/10075446.jpg
From the looks of it, dhama, this rock is pretty solid.

So, yeah, they could be pulling our legs! :D I am sorry if this seems completely stupid and I don’t want to argue and agree that their has been landings on the moon but what is that in the background. It kind of looks like telephone poles. :p

AlphaOmega

02-23-2003, 10:27 PM

Those are the crosshairs etched into the lenses of the camera.

Lucky

02-23-2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by AlphaOmega
Those are the crosshairs etched into the lenses of the camera. Ok thank you. :p

JunoJIm

02-23-2003, 10:52 PM

AlphaOmega - THANK YOU !!!

That's just exactly what I was going to say !!!

Also, everyone should check out the moonthruth.com site...moontruth (http://www.moontruth.com/)
and make sure to read the bottom line !!!

The Chinese are planning to go in a few years - I hope they'll bring back a photo of them sitting on the dune buggy...

susan

02-24-2003, 03:23 AM

I grew up believing absolutely in the moon landings but it seems to me that there are valid reasons for at least considering that the photographic evidence is faked. There are flaws in some of pictures and movie footage and NASA hasn't adequately explained it yet.

One of the most compelling reasons for me for doubting the footage is the lack of bounce of the astronauts on the surface of the moon. Gravity is so much weaker on the surface of the moon and they should have been able to bounce higher. They don't, why?

There's other stuff as well, but it'd be too lengthy to go into.

As some one has already said, this doesn't necessarily mean that the moon landings didn't happen, just that the photographs might have been faked.

BTW Alpha Omega:

Of course you cant see the stars! Can you see them from earth in the daytime? NO! Same deal, only the "sky" of the moon is black because it has no atmosphere. Ours only appears blue because of the chemicals in it. It's not as if the atmosphere goes away at nighttime so you can see the stars.

I may be wrong, but I don't think what you're saying here is right. When the astronauts go up in the shuttle they always see the stars in the sky. As soon as they leave the earth's atmosphere they are effectively in the same position as the astronauts on the moon. Provided they are not shaded from the sun by the earth being between them and the sun, they are in full view of the sun and in an atmosphere-less environment. This is what happens on the moon's surface when the sun comes up.

If the astronauts in the shuttle can see stars whilst the sun is out, then why couldn't the astronauts on the moon?

Edit: Sorry, I hit edit insted of quote!

Azal

02-24-2003, 03:30 AM

Once upon a time, conspiracy nuts were confined to their proper place - under a bridge, wearing tinfoil hats and wearing pants soiled with their own faeces.

Now, with the anonymous wonders of the internet, they can hide their vacant, drooling visage and pretend respectability. And thousands get sucked by blatant lies and factual inaccuracies and television networks (once the home for responsible journalism) parrot it all out to the masses because it'll rate and bring in more advertising dollars so that Murdoch can buy another newspaper and ruin it.

Personally, I prefer the old ways.

Deekman

02-24-2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by HikingBoots
I'm gonna become an astronaut, and I'll show you all

You go, girl!

susan

02-24-2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Azal
Once upon a time, conspiracy nuts were confined to their proper place - under a bridge, wearing tinfoil hats and wearing pants soiled with their own faeces.

Now, with the anonymous wonders of the internet, they can hide their vacant, drooling visage and pretend respectability. And thousands get sucked by blatant lies and factual inaccuracies and television networks (once the home for responsible journalism) parrot it all out to the masses because it'll rate and bring in more advertising dollars so that Murdoch can buy another newspaper and ruin it.

Personally, I prefer the old ways.

:D I'd agree with your sentiments apart from the fact that sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be the truth.

If no one ever looks, thinks for themselves, asks awkward and seemingly ridiculous questions, and decides to find out the real facts, then governments (and others in power) can say and do what they like. And they don't always do the "right" thing.

There are lots of loons out there but that's the price of freedom. It's also silly to think that nobody ever told a lie and tried to get away with it by labelling enquiring minds as "conspiracy theory nuts".

Can't harm can it to question things???:D

yubetcha

02-24-2003, 06:44 AM

I have two pictures hanging in my house that were taken on the moon's surface. They came from a friend who was in the military, who got them from NASA. All of the shadows are going in the same direction. I have never seen pictures that showed anything else. If you have some, or a link, please post them.
I don't know why you can't see stars on the moon, if you can see them from the shuttle. I would like to know the answer to that myself. I don't think, though, that rocket scientists who could design the first and every subsequent space vehicle that orbited the earth would forget to paint stars on a backdrop. But I was in high school when the astronauts were on the moon (yeah, I know I'm dating myself... but at least I'm not lonely :D), and watched them on television. I saw the astronauts walk on live tv on the moon, and they did have a bounce.

Xcom

02-24-2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by yubetcha
If you have some, or a link, please post them.

See the link I posted earlier.

yubetcha

02-24-2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Xcom
See the link I posted earlier.

I did follow your link, and the shadows were explained to my satisfaction by the text in green. Also, one comment about the difference in shadow height in one of the pictures: one of the reasons for this, which I didn't find at the web site, is because the two men aren't standing next to each other. If you and I are in the same picture, but you are standing closer to the sun than I am, then your shadow would not stop at the same place mine does.

Xcom

02-24-2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by yubetcha
If you and I are in the same picture, but you are standing closer to the sun than I am, then your shadow would not stop at the same place mine does.

That's right but that wasn't the complaint. The "pro-fake" person said that that the shadows should be of the same length. The "anti-fake" person claimed that the difference in length can be explained by the fact that there is a visible inclination in that area which makes the shadow look shorter.

http://www.aulis.com/images/raq1.jpg

susan

02-24-2003, 08:24 AM

Here's another interesting site especially the bit about NASA being logged looking at the site!

http://www.empusa.clara.net/lunar/lunar1.htm

yubetcha

02-24-2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Xcom
The "pro-fake" person said that that the shadows should be of the same length. The "anti-fake" person claimed that the difference in length can be explained by the fact that there is a visible inclination in that area which makes the shadow look shorter.

Yeah, and I guess that the inclination would have to explain it. You can see from other shadows in the picture that the light source is the same for both men (such as the shadow to the left of the right person's backpack compared to the shadow behind the left person's arm).

AlphaOmega

02-24-2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Susan
BTW Alpha Omega:

Of course you cant see the stars! Can you see them from earth in the daytime? NO! Same deal, only the "sky" of the moon is black because it has no atmosphere. Ours only appears blue because of the chemicals in it. It's not as if the atmosphere goes away at nighttime so you can see the stars.

I may be wrong, but I don't think what you're saying here is right. When the astronauts go up in the shuttle they always see the stars in the sky. As soon as they leave the earth's atmosphere they are effectively in the same position as the astronauts on the moon. Provided they are not shaded from the sun by the earth being between them and the sun, they are in full view of the sun and in an atmosphere-less environment. This is what happens on the moon's surface when the sun comes up.

If the astronauts in the shuttle can see stars whilst the sun is out, then why couldn't the astronauts on the moon?
You are correct on this one, I myself didn't do all the homework. :) Here's the proper explanation of why you can't see the stars:

The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim.

It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs.

The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. It doesn't mean the stars weren't there or couldn't be seen, just that the photographs did not capture them. The exposures were set to work with the brightly light surface and astronauts.

One of the most compelling reasons for me for doubting the footage is the lack of bounce of the astronauts on the surface of the moon. Gravity is so much weaker on the surface of the moon and they should have been able to bounce higher. They don't, why?
You are however wrong on this one. They DO bounce, and they do bounce at moon gravity.

DaveJ

02-24-2003, 08:40 AM

All this nay-saying puts us one step behind the tribes deep in the Amazon who still believe that aeroplanes are big white birds.

yubetcha

02-24-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by AlphaOmega
Here's the proper explanation of why you can't see the stars:

The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim.

It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs.

Makes sense. I knew there had to be an explanation. When I used older cameras, it was difficult to get the perfect picture. And today, the same thing happens, even with technology that is more advanced.

Forgot the S on makes.

susan

02-24-2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by AlphaOmega
You are however wrong on this one. They DO bounce, and they do bounce at moon gravity.

Maybe....:D

I don't know for sure because I was told that they don't bounce high enough. It seems a reasonable thing to say because they don't seem to bounce THAT high!! Trouble is, you can't trust anyone's word on this can you? ;)

Can I be bothered to do the maths myself? And then study the footage and measure it all out....

*laugh, laugh, laugh*

The truth is I'm not convinced either way - they probably did land on the moon, but if someone turned around and proved that they didn't I wouldn't be surprised either. It's an interesting debate though. You reckon they do bounce at moon gravity??

PtTe2

02-24-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by John Carter
Oh, I don't know, we're pretty damned stupid over here.

LMAO @John Carter!!:D

That anyone, anywhere in their right minds, would lend credence to the theory that the Lunar Landings were "faked" is positive proof that there is plenty of stupidity to go around! :(

For those of us that have taken some higher level courses in mathematics and physics (please, don't let me mislead you, I'm still a stupid American:)) the Apollo missions were definitely the most complex endeavor ever achieved by humankind.

And Lucky
We couldn't find a length of fishing line long enough to reach the Dixie Cups the Astronauts were carrying with them for communications, so we had to send the Cable Guy, in a previous mission, to erect those poles so we could communicate with the astronauts. :p

dhama
My hats off to you, my friend. How such a silly htread could evoke such passion amongst the clan is mind boggling! :) Good Job!

dhama

02-24-2003, 09:54 AM

I'd like to say that I don't take written evidence as proof just as I won't take photographic evidence as proof as both are susceptable to bias and editing.

When the "Moon Landing" took place, I did a project at school covering the whole mission (I was 12 at the time). I took everything as truth and didn't question anything, but now I feel so much differently about it mostly through experience. IMHO, all I can say is, if those in power had always been truthful and never attempted to hide anything, I guess I wouldn't feel this way.

I am interested in the replies so far, so thanks to all that have contributed. I find this very fascinating. ;)

BTW, I loved the movie clip from 'Moontruth.com' :D although it wouldn't convince me of a hoax if I did believe. If you haven't seen it, take a look. :D

susan

02-24-2003, 10:08 AM

PtTe2
That anyone, anywhere in their right minds, would lend credence to the theory that the Lunar Landings were "faked" is positive proof that there is plenty of stupidity to go around!

Hmmmmm, I wish I just knew things were the way they were without having to bother myself with looking into the arguments. That must be what it means to not be stupid.

Funny though, I was always taught that it was the stupid people that thought they knew everything without bothering to check.

All through history there have been powerful groups (governments, religious leaders, kings, (and queens...occasionally)), who have imposed a way of thinking and/or a set of beliefs onto those they have "control". They thought they knew how things were (sun revolves round the earth) and that anyone who thought differently (the world is round) was stupid. Important people have lied for their own benefit and tried to hide it (Watergate) and powerful groups have done things that defy belief (American government undertaking medical experiments on their own citizens, I think the British government did too).

But we can now see with hindsight that they were wrong, there is still much to learn, people lie and try to cover up the most amazing things. We don't know everything.

If we stop questioning - we'll never know anything else. ;)

PtTe2 - you're probably right that the moon landings were real, but can we at least consider the question without being called stupid?!

dhama

02-24-2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Susan
..........can we at least consider the question without being called stupid?!

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Munin the Raven

02-24-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Susan:
All through history there have been powerful groups (governments, religious leaders, kings, (and queens...occasionally)), who have imposed a way of thinking and/or a set of beliefs onto those they have "control". They thought they knew how things were (sun revolves round the earth) and that anyone who thought differently (the world is round) was stupid. Important people have lied for their own benefit and tried to hide it (Watergate) and powerful groups have done things that defy belief (American government undertaking medical experiments on their own citizens, I think the British government did too).

You only believe all of this because you've read about it in books, seen it in videos, looked at it in photographs, seen physical things in your environment (pyramids, graveyards, bridges, buildings), or been told it by other people. You still choose to believe any of it. You can only completely trust what you've experienced in your own lifetime. Even then, what people experience in their own lives is subject to question: human memory is dynamic, not a perfectly static recording system, as has been proven in studies of all sorts of mental disorders and "false memory reconstruction" through techniques like hypnosis for crime witnesses in trials.

Thanks to the information age, more and more, society is living in the now, possibly approaching a state where all information has equal access and value and the past is so heavily questioned and constantly retold and manipulated that it can't be trusted. In the end, is there anything that can unanimously be trusted? Is there an ultimate truth? It can be argued that there isn't and that any form of ultimate truth can reside only within the individual. Some use faith as the foundation of truth, others use laws of mathematics, others use logic, others use personal experience, and many people use something else or some sort of combination.

Perhaps it's more a question of "belief" than "truth" and that solid truth of any kind does not exist. I find such a concept incredibly disturbing.:(

susan

02-24-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Munin the Raven
You only believe all of this because you've read about it in books, seen it in videos, looked at it in photographs, seen physical things in your environment (pyramids, graveyards, bridges, buildings), or been told it by other people. You still choose to believe any of it. You can only completely trust what you've experienced in your own lifetime. Even then, what people experience in their own lives is subject to question: human memory is dynamic, not a perfectly static recording system, as has been proven in studies of all sorts of mental disorders and "false memory reconstruction" through techniques like hypnosis for crime witnesses in trials.

Thanks to the information age, more and more, society is living in the now, possibly approaching a state where all information has equal access and value and the past is so heavily questioned and constantly retold and manipulated that it can't be trusted. In the end, is there anything that can unanimously be trusted? Is there an ultimate truth? It can be argued that there isn't and that any form of ultimate truth can reside only within the individual. Some use faith as the foundation of truth, others use laws of mathematics, others use logic, others use personal experience, and many people use something else or some sort of combination.

Perhaps it's more a question of "belief" than "truth" and that solid truth of any kind does not exist. I find such a concept incredibly disturbing.:(

I totally agree with what you're saying and this is all the more reason to re-evaluate your "beliefs" when new data and/or experience comes your way. And all the more reason not to call someone stupid for trying to re-evaluate and examine.

We can never know the "truth" but we have to live with some estimation of reality otherwise we'd not be able to function in the world. I have to assume that that pan of hot water in front of really is a pan of hot water otherwise I'm going to get into trouble. (Or more, those particular sensory inputs create a stimulation of my central nervous system that my brain interprets as an object liable to cause a phantasm of pain inside my brain if I place what I think is my arm.....you get the picture!!!).

This is something my senses tell me, which is different from information passed to me from others - ie, is the world really round.

That's more tricky....and if somehow it eventually did turn out that the prevailing evidence showed that the world was flat then using my mind I would have to accept that....until further evidence was given. What else can you do?!!!

I think we all have an ultimate truth but we have to share it with (what we think are) others otherwise, well I'd go mad....

....no don't even go there :D :D

Arctic_Wolf

02-24-2003, 12:01 PM

Hmm, some deep issues raised here. All I can say is what I've been dying to comment on.

I think the reason the Astronuaghts didn't bounce very high was for safety. NASA made a huge fuss and nearly wet themselves when one of the astronughts fell over. Remember, just one tiny rip in the space suit could be fatal.

Also, the current theory of the moon's orogin, or the latest one I read, says that the Moon is the remains of a giant collision between the Earth and a small planetoid, Orpheous. Interesting?

P.S When I said "I don't think even the Americans would be satupid enough to forget stars" it was meant in a light-hearted joke sort of tone, that to my emmence relief John Carter picked up. Though I don't think Bene did, or did he/she have a different piont to make?

Arctic_Wolf

02-24-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by AlphaOmega
Never having been to New York, I guess the WTC attack was a fake too, guess the government is only trying to make up and excuse to go to war.

That reminds me, not long after we(In England) heard the intension that the USA and UK were going to go to war with iraq someone (a recent muslim immigrant if I remember rightly) actualy went on BBC 4 radio in an Interview and said that the US government did it just to go to war with Iraq! :eek: Some people, eh?

PtTe2

02-24-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Susan

PtTe2 - you're probably right that the moon landings were real, but can we at least consider the question without being called stupid?!

I agree!:D

Oh, do forgive me, thou who hast been deceived: There was a post (which has now been deleted) that said this:

''............ I don't think even the Americans would be stupid enoguh to forget stars, so many the amount of light from the sun blocked them out like on Earth. ''

I was just poking fun at them! ;)

I did notice a bit of the true colors coming out, though: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Just goes to show ya, you can take the girl out of the city ..... , but ya can't Tuna-fish! :D

Xcom

02-24-2003, 12:14 PM

I wonder... if there were stars on the pictures, could the astronomers roughly extrapolate the position of the camera in relation to the moon?

Arctic_Wolf

02-24-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by PtTe2
Oh, do forgive me, thou who hast been deceived: There was a post (which has now been deleted) that said this:

''............ I don't think even the Americans would be stupid enoguh to forget stars, so many the amount of light from the sun blocked them out like on Earth. ''

I was just poking fun at them! ;)

I did notice a bit of the true colors coming out, though: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Just goes to show ya, you can take the girl out of the city ..... , but ya can't Tuna-fish! :D

Poking fun at me or Dene? I don't mind either way I'd just like to know whats going on.

Mr Spock

02-24-2003, 02:07 PM

The moon landings were a remarkable work of fiction, whereas Star Trek is, in fact, reality.

Data

02-24-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Mr Spock
The moon landings were a remarkable work of fiction, whereas Star Trek is, in fact, reality.

I believe you are in error Ambassador, If it were not for the brave men that traversed this distance, we would not have such an accurate measurement of the Earth / Moon distance.

This distance was calculated extremely accurately when Apollo astronauts left a mirror on the moon's surface. This mirror can reflect any light hitting it back in the direction it came from. To explain, it is two mirrors at ninety degrees to each other. If you've ever seen this configuration in a bathroom or shop windows you'll notice that you cannot get away from your own reflection. This is because the light always goes back to where it came from.

By firing lasers at the mirror from Earth and timing how long it took for the light beam to return, the distance could be measured (the speed of light is known to be 300 000 km/s).

Before the space programme, the distance could be calculated from Newton's equations of motion and gravity. The equation is:
distance3 = (T2 x GM)/4pi2

Where G = Gravitational constant (ie just a number) M = Mass of the Earth T = The time it takes the Moon to go around the Earth.

So the average distance from the earth is 384 400 km (or 240 000 miles)

Also, the vulcans would not have visited Earth because by then, Earth would not have been warp capable, and there would not have been a Starfleet eventually. However because I am now dead, I could not care less. :p

PtTe2

02-24-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Data
This distance was calculated extremely accurately when Apollo astronauts left a mirror on the moon's surface. This mirror can reflect any light hitting it back in the direction it came from. To explain, it is two mirrors at ninety degrees to each other. ........

By firing lasers at the mirror from Earth .....

See, See ..... and if they were smoking cigarettes while planting them mirrors, then it's all smoke and mirrors! I knew it! Damn government! :D

theBlackman

02-24-2003, 03:14 PM

Now that we know the exact distance from the earth to the moon, how many ladders would it take to reach the moon from the earth. ?

Answer to be posted tomorrow. Meanwhile, guesses are permitted.

Solange

02-24-2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by theBlackman
Now that we know the exact distance from the earth to the moon, how many ladders would it take to reach the moon from the earth. ?

Answer to be posted tomorrow. Meanwhile, guesses are permitted.

I guess that depends on the length of the ladders! :D

theBlackman

02-24-2003, 04:52 PM

Well the longest ladder we "handled" in the fire service was 50 feet for a freestanding ladder. The longest on a ladder truck (extendable truck mounted) was about 130 feet and for an articulated boom basket, was 75 feet.

You figure it out.

ragsy

02-24-2003, 05:19 PM

do we include the height of the truck :D and if so are you sure that the ladders are strong enough to support all those trucks :D

theBlackman

02-25-2003, 12:12 AM

And... The answer is:

One. If it is long enough! :p :p

MunkeeChum

02-25-2003, 09:29 AM

You know if you look hard enough you can see what a spoiler says without highlighting it....

JunoJIm

02-27-2003, 09:28 PM

Data - master of trivia, can't Hubble see our junk (rover, launcher, etc.) left there ???

GoranAgar

02-27-2003, 11:09 PM

They landed on the other side.

Jewel

02-28-2003, 12:15 AM

Goran...hehe! (How's your pretty wife?)

GoranAgar

02-28-2003, 01:08 AM

Jewel ... (she is fine, still sleeping ... and of course pretty ;) )

CatSuit&Ponytail

02-28-2003, 03:41 AM

Hi Jewel, I am fine, and just woke up and haven't checked in the mirror, so I'll take Goran's word for it, hehehehe http://www.catsuitandponytail.com/files/bulb.gif http://www.catsuitandponytail.com/files/catsmiley.gif http://www.catsuitandponytail.com/files/lol.gif

MapMaker Monkey

02-28-2003, 07:38 AM

Ask youself this:

Would you be able to keep pretending, for your entire life, to thousands of people, including your family, that you had been to the moon?

If the answer is:

NO: Then you are probably like myself, and cannot bear the idea of spending your entire life deceiving everyone just to please some politicians.

YES: You should seriously consider being an actor (or a politician). You would make a lot of money.

MMM

susan

02-28-2003, 07:57 AM

I kinda agree with you but...

...just because we can't imagine being able to do something ourselves doesn't mean that others cannot or would not. Nor that they would have to be "special" in any particular way.

The Nazi war criminals....

I know it's not the same. NO ONE would want to admit to comitting those atrocities, and lying about going to the moon isn't an atrocity. The thing is - if the US lied about going to the moon, if they tried to deceive the whole world, then the reason for doing it has to be huge. It can't be some trivial thing - all that money, all that time, all that secrecy. And if it's not trivial and the Apollo astronauts know the reason, maybe they agree that it is worth lying about...and maybe it is and we would ALL do it if we were in their place.

And so, the conspiracy theory continues....:D

To me that's the interesting thing here. I still think the moon landings probably happened, but if it was ever "proven" that they didn't - what possible reason could the US have for pretending they did it???

harry_tippers_love_child

02-28-2003, 08:48 AM

At the time the US was involved heavily in an arms race with the USSR. It got pissed that the USSR beat it getting into Space, then decided it needed an even bigger coup. Hence - The "Moon Landings".

I am a very cynical person by nature, but having read an excellent article in The Big Issue when I was about 15, I became convinced that NASA's little expeditions were faked...

There are a number of things, for instance the "rippliing" flag, the clarity of photos taken with cameras where they couldn't even see what they were pointing them at, the sliced golf shot... there's even a photo where an object in the frame obscures the cross hair on the camera lense. It must have been super-imposed.

But, the one thing that does it for me is just the sheer pragmatics of the whole thing... we're talking about the 1960's here. I just don't believe it was possible.

And there was an excellent documentary on (ahem) Channel 5 a while back, where NASA's only response is to say - "Of course you COULD say that... but it's not true"

Maybe if I got a more convincing response from NASA... I'd be more inclined to believe that there's a US flag stuck up there right now...

Catman

02-28-2003, 09:36 AM

I can say with the utmost confidence that the moonlandings never occurred. The cats, not wanting their secret base on the far side of the moon to be discovered, prevented the Apollo missions from ever leaving earth orbit. However, to placate the humans, they did cooperate in creating fake images which were broadcast from an abandoned mine a few miles outside Council Bluffs, Iowa.

If you need proof, just go up to any cat and ask. The cat, of course, will refuse to answer, which is all the proof anyone will ever need.

AlphaOmega

03-01-2003, 02:45 AM

Data - master of trivia, can't Hubble see our junk (rover, launcher, etc.) left there ???

GoranAgar: They landed on the other side.
No it can't. No telescope on earth or in orbit can. (Keep in mind the lander is only the size of a van). They didn't land on the far side either, they landed on a very smooth area near the sea of Tranquility.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/Apollo_11_1_con.jpg

harry_tippers_love_child: I guess you didn't read the whole thread. Here are the explanations in breif (read up to get the fullness, or just ask google) to your "proof":

"for instance the "rippliing" flag - the flag was held out with a crossbar, in every shot that it moves, its meing held by an astronaut (do you really think NASA would be stupid enough to forget that little detail?)

"the clarity of photos taken with cameras where they couldn't even see what they were pointing them at" - the cameras were on the astronauts chests as part of their suits, they were trained for several months on the use of the cameras, they knew what they were doing.

"there's even a photo where an object in the frame obscures the cross hair on the camera lense. It must have been super-imposed." - a bright object obsures a dark one, again, READ the thread.

Another example of someone simply repeating what they hear/read and believing it without questioning. Just do some reasearch, actually LOOK at the pictures and video.

Here, have a website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm (thats a good one)

Just ask google, it's that easy. If you want to argue a point, take 20 minutes out of your life and research ALL sides, that way you won't look like a fool with posts like this. (Especially when it's already been said in the thread!)

And as for... .. we're talking about the 1960's here. I just don't believe it was possible. As clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Although, again, take the time to research, pick a part that you think they didn't have (say a "magic" moon rover for example), then do some RESEARCH and figure out how it worked, you might be suprised...

drexel: well pointed out.

dhama

03-01-2003, 04:31 AM

Many good (and some bad) arguments have been made here but i'm still not convinced. I would only be convinced of anything if i'd experienced it first hand; the moon landing is one of the things I haven't, so until there are 'moon shuttles' I guess I won't.

The main reason for this thread was to find other members thoughts on the subject, not so much to find proof.

"Do we have actual footage and witnesses alive today of any religious event that may have occured.

No we don't but through meditation I've experienced connections to my faith, so no footage was necessary. :)

CatSuit&Ponytail

03-01-2003, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Catman
I can say with the utmost confidence that the moonlandings never occurred. The cats, not wanting their secret base on the far side of the moon to be discovered, prevented the Apollo missions from ever leaving earth orbit. However, to placate the humans, they did cooperate in creating fake images which were broadcast from an abandoned mine a few miles outside Council Bluffs, Iowa.

If you need proof, just go up to any cat and ask. The cat, of course, will refuse to answer, which is all the proof anyone will ever need.

Luna, Mars, Venus, Regulus, Denebola, Subra, Zosma, Theta Leo etc etc.....*yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwn*

Nevermind Catman, they just can't see what's right in front of them. It's probably better that way.

http://www.catagar.com/treasure/CatProof.jpg

AmO

03-01-2003, 03:34 PM

catman.....catsuit & poneyail rotflmao :D

susan

03-03-2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by AlphaOmega
No it can't. No telescope on earth or in orbit can. (Keep in mind the lander is only the size of a van). They didn't land on the far side either, they landed on a very smooth area near the sea of Tranquility.

This seems strange to me. I mean they have the exact co-ordinates of where they landed don't they? The Hubble telescope manages to target stars billions of miles away that are mere pin-pricks of light.... The Hubble telescope is more powerful than satellites orbiting earth and they manage to resolve images on Earth to less than a metre...

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering if someone can answer those above points :)

EDIT: I checked myself - resolution on Hubble is about 85 m on the moon's surface. Not enough to see a van.

By DrexelIt's too bad some people find it hard to believe with the insurmountable evidence available that it actually occured.
Funny how many people have more belief in things with little or no evidence.
Do we have actual footage and witnesses alive today of any biblical religious event that may have occured.

To think it was faked you'd have to also think that they never broke the sound barrier... or conquered low earth orbit with the Mercury missions and Gemini missions. Or built a space station or launch a space shuttle. Hmmmm, Maybe the Russians never went into space

Insurmountable evidence? I think it was truly insurmountable then the questioning of whether the moon landings happened or not wouldn't have arisen. We tend to believe what we're taught regardless of real evidence because some people can't think critically at all and for others it threatens their view of the world...

I agree with you about biblical religious events - we should question them strongly and not unthinkingly accept them as historical facts. However, it's not true to say that if you think the moon landings were fakes then you'd also have to believe they never broke the sound barrier - the two are not connected. It is possible to break the sound barrier and NOT go to the moon.

Similarly - conquering low earth orbit, or building a space station or launching a space shuttle.

There are big differences between putting a shuttle and space station into low earth orbit and actually going to and landing on the moon.

There is a case to argue that the pictures and film footage of the moon landings were faked. The best one being the classic picture of Aldrin standing on the surface and showing Armstrong taking the picture in Alrin's helmit.

Aldrin stands in a pool of light that fades to darkness in all directions. It looks great!! But unfortunately, the laws of physics are this - this picture is impossible in pure sunlight. Check it out yourself - stand in a flat, open field on a sunny day. Does the light fade away towards the horizon in any direction? No. The only way to achieve this effect is to put a spotlight (an artificial light) above the astronaut. NASA didn't send spotlights to the moon. Somehow this picture has either been tampered with (which NASA claim it hasn't) or it was taken under artificial lighting conditions.

There are quite a few other anamolies with the photographs on the moon's surface and NASA has not explained them. In fact they refuse to - why? There are other problems with the moon landings but it's too lengthy to go into here!:)

yubetcha

03-03-2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by AlphaOmega

Here, have a website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm (thats a good one)

Interesting site. Especially the part about the moon rocks being examined by scientists in other countries who have no interest in contributing to a coverup. And the links are interesting as well. :)

susan

03-03-2003, 06:48 AM

Scientists examing rocks and proving that they are from the moon does not prove that the moon landings happened. It is possible to get rock samples from the moon in other ways than sending men up there to get them.

The Soviets never landed on the moon but managed to obtain their own moon rock samples by landing probes there.... And, this is what NASA intends to do with Mars.

Sorry, but there is nothing in this article that deals with the serious anomalies in the photographic evidence of the moon landings. It handles a few issues (in a ridiculing way...) as if this answers everything. But that's not right. It only takes ONE proven piece of evidence showing something was faked for the whole photographic record to be called into disrepute.

BTW, the first photograph shown in this article is the one I mentioned in my posting just above so you can see for yourself how the light falls away to darkness. Why doesn't the article explain (in a ridiculing way) how NASA managed to overcome the laws of physics to get a picture like this??

What bugs me most about this article is why does it have make fun of people questioning them? They're a scientific agency, science is about questions... They're also into education (supposedly), they should be grateful of the publicity and the encouragement it gives to everyone to learn about the moon, photographing on the moon, capabilities of rockets, etc in order to check out whether the moon landings happened. Do they want to educate or do they just want everyone to do as they're told...sheesh, HOW did they get to the moon if no one was allowed to ask questions?!

yubetcha

03-03-2003, 06:51 AM

It seems that you didn't follow the links to read further. And if a probe can get to the moon, perhaps humans also could.

susan

03-03-2003, 06:58 AM

If I've missed something do you at least want to give me a hint on what I've missed? ;)

Yes, if a probe can get to the moon than MAYBE they can send a man too, but that doesn't prove they did! And, to be honest, it's a lot easier to send a probe than a living thing.

jaycw2309

03-03-2003, 11:21 AM

its been raging since the day of the landings, and will probably never end, even after we've colonised the moon.

Heres why:

We as a race (humans that is) are inquisitive, we dont leave that little hole alone, we dont step back and think "no i wont go in there" we do it. and why, cos we always say "what IF?" afterwards.

This is a classic case of it.

WHAT IF, they hadn't landed on the moon and the project had failed in some unfortunate way (aborted landing etc) WHAT IF they HAD landed but not been able to get off etc etc.

I have seen many programs pro and anti the landings being real, and BOTH give highly detailed, and irrefutable proof they are the correct parties.

I personally want to believe it happened and that man is capable of so much more, but to me the clincher was the lighting. how when there was only a single light source (this small object called the sun) was the guy coming down the SHADED side of the capsule clearly visible in the picture (and for that matter most of the pics have the astronauts clearly visible in all the shaded parts)

You cannot say that light from the Capsule lit him up, as you have already TOLD us that the brightest light source will `win` in a photo unless your tune the lense for the lesser light source, but you dont get BOTH in the same frame.

Now before you all flame me to death, i will just say this. I am not taking ANYTHING away from those who work in the `space` industry, and my hat goes off to them when i see the shuttle launches, and my heart goes out when i hear of the disasters they face in the fight for advancement. but how the WHOLE thing has been treated by the governments and NASA alike is what has made this such a famous conspiracy. It is conspiracies which make the world go round, without them no REAL truth would ever come out.

So peace out y'all and remember, you dont end an argument you simply start a new one

yubetcha

03-03-2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by jaycw2309

I personally want to believe it happened and that man is capable of so much more, but to me the clincher was the lighting. how when there was only a single light source (this small object called the sun) was the guy coming down the SHADED side of the capsule clearly visible in the picture (and for that matter most of the pics have the astronauts clearly visible in all the shaded parts)

If you follow the link above, and then click on another link (Badastronomy.com, I think) this very phenomenon is explained, and shown why it IS possible. It even shows test pictures. And BTW, at one of these links, it is also explained why the MOON is a light source. Makes sense, when you think about it. It isn't really a SOURCE, but the light reflecting off of it makes it look like one.
Susan, to your picture example, I don't know the complete answer, but what I was referring to was the part about the way the light reflects off of the moon. I read something similar in there somewhere at one of those links :). I am not an expert here, but I have to take other people's word for it, and I suspect that this is why it happens, but I could be wrong. If anyone has a better explanation, please explain.

dhama

03-03-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by jaycw2309
...........I personally want to believe it happened and that man is capable of so much more..................

"Mankind" is so much more capable..................

Mankind is limited only by it's ego, and it's also ego that result's in our acceptance to any "truth" that's flung our way.
I really do think mankind could get to the moon, but before we do, we'll have to change our way of thinking first. By then though we would realise far more important things we should be doing. ;)

Bullet ridden monkey

03-05-2003, 05:41 PM

(spoils all the fun)

One of the biggest pet-peeves of mine: people who think the moon landings were fake.

They weren't dammit! (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

John Carter

03-05-2003, 06:27 PM

Thank you BRM for that three word link quote. That cuts the BS pretty good, and it was getting pretty thick.

Ain't no use debating with folks who ain't interested in considering the validity of anything outside their own heads. No standard of logic or evidence will ever suffice.

I watched the thing on TV with my Mom. Dad, who I buried today, had to work that evening. I was only six years old, but it looked pretty real to me.

JunoJIm

03-05-2003, 09:04 PM

YES, me too, John !!!

Sorry about your Dad...

I wonder why people don't want to believe that we went to the moon ???

It wasn't really that hard, just took a LOT of money, talent, and computing power - the computers we are all using today would still be a whole lot bigger, if they didn't have to fly when they were growing up...

CatSuit&Ponytail

03-06-2003, 03:05 AM

Mars. I am so sorry.

...

.

yubetcha

03-06-2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Christmas Jones
I don't really know what to believe now. A question,though. The landing happened some forty or so years ago. Why has it never been repeated? I'm pretty sure the Americans could have afforded it, even at the height of the cold war.

There has been more than one trip to the moon's vicinity. But I'm not sure why it hasn't been repeated since the last time. I think it may have something to do with the accidents, such as Apollo 13. It may also be a case of "been there, done that" (so let's try to solve other problems now, and also concentrate on the space station, which will be more useful). This is all a guess, though. I can't see any other reason

Polar_Andromeda

03-06-2003, 06:06 AM

All of you wouldn't even be questioning the validity of the moon landings if FOX hadn't done that ridiculous special and most of those sites claiming it was a hoax wouldn't even be up.

Wow. This thread has been a great lesson for me in learning just how manipulative the media can truly be. :)

JunoJIm

03-06-2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by CatSuit&Ponytail
Mars. I am so sorry.

Read / see the "Martain Chronicles" ...

Hopefully, we won't trash Mars like we have Earth...

Anyway, for more science news, I'm starting a new thread...

CatSuit&Ponytail

03-06-2003, 10:47 PM

JunoJIm, Ray Bradbury has always been one of my favorite writers. I bought The Martian Chronicles on video in Canada.....Now I must wait for the DVD to see it again. I read it several times, and had several copies.

AlphaOmega

03-07-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Christmas Jones
I don't really know what to believe now. A question,though. The landing happened some forty or so years ago. Why has it never been repeated? I'm pretty sure the Americans could have afforded it, even at the height of the cold war. There's been no reason too, the main purpose of putting a man on the moon was, as Kennedy said, the challenge of it. That and proving American superiority over the Russians.

There have been further missions to the moon, but all have been unmanned, as there's simply no need to risk human life and much more money to do simple tasks that can be done by machines. (ie. rocksamples, mapping, planting those sisemographs (sp) ).

Exitium

03-07-2003, 04:00 PM

If we did not reach the moon, then surely our shuttles don't really go into space, right?

This is like debating over the Dinosaurs going extinct. You know it happened, they aren't here. But then people think that they never existed to begin with, yet they did.

Arctic_Wolf

03-07-2003, 05:21 PM

If Wallace and Gromit can go to the moon then surely the Americans could too? :D

JunoJIm

03-07-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by CatSuit&Ponytail
JunoJIm, Ray Bradbury has always been one of my favorite writers. I bought The Martian Chronicles on video in Canada.....Now I must wait for the DVD to see it again. I read it several times, and had several copies.

I'm glad you read / saw that - it really makes one think...

Exitium

03-08-2003, 10:56 AM

After a vigorous study, I have finally been convinced Americans were not the first people to land on the moon. Analysis shows it was the Japanese (http://www.gundamw.net/gallery/katoki/katoki_27.jpg). This picture is fullly authentic and also prooves that even a country that hasn't reached the moon can hoax the truth...

Senor v2

03-16-2003, 03:39 AM

The reason no one has gone to the moon lately is because it tastes bad. They took one bite and said "Goodness me this Cheese tastes horrible"

Seriously i think the moon landing was real, i beleieve everything they have said, you can call me gullible if you like but i beleive it was the best thing Earth has done in its timeline. You should too because if this was "the court of World Justice" all you non-believers would be sentenced for treason, you should be proud that you live on a planet that has accomplished so much in its timeline.

CatSuit&Ponytail

03-16-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by JunoJIm
I'm glad you read / saw that - it really makes one think...

Oh, it's just that Rock Hudson is so hunky in it. ;) :p hehehe

JunoJIm

03-16-2003, 09:53 PM

Excellent choice - he added - just something right...

You must've seen one of my other favs, Forbidden Planet - the mother of all Sci Fi...

CatSuit&Ponytail

03-17-2003, 03:37 AM

Indeed! I think Forbidden Planet was the cause of some sleepless nights when I was a child! :D Monsters from the ID were terrifying!:o

dhama

03-17-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by CatSuit&Ponytail
...........Monsters from the ID were terrifying!:o

Yeh, Doom really freaked me out too when I first played it. :D

JunoJIm

03-17-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by CatSuit&Ponytail
Indeed! I think Forbidden Planet was the cause of some sleepless nights when I was a child! :D Monsters from the ID were terrifying!:o

Me too !!! I was scared enough about that invisable creature, but after I found out what the ID was - oh man... those poor Krell...

I just saw a copy of Robbie in Sharper Image - it'll bring you potato chips, and guard your house...

plussi

07-09-2003, 01:06 AM

Questioning stuff is not stupid.

You could argue the Sun goes round the Earth, and it wouldn't necessarily be stupid. But if you argued that because "otherwise we would get dizzy", then you are certifiably thick.

If it takes you more than 10 seconds to realise that each and every one of the "moon fake" arguments are completely stupid, then I am afraid you are indeed certifiable.

And if you go on "doubting" just because someone else has doubted (for demonstrably false reasons), then that makes you willing brain-washing victim #15283xxxx, where "xxxx" is any combination of druidic magic symbols of your choosing :rolleyes:

But the Sun does indeed go round the Earth :p

Jorge22

07-09-2003, 06:11 AM

My, another revived thread! Nostalgia, nostalgia...

I'd just like to add that everything depends and nothing is real. :rolleyes: I think, therefore I exist? :confused: The only thing I know is that I know nothing. :p
And, by the way, the moon is made of camembert! :D

(I guess I was in the mood for using smilies, which could start showing a wider variety one of these days - then, I'll use some more... ;) )

Haunt-of-Doom

07-12-2003, 08:20 PM

Neil (?) Armstrong went on the moon right? I think they have footage or atleast a picture of that. You might be able to dig that up on a website for NASA or something.

colonel lynx

07-15-2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by plussi
Questioning stuff is not stupid.

it isn't, but if u question things, do it good, real arguments and that
u also might question more serious things, if u don't believe in man on the moon, do u believe in human kind?

Haunt-of-Doom

07-15-2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by colonel lynx
it isn't, but if u question things, do it good, real arguments and that
u also might question more serious things, if u don't believe in man on the moon, do u believe in human kind?

What? Humans don't exist! ;)

monkeylizard

07-18-2003, 12:16 PM

I dont care whether or not man has been on the moon or not... As long as our technology keeps improving video/computer games, and we still have the internet, Im happy. LMAO

dhama

07-18-2003, 01:57 PM

John Carter

07-18-2003, 05:27 PM

Life is but a series of events that repeat themselves endlessly. So to avoid tedium, our mind invents 'historical' moments making us believe we've really acheived something..........

Look guys.... if you just wake up instead of continuously pressing that snooze button called 'life'; you could have it all........ ah well, just five more minutes............................

Prove this empirically. I doubt you will, because I suspect you reject empirical thought as a valid process of understanding one's environment. If not, correct me and offer convincing proof of your point of view as being the one "true" POV.

Why, for example, would multiple minds invent the same historical events, which for the sake of debate we will assume to have never occured? More particularly, why does my understanding of historical processes have no validity, and yours and only yours does? I am often wrong, and if proved wrong, will be happy to admit it.

In a system where empirical proof processes have no meaning, there are no means of proving anything, everything is a perception in the mind of the perceiver, and no perception outside one's head would have any value whatever.

So, I will continue in my sleep of "life" and you can continue in your wakened state of whatever it is choose to believe in, or to disbelieve, or conveniently avoid, and we'll call it even, hmmm?

I wonder why you horn in on the moon landing, as opposed to a Russian lander on Mars or Fleming's discovery of penicillin as an antibiotic drug, or some other provable historical fact. Having to "see it for yourself" to call it proved isn't a valid argument, there are a near infinite number of things we don't see that logic must lead us to believe in, if you believe in logic. You, for example. If I had to have seen you to prove your existence, I couldn't. Nonetheless, I have what to my mind is convincing evidence that you exist.

projo

07-18-2003, 05:40 PM

If the moon has an atmosphere, it is almost non-existent, so whatever stars that would be visible from the viewpoint and angle of the photograph would be there.
If the resolution of the photograph was high enough, you could probably see them with a magnifier. Many, many stars are not bright enough to show in a tiny slice of space in a photograph.
The Earthly night-sky has only the brightest of the visible stars, that can be viewed with the naked eye.
To actually see MOST of the stars you must use a light-gathering instrument called a telescope.

And the Earth is in orbit around the Sun, just as the Sun is in orbit around the Earth. Earth exerts a small tidal-pull on the Sun, just as the Sun generates tidal intervals on Earth.

dhama

07-19-2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by John Carter
Prove this empirically. I doubt you will, because I suspect you reject empirical thought as a valid process of understanding one's environment. If not, correct me and offer convincing proof of your point of view as being the one "true" POV.

Since it isn't my point of view, but simply what's left after you take away everything else, and "proof" being just another physical aspect manaufactered by the brain like everything else; it just doesn't exist.

Originally posted by John Carter
Why, for example, would multiple minds invent the same historical events, which for the sake of debate we will assume to have never occured? More particularly, why does my understanding of historical processes have no validity, and yours and only yours does? I am often wrong, and if proved wrong, will be happy to admit it.

One mind, multiple ideas.

Originally posted by John Carter
In a system where empirical proof processes have no meaning, there are no means of proving anything, everything is a perception in the mind of the perceiver, and no perception outside one's head would have any value whatever.

Correct.

Originally posted by John Carter
So, I will continue in my sleep of "life" and you can continue in your wakened state of whatever it is choose to believe in, or to disbelieve, or conveniently avoid, and we'll call it even, hmmm?

That's everyones choice.

Originally posted by John Carter
I wonder why you horn in on the moon landing, as opposed to a Russian lander on Mars or Fleming's discovery of penicillin as an antibiotic drug, or some other provable historical fact. Having to "see it for yourself" to call it proved isn't a valid argument, there are a near infinite number of things we don't see that logic must lead us to believe in, if you believe in logic. You, for example. If I had to have seen you to prove your existence, I couldn't. Nonetheless, I have what to my mind is convincing evidence that you exist.

We are all part of a one, it just appears that we're all individual; we're just different aspects of one.
As for the Moon landing, well to me it's just a label like everything else and is just used as a universally understood metaphor.

You're right, no-one can prove this. Anyone can experience it, but only if they choose to. :)

Must say, I like your argument structure, and it's always a joy to read your posts John. ;)