Men on the Moon

davros · 02-01-2005 1:43am

OK, let's focus the discussion again. Has man walked on the moon or not?

If there is more to be said on the topic of Aquinas, please start a new thread.

Thanks and Happy New Year to all! (And robindch, don't drink the soup in Kiev

)

GuanYin · 02-01-2005 3:07am

Turley wrote:

According to NASA moon samples were primarily made of plagioclase which consists of sodium, calcium, aluminum, silicon, and oxygen. Plagioclase can be found worldwide.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/answers.html

How long did it take you to come up with this half fact.

In any case, your post clearly shows that you have no idea what the significance of plagioclase is.

Plagioclase is present in the samples of most planetary rock. However its the ratio thats important, especially when compared with the ratio of other rock components, most significantly pyroxenes.

Again, analysis of lunar rocks and indeed the very plagoclase that you mention, has shown a significantl difference to earth ones and the rocks taken by the manned mission show the same signatures as those collected in other missions and means.

Seeing as you obviously didn't bother with the earlier references (or you wouldn't have posted such useless triflings as your plagioclase comment) here is another:

lunar and planetary science XXXIV 2003

So again I ask, would you care to comment on the fact that the rocks collected by the manned lunar mission were shown not to be of earth origin?

Turley · 02-01-2005 4:37pm

davros wrote:

OK, let's focus the discussion again. Has man walked on the moon or not?

If there is more to be said on the topic of Aquinas, please start a new thread.

Thanks and Happy New Year to all! (And robindch, don't drink the soup in Kiev )

Davros-
Thank you for your interest in keeping the discussion focused on men on the moon. The comment by Aquinas supported my view that an argument from authority is no argument at all. The argument that men walked on the moon rests on the voice of authority.

Defenders of the voice of authority argument dismissed Aquinas with, "BTW, in Summa Theologica, Aquinas also said that 'woman is defective and misbegotten'. Doesn't mean he was right, even if he was speaking from his self-appointed position of divine authority, as christian authors are endlessly wont to do."

The quote was actually from Aristotle, found in comments by Aquinas, but defenders of the argument from authority reasoned, "Given this level of ignorance on display here, I can only wonder why anybody bothers to read [Aquinas] any more, other than as a historical oddity.

Following this thinking one might also conclude that given the level of ignorance on display by Aristotle we need not bother to read him either, other that as a historical oddity.

It is disappointing that people can so easily dismiss a great thinker and readily accept as the source of truth, the voice of authority that would have us believe in a "magic bullet" and men walking on the moon.
-Turley

Turley · 02-01-2005 5:01pm

syke wrote:

...here is another:

lunar and planetary science XXXIV 2003

So again I ask, would you care to comment on the fact that the rocks collected by the manned lunar mission were shown not to be of earth origin?

The University of New Mexico is a federally funded institution and therefore they teach the "official truth." Why should we place our trust that men walked on the moon, in the University of New Mexico? They would also maintain the first U.S. Secretary of Defense jumped out of a window and Vincent W. Foster drove to a park and shot himself?

Because the authorities say something is true does not make something true. The U.S. has also claimed 19 men commited suicide on 9/11, Iraq had WMDs, and Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S.A., and men walked on the moon.

robindch · 02-01-2005 5:51pm

Hi Turley -

Defenders of the voice of authority argument dismissed Aquinas

You should have noticed that I was actually pointing out problems which derive from argument from authority, rather than arguing in favour of them as you appear to think.

The argument that men walked on the moon rests on the voice of authority.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. There is ample physical evidence to demonstrate the fact beyond any reasonable doubt -- this includes moon rocks, rocket hardware, tracking station logs, the testimony of living astronauts, surface photographs, the work + designs of tens of thousands of technicians + engineers, etc, etc. As others and I have said before, you've not produced any argument more convincing than stating that (a) the rocks are from earth (they're not, as all geologists agree), (b) the flag is fluttering (is isn't, and I think you may perhaps belive this now?) and (c) tens of thousands of people are lying to you over something which, frankly, doesn't affect one's life even slightly. If you have any arguments which are more solid than the above, I'm sure that other people here will be able to rebut them.

davros - don't drink the soup in Kiev

Arrghh!! How could I visit Ukraine and not want to stuff myself with áîðù ñ ñìåòàíîé, ïåëìåíèå + áëèí÷èêè, washed down with as much êâàñ as I can drink? mmm....:rolleyes:

ñ÷àñòëèâî èç Êèåâà! - ðîáèíä÷

robindch · 02-01-2005 6:14pm

The University of New Mexico is a federally funded institution and therefore they teach the "official truth."

<slaps head and pitches forward>At this stage, I'm giving up and no longer contributing to this thread as there really are more worthwhile things to do than attempting to dislodge irrational views with rational arguments.

In case anybody's interested, a friend sms'd a day or two back to say that there are two shuttle astronauts doing a ticket-only, illustrated talk somewhere or other in Trinity at 1930h on Wednesday, 12th of January -- I don't have any contact details (as my friend's organizing tickets), but it should be easy enough to contact TCD and find out who's organizing it and where it's taking place.

- robin.

ps: I only have it on my friend's authority that this lecture's taking place, so it's almost definitely a hoax lecture. 'pologies.

davros · 02-01-2005 7:26pm

robindch wrote:

Arrghh!! How could I visit Ukraine and not want to stuff myself with áîðù ñ ñìåòàíîé, ïåëìåíèå + áëèí÷èêè, washed down with as much êâàñ as I can drink?

As long as it's only ñìåòàíà in your áîðù and not äèîêñèí!

davros · 02-01-2005 7:34pm

robindch wrote:

... there are two shuttle astronauts doing a ticket-only, illustrated talk somewhere or other in Trinity at 1930h on Wednesday, 12th of January -- I don't have any contact details (as my friend's organizing tickets), but it should be easy enough to contact TCD and find out who's organizing it and where it's taking place.

Here ya go...

http://www.ria.ie/events/nasa.html

GuanYin · 02-01-2005 9:15pm

Turley wrote:

The University of New Mexico is a federally funded institution and therefore they teach the "official truth." Why should we place our trust that men walked on the moon, in the University of New Mexico? They would also maintain the first U.S. Secretary of Defense jumped out of a window and Vincent W. Foster drove to a park and shot himself?

Because the authorities say something is true does not make something true. The U.S. has also claimed 19 men commited suicide on 9/11, Iraq had WMDs, and Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S.A., and men walked on the moon.

First off that was a paper about rock composition. Rock composition is a pretty universally accepted school, the US nor the feds can dictate how someone studies the composition of rock. Secondly that was paper from an international conference and the article was peer reviewed by international scientists.

So not content with suggesting that the moon landings are faked, you are now suggesting the US controls the worlds opinion on the composition of rock? So can you tell me exactly what is false or made up in that paper. Quote lines please.

If you are going to debunk something at least show us all what exactly you are debunking.

You have sidestepped the rather direct and easy to understand question I put to you.

The authorities view point doesn't concern me. The peer reviewed, published, scientific findings of many independent scientific mineralogical, geological, chemistry and astrological laboratories that verified the lunar rocks taken back from the manned mission does.

I've asked you a very direct question and its simple but I'll phrase it in bold just so you don't somehow skip over it again.Can you focus on that please.

How do you account for all the published independent scientific work by international researchers around the world that all verify the rock samples taken back from the manned moon mission as being lunar in origin?

As an aside....Do you go to the same special posting lessons that the SF-ers all seem to go to? Davros? Are you actually going to let people to continue to come in here posting claims without any back up? Is this still the skeptics forum or not?

davros · 02-01-2005 9:53pm

syke wrote:

Davros? Are you actually going to let people to continue to come in here posting claims without any back up? Is this still the skeptics forum or not?

My comments below are general and are not singling out any of the posters on this thread...

The Skeptical movement the world over finds the same thing again and again: you can lay out a cast-iron argument for why someone's belief (in alternative medicine, ESP, etc.) is wrong but it won't make a whit of difference to that belief.

Rather than this forum being a place to convince certain individuals that they are mistaken, I prefer to see it as somewhere those of opposing views can publish their arguments while bystanders decide who makes the more convincing case.

I wish every poster could frame and comprehend a perfectly logical argument. It would be nice if everyone had internalised the scientific method at an early age. But this doesn't describe the majority of people. Remember, the Irish Skeptics Society exists to promote scientific understanding in society as a whole. To do that, we have to be willing to politely listen to a lot of illogical and bizarre beliefs. If we just tried to beat people into submission through the power of superior argument, nobody would listen to us at all, defeating our objective.

GuanYin · 02-01-2005 10:00pm

davros wrote:

My comments below are general and are not singling out any of the posters on this thread...

The Skeptical movement the world over finds the same thing again and again: you can lay out a cast-iron argument for why someone's belief (in alternative medicine, ESP, etc.) is wrong but it won't make a whit of difference to that belief.

Rather than this forum being a place to convince certain individuals that they are mistaken, I prefer to see it as somewhere those of opposing views can publish their arguments while bystanders decide who makes the more convincing case.

I wish every poster could frame and comprehend a perfectly logical argument. It would be nice if everyone had internalised the scientific method at an early age. But this doesn't describe the majority of people. Remember, the Irish Skeptics Society exists to promote scientific understanding in society as a whole. To do that, we have to be willing to politely listen to a lot of illogical and bizarre beliefs. If we just tried to beat people into submission through the power of superior argument, nobody would listen to us at all, defeating our objective.

Thats fair enough but ther eis arguing and then just posting your opinion.

It seems to me that alot of posters don't back up any of their points or arguments and this is allowed.

Can I just clarify this? Are you saying that posters can partake in a debate without posting any back up or valid documented evidence supporting their claims. Further more is it ok for someone to partake in an argument sidestepping issues that suit them yet maintaining their stance.

You've just lost a robin to this thread and he was a great poster. I would argue that unless you take control you'll lose all the people who can actually make an arguemnt and be left with the people who just ramble on.

Is that what you want.

I'd love to see your guidelines on what constitutes taking part in a debate because it mak very well effect how I post in future if I know I can just go "youre wrong because I believe otherwise"

Turley · 03-01-2005 1:38am

robindch wrote:

(a) the rocks are from earth (they're not, as all geologists agree),

All geologists agree? All historians agree Oswald killed JFK, Forrestal jumped and Vince Foster drove to a park. The fact that people agree that something absurd is true only proves that they can be wrong.

robindch wrote:

(b) the flag is fluttering (is isn't, and I think you may perhaps belive this now?)

The waving flag was not introduced to this thread by me. In fact, I found evidence to support the flag was suspended on a rod and shared it here.

robindch wrote:

(c) tens of thousands of people are lying to you over something which, frankly, doesn't affect one's life even slightly.

Again, and I have said this several times, simply because a large number of people go along with a popular view that is false does not mean they have joined a conspiracy or are lying. For example, if I am correct and men did not actually walk on the moon, it is not necessary to conclude that you have been lying or are part of a conspiracy. It is possible that people are just ignorant.

People are ignorant about significant history.
Millions of Americans believe that Vincent Foster killed himself.
American history books teach that Vincent Foster killed himself.
ALL American history professors teach that Vincent Foster killed himself.
ALL American journalists maintain that Vincent Foster killed himself.
ALL American political parties maintain that Vincent Foster killed himself.
Vincent Foster's family maintains that Vincent Foster killed himself.
The Park Police, the FBI, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, Regulatory Independent counsel Robert Fiske and Statutory Independent counsel Kenneth Starr and the entire American press agree that Vincent Foster killed himself.
People that disagree with this official truth are called "conspracy theorists."

But the truth is Vincent Foster did not kill himself.
Vincent Foster was murdered.

This fact does not necessitate that all of the above who are in error are all lying or that they are all part of a conspiracy. It does prove that a lot of people can be wrong about history, and people can be wrong about the history of men walking on the moon too.

Since all of these esteemed authorities are wrong about the murder of the White House counsel, why should we accept the argument that "all geologists agree" as proof that men walked on the moon.
Knowing that large numbers of people can be ignorant and that the "official truth" is not always true. I remain a skeptic.
Turley

Turley · 03-01-2005 2:08am

"The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Anderson has made me wonder what popular "truth" Mr. Anderson knew was false that inspired him to write his story.

As in his story, it is the children today that are more inclined to be skeptical of men walking on the moon long before they were born. And as the Psalmist wrote it is "out of the mouths of babes" the truth be told.

Anderson's story ends with these lines,
"'The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!'

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle."

And so perhaps today geologists and others cannot admit the truth so they too continue their procession under the illusion that men walked on the moon.

davros · 03-01-2005 2:23am

Turley wrote:

why should we accept the argument that "all geologists agree" as proof that men walked on the moon. Knowing that large numbers of people can be ignorant and that the "official truth" is not always true. I remain a skeptic.

Not by any reasonable definition of "skeptic" though. To ignore good evidence and multiple independent verification of that evidence is hardly the mark of a good skeptic.

Syke, I'll answer your post tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

bus77 · 03-01-2005 8:43am

Anarchism Turley

Im sorry, I didnt reconise you.

We are skeptical but we are differnt than the skeptics.

davros · 03-01-2005 11:59pm

syke wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of posters don't back up any of their points or arguments and this is allowed.

What you are asking me to do is, effectively, pick winners in the discussion. In that case, there is no need for us to have a thread at all. Just ask me whether I think men walked on the moon and I will supply the answer.

By definition, the Irish Skeptics Society exists to try to defend the rational against the irrational. I don't believe there are any good arguments for the intrinsic worth of, say, reflexology. Should I immediately suppress any poster who dares to suggest otherwise?

In discussions of this type, there is an interesting subtext I think you are missing. I don't really care to spend my time learning the ins and outs of reflexology but I'm very interested to know why others believe in it so strongly. The longer a defender continues to post, the more clues we get to why the scientific argument holds no merit in their eyes and to what really motivates their belief. We need to understand that to further our aims.

I don't agree that we "lost" robindch. He stated his case and retired, satisfied that the argument had been won. No need to beat it to death or extract a forced recantation from anyone. That is exactly how I expect a debate to end, if neither side will back away from its position. Let the readers decide in their own minds who makes the better case.

GuanYin · 04-01-2005 5:29pm

davros wrote:

What you are asking me to do is, effectively, pick winners in the discussion. In that case, there is no need for us to have a thread at all. Just ask me whether I think men walked on the moon and I will supply the answer..

No I'm not.

This discussion could go in many interesting ways, discussions on what actually happened, what information was shared, why some information wasn't shared, the inconsistencies that have arisen over the past 4 decades and most of all, why some people believe that man hasn't walked on the moon.

What we get is one poster making an argumentative case without providing anything but anecdotes and opinon, all the while ignoring all the rather reasonable and solid evidence put forward by others. He's ignored 3-4 posts now because he can't fob them off and just given Hans Christian Anderson as a reference to his point?

Humanaties, Politics and many other threads fuction brilliantly, cutting out the spammy posters and nurturing intelligent and reasonable debate. I have NEVER seen that on skeptics without some sort of intervention.

Have a look at humanaties or politics, maybe search for the more controversial threads and see how they were handled.

What is the point in having a thread if one side takes a viewpoint where they ignore everyone elses posts and debunk all academics and scientists as unreliable resources because it suits them. No discussion is nurtured and anyone who might agree with him is never going to join the debate for fear of association.

That isn't debate on skeptics, thats like going to a scientology seminar and having the guy drone on without ever listening or touching the world around them. In short... brainwashing.

Please, have a look at the type of debate you want here. Is the way this thread has gone really it?

robindch · 04-01-2005 8:14pm

Hi folks -

Just a quick post to correct another of Turley's factual inaccuracies, this one related to a previous posting of mine, so I've had to break my thread curfew to correct it; 'pologies (again):

The waving flag was not introduced to this thread by me. In fact, I found evidence to support the flag was suspended on a rod and shared it here.

Turley did not 'find evidence'. The flag-waving point was raised by pwd in the thread posting at 08-12-2004 23:31, expanded upon by Sliabh at 09-12-2004 15:25 and elsewhere. Turley's first reference occurred at 11-12-2004 12:23 and does not introduce anything new to the argument, whether about rods or otherwise. At 12-12-2004, 22:32, I hotlinked to an image on a NASA site which shows a strut holding up the flag, after which the flag-waving issue went into something of a decline.

Turley, if you're still reading this thread, please do not pass off the work of others as your own.

- robin.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-01-2005 1:55am

Turley wrote:

"The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Anderson has made me wonder what popular "truth" Mr. Anderson knew was false that inspired him to write his story..

And so perhaps today geologists and others cannot admit the truth so they too continue their procession under the illusion that men walked on the moon.

Oh you've drawn your own conclusions about a fairy tale, and then added a "perhaps" this obviously proves that the moon landings were a fairy tale.
THE TALE WAS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO SAID ONE THING WHILST ALL THE DIRECT EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF THEM POINTED THE OTHER WAY.

Rockets are propelled by the same type of chemical energy that powers bullets and explosives. Or I could be wrong and the ~100 million deaths in wars last centry were all faked ?
I setup a satellite dish and point it in the sky and I get pictures, so something is up there and a geo synch orbit is the most fuel efficient and thus cheapest way of keeping something there above where it could be seen with a telescope. ( MIR could and the ISS can be seen with a scope BTW )
Geo-synch orbit is most of the way out of our gravity well if you are heading to the moon.
So it is fairly obvious that we have the technology to go to the moon.

Theories are all well and fine, but there has to be some logic behind them, if someone argues that the moon landings were faked, then what was the RISK/BENEFIT analysis for doing so ?
Why go to all the trouble, who were they trying to fool and why ?

Lets assume the moon landings were faked
we would then need to identify all the actions necessary to do so, companies and people to be in the know and those in the dark. Material and resources to be used and others to be disposed of. Radar and comms channels to be setup and how the time delays to be effected. These would need to be described in detail and defended in the same level of depth to have any credability. You have to put cloths on the emperor.

=================================================
Anyway as we all know if you take a picture of the earth from a point above the atmosphere the parts directly under you will have a straight path through the air, but parts further to the sides will pass at an angle through air that is getting increasingly denser the light will be bent like in a mirage. This effect will be greater the further from the centre you get because the angles are shallower and it's got more air to travel through. So things at the edges will appear much futher away than they really are and your picture of the earth will look circular even though it's not.

Turley · 05-01-2005 5:00am

Just because scientists agree on something does not make it true.

Prior to the Copernican system the Ptolemaic system was agreed upon for centuries. 800 years ago, it is possible that someone challenging the popular idea that the sun revolved around the earth, might have been dismissed from a discussion group (even of skeptics) for not accepting what ALL scientists knew to be "true." Even bright scholars like Aquinas and Aristotle agreed that the sun revolved around the earth. This was obvious to anyone just by looking at the sky and seeing the sun "move" across the sky. And it was also obvious to the ancients that the earth was "not rotating" because there would be a constant breeze from east to west and people would be thrown off by centrifugal force.

Another obvious reason that the geocentric universe was known to be "true" was that it worked!

Even after the heliocentric universe was demonstrated, Galileo rejected his own proof under threat of heresy from the powerful Catholic church. He could have been burned alive at the stake. Recalling Robin's quote of Aquinas, "If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy."

And as in Hans Christian Anderson's story people continued to follow what was not true. People will go along with the popular view because it is comfortable and also because it is uncomfortable not to go along.

I don't need to become a geologist or study rocket science to know that large numbers of scientists can be wrong about simple facts. My skepticism is not based on accelerating voltage and beams on plagioclase samples or other technical data. My skepticism rests on the fact that the authorities frequently lie about our history, the majority of people can be ignorant, and moon travel technology is frozen in time while reel to reel tapes, phonograph records, and rotary phones, from the same era have become obsolete.

Some complain that I do not debate technical "evidence" men walked on the moon. I have also offered technical evidence that is proof that the authorities lie about our history and that large numbers of people perpetuate these lies. This is the basis of my skepticism, for if we are fooled about our history, and the lunar landings are part of our history, we might also be fooled about men walking on the moon.

No one has refuted my premise that the authorities lie about our history and universities repeat the lies. Either the authorities lie about history, and get away with it, or they do not. If they do, people should be skeptical of history, including men walking on the moon.

Just looking at the "Lunar Lander craft" in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. (Wonderland on the Potomac) and the whole idea seems so silly, but people will believe anything and the sillier the better. Who could believe that the truth rests in a town like Washington, where even dead (I am not making this up) political candidates are elected to office.

bus77 · 05-01-2005 11:44am

Turley wrote:

No one has refuted my premise that the authorities lie about our history and universities repeat the lies.

I noticed that. I think it is because they are skeptical of the American government themselves but simply do not know how to repond to that issue properly.

Turley wrote:

Either the authorities lie about history, and get away with it, or they do not.

It depends on which authority and what the lie is, and how big the country is imo. If America's the case then you must look at it's nearest types for comparative examples. I have seen the Russian leadership tell their population that a Russian invented the light bulb(and many other inventions).
I have seen the Chinese government insist that the population wear a paticualar type of suit. The fact that they are Communist countrys is relevent. However, the type of protectionist behavior of the leadership is still important to look at. Just because the US has a freedom badge on it's front door does not meen the leadership are immune to this type of skeptisim of it's own people.

Turley wrote:

If they do, people should be skeptical of history

They do, and yes. But not this skeptical imo

Turley wrote:

including men walking on the moon.

I have found some of the posters on boards to be very mechanicly minded.
I wont name name's but some of the posters on this thread are near experts in some areas of technology. But I do not expect you to trust their word simply because I do.

Turley wrote:

Even bright scholars like Aquinas and Aristotle agreed that the sun revolved around the earth.

I have not done research into ancient scholars like you have. But I am sure you will notice a difference between those that set their sights on much larger subjects like Religion/Society/Government and those that set their sights on more intricate subjects like mechanics and mathematics.
If you gave a hammer and nails to some of those philosophers and told them to build somthing half-decent, you would probably find them lacking in the fine details.

Turley wrote:

And as in Hans Christian Anderson's story people continued to follow what was not true. People will go along with the popular view because it is comfortable and also because it is uncomfortable not to go along.

That is exactly right. I think you are missing a very important perspective though. That story featured a few differnt views. That of the people looking up at the leader, but also that of the leader looking at the people.
On a metaphysical level it tells of people who wish to be led by a leader. Blinded by that. But it also tells of a leader so caught up in his dutys and role of leader(his science) that he did everything possible to make himself look good to his people. That he himself was blind too the people.(and everything else;)).

Turley wrote:

and moon travel technology is frozen in time while reel to reel tapes, phonograph records, and rotary phones, from the same era have become obsolete.

I take great exception to you including reel to reel tapes with phonograph records. Real to real tapes were excellent for storage. You can hear every sound on a reel to reel. You think cassette tapes were better? A lot of the technology, I can think of, did not spring from nowhere. The millitary had been working on many of the key technolgies since well before the 60's. For example, air-filltration for the submarines.

Turley wrote:

Some complain that I do not debate technical "evidence" men walked on the moon. I have also offered technical evidence that is proof that the authorities lie about our history

Your technical evidence revolved around mostly polictial matters that if true would not require large numbers of people to be aware of. Also, if all involved are in agreement that it is not to be made public, then you will simply find no evidence of the truth in the matter.
This fact alone make's it impossible to fully prove it too yourself and others.

Turley wrote:

and that large numbers of people perpetuate these lies. This is the basis of my skepticism, for if we are fooled about our history, and the lunar landings are part of our history, we might also be fooled about men walking on the moon.

Now we are getting into large numbers of people and I have found some of your perspective flawed in some of your previous posts. This makes me skeptical of your viewpoint.

Turley wrote:

Just looking at the "Lunar Lander craft" in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. (Wonderland on the Potomac) and the whole idea seems so silly, but people will believe anything and the sillier the better. Who could believe that the truth rests in a town like Washington, where even dead (I am not making this up) political candidates are elected to office.

LMAO!:D I suspect every government of messing in some way, but nothing really suprises me about the Americans anymore.

Myksyk · 05-01-2005 12:44pm

Turley wrote:

Some complain that I do not debate technical "evidence" men walked on the moon. I have also offered technical evidence that is proof that the authorities lie about our history and that large numbers of people perpetuate these lies. This is the basis of my skepticism, for if we are fooled about our history, and the lunar landings are part of our history, we might also be fooled about men walking on the moon.

No one has refuted my premise that the authorities lie about our history and universities repeat the lies. Either the authorities lie about history, and get away with it, or they do not. If they do, people should be skeptical of history, including men walking on the moon.

This is an incredibly weak argument. You are saying that because governments can and do pull the wool over our eyes (of course they do) then it is reasonable to say that they have lied about everything (because you have demonstrated no criteria by which we could believe ANYTHING they say).

You seem to think that if you can demonstrate that the governments of the US have been dishonest in some way then they can be validly accused of being dishonest in every way.

Sorry Turley but this isn't scientific skepticism, it is gross cynicism.

This argument is about the moon landing.You have singularly failed to demonstrate 'specifically' any remotely convincing argument for a hoaxed landing. All you have done is plead with terrifying conviction that the US government couldn't be trusted about specific events in the past so we shouldn't believe ANYTHING they say.

It is not surprising that, because your argument is based on wildly generalised fears, that you have real difficulty addressing the specifics placed before you on this thread.

Turley · 05-01-2005 1:14pm

Myksyk wrote:

You seem to think that if you can demonstrate that the governments of the US have been dishonest in some way then they can be validly accused of being dishonest in every way.

That is not what I said.

Not true. I have not said if someone is dishonest in some way they are dishonest in EVERY WAY.

I am saying if someone is dishonest about important events in history they MAY be dishonest about some other historic events.

You have falsely claimed I made the absurd argument that the authorities lie about everything. I did not.

I am not skeptical of everything but I am skeptical about very out of the ordinary events like the magic bullet and men walking on the moon.

Myksyk wrote:

You are saying that because governments can and do pull the wool over our eyes (of course they do)

You say "of course they do" with such confidence. Can you give one example of a significant historic event that remains officially "true" and the public accepts as "true" but is demonstrably false. Do you know of one example where the wool is currently pulled over the public eyes such that not one textbook or newspaper has reported it?

sliabh · 05-01-2005 1:48pm

Turley wrote:

I am saying if someone is dishonest about important events in history they MAY be dishonest about some other historic events.

I think most of us can accept that. But you then need to provide evidence to back up your assertion the moon landings were faked. All the existing evidence points the other way. You have not been able to come up with a single piece of physical evidence to contradict this.

You start from a skeptical position, which is good. So the next step is to review the case for both sides. I have taken an informed look at the evidence provided for the case that the landings did happen. And as an engineer it appears to stack up. But against that I have nothing. Neither you nor anyone else have presented any valid evidence for the oposite argument. Every tangable thing you have suggested (photos, flag waving, moon rocks etc) has been shot down here and elsewhere by scientists and engineers that are experts in their fields.

All you have been left with is the assertion that governments have lied in the past therefore this most also be a lie. This is not a well constructed argument. Without facts to back your position restating "we must be skeptical" is not a convincing argument for the moon landings being faked.

Therefore your position must be taken as disproven.

If you want to present proper evidence rather than conjecture and vague claims of unprovable conspiracies feel free. But until then you will not get much of a hearing and will be lumped in with the rest of the tin foil hat brigade.

GuanYin · 05-01-2005 2:04pm

Turley wrote:

That is not what I said.

Not true. I have not said if someone is dishonest in some way they are dishonest in EVERY WAY.

No but you have tried to use deflamation and discreditation to support your viewpoints rather than offer any evidence.

Look at the way you generalised that data from University of Mexico is all unreliable. You have no evidence or argument to back this up, you just deflame and dismiss because it suits your mind set.

Skeptics are supposed to be analytical minded people who review facts. You calling yourself a skeptic is an insult to every real skeptic out there.

So far you're arguments have amounted to "well this is bad, so everything else can't be trusted". I think I got you nailed on one of my first posts "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink".

Turley · 05-01-2005 3:51pm

robindch wrote:

Just a quick post to correct another of Turley's factual inaccuracies,...

The waving flag was not introduced to this thread by me. In fact, I found evidence to support the flag was suspended on a rod and shared it here.
Turley did not 'find evidence'. The flag-waving point was raised by pwd in the thread posting at 08-12-2004 23:31, expanded upon by Sliabh at 09-12-2004 15:25 and elsewhere. Turley's first reference occurred at 11-12-2004 12:23 and does not introduce anything new to the argument, whether about rods or otherwise. At 12-12-2004, 22:32, I hotlinked to an image on a NASA site which shows a strut holding up the flag, after which the flag-waving issue went into something of a decline.

Turley, if you're still reading this thread, please do not pass off the work of others as your own.

Robin-
This is a long thread so perhaps you overlooked my previous post. Please note that on 21/12/2004 I stated that I had also found evidence at the NASA web site to explain the flag waving on a metal rod and I quoted from the NASA site and provided a link. (I am wondering now why it would be a "metal rod" when something lighter would serve the purpose and weight might be a concern when taking a long trip to the moon.)

You are correct that the flag waving issue was introduced to this discussion by pwd. My skepticism does not rest on a waving flag, but this seems to be an issue my critics favor.

I have not passed off the work of others as my own. I am sorry you thought that I did.
-Turley

Myksyk · 05-01-2005 4:25pm

Turley wrote:

I am saying if someone is dishonest about important events in history they MAY be dishonest about some other historic events.

This does not in any way mean they ARE dishonest about other events. Arguments to the contrary must be backed up with evidence for your position or refutation of the evidence against your position. You have provided neither. Instead, you have largely ignored the moon landing itself and concentrated on other events about which we may have been misinformed, implying that the two are somehow implicitly connected.

I am also bemused by your characterisaton of 'bodies' such as the US government or NASA or Universities or the media as unchanging automatons, unthinking cells that are part of and controlled by a bigger State 'organism'. Of course, this is not what any organisation is like; instead they are structures which are peopled by individuals holding a wide variety of political, philosophical and moral positions. The individuals in these arganisations are constantly changing and bring widely differing perspectives on all sorts of topics. As is typical of conspiracy theorists, you grossly overstate the ability of government to suppress individual revolt. While very view are naive about the abuses of power that can be perpetrated within any system, your cynicism disallows a fairer, more realistic view of authorities.

The real fact of the matter is that it is ridiculous to suggest on the one hand that the US could not land a man on the moon (when there was in fact technology capable of the feat) but they ARE capable of covering this outlandish sham up (when doing so would involve the individual supression/silencing of countless people).

To be convinced by your argument I would have to reject a possible for an wildly improbable ... is this reasonable?

Turley · 06-01-2005 4:20am

Myksyk wrote:

This does not in any way mean they ARE dishonest about other events.

I agree.

Myksyk wrote:

Arguments to the contrary must be backed up with evidence for your position or refutation of the evidence against your position. You have provided neither. Instead, you have largely ignored the moon landing itself and concentrated on other events about which we may have been misinformed, implying that the two are somehow implicitly connected.

Regarding the moon landing itself. Other acheivements in space such as orbiting the earth has been improved upon since it was first done. More and better satellites orbit the earth. The Europeans placed a satellite (the size of a dishwasher) in lunar orbit in November, the Japanese have another satellite planned to orbit the moon. I think the Japanese were able to send a small satellite (the size of a toaster) to the moon in 1990. If the U.S. was able to fly three men to the moon in 1969 with two of them descending to the lunar surface why can't the U.S. or the Russians send even one man to orbit the moon 35 years later without landing? It should be much easier now with advances in technology. I am skeptical that satellite technology has been improved upon by others from Israel, Europe, Japan, India, and China but only the U.S. is able to do moon walking 35 years ago with far inferior technology.

Myksyk wrote:

I am also bemused by your characterisaton of 'bodies' such as the US government or NASA or Universities or the media as unchanging automatons, unthinking cells that are part of and controlled by a bigger State 'organism'. Of course, this is not what any organisation is like; instead they are structures which are peopled by individuals holding a wide variety of political, philosophical and moral positions. The individuals in these arganisations are constantly changing and bring widely differing perspectives on all sorts of topics. As is typical of conspiracy theorists, you grossly overstate the ability of government to suppress individual revolt. While very view are naive about the abuses of power that can be perpetrated within any system, your cynicism disallows a fairer, more realistic view of authorities.

I understand that you would be bemused. You opinion is based on the information you are presented. If reality is not reported, how would you know? You may know of Scott Peterson, Monica Lewinsky, O.J. Simpson, and Watergate. The more scandalous an event is, the more newsworthy it is, and the less likely it will be reported. You do not know what you are not told. How could you?

Myksyk wrote:

The real fact of the matter is that it is ridiculous to suggest on the one hand that the US could not land a man on the moon (when there was in fact technology capable of the feat) but they ARE capable of covering this outlandish sham up (when doing so would involve the individual supression/silencing of countless people).

I am sure it appears ridiculous from your perspective. I would feel the same if I were you. You are not aware of U.S. news suppression. It is inconceiveable to you. I have experience with suppression of news. Suppression of news of an outlandish sham by the U.S. government, media, and universities, is very real to me.

Turley · 06-01-2005 4:36am

syke wrote:

lunar and planetary science XXXIV 2003

So again I ask, would you care to comment on the fact that the rocks collected by the manned lunar mission were shown not to be of earth origin?

Syke-
I took a look again at this study you referred me to at the link above. One problem with it is that it begins with the premise that there are moon rocks from manned missions being examined.
So prior to the study beginning they already concluded they had rocks from the moon.
Also the study was funded by NASA which would want the "right" conclusion.

I recall when I heard the Amazing Randi speak at NASA Gooddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland many years ago. He was relating how his stooges easily fooled the scientists at Stanford doing research on telekinesis. Randi said one reason they were easy to fool was that they already believed that the subjects they were studying "had" telekinetic powers. In other words he warned scientists to take care to avoid "finding" what they are looking for.

A better test would be to place a collection of rocks for study including "moon rocks," and rocks simulated to appear to be moon rocks, and other assorted rocks before scientists for examination. Let them sort them out and conclude on their own if any samples are "out of this world." But to start by examining "moon rocks" with a NASA funded grand, will hardly fail to conclude that they are looking at rocks from "the moon." The wrong conclusion could end any further grant $$ from NASA or the U.S. government.

This is not to say the researchers are liars or part of some grand conspiracy. They just want to do their jobs and keep their jobs and not make waves as I have done here.
-Turley

Myksyk · 06-01-2005 11:02am

Turley wrote:

If the U.S. was able to fly three men to the moon in 1969 with two of them descending to the lunar surface why can't the U.S. or the Russians send even one man to orbit the moon 35 years later without landing? It should be much easier now with advances in technology.

They're not doing it now because it is far too expensive, there are other terrestrial and space-based priorities, the cold-war atmosphere which fired the first frenzied efforts no longer exist, there has been no real point in doing so. Do you really think this is solely a technology issue - if we can we should?

Turley wrote:

You may know of Scott Peterson, Monica Lewinsky, O.J. Simpson, and Watergate. The more scandalous an event is, the more newsworthy it is, and the less likely it will be reported.

Em ... not sure if you're joking here but many governmental scandals have been reported ad nauseum. Why did they fail to suppress the Lewinsky story (the top man had to come out and humiliate himself on telly - how come he couldn't suppress this in the manner you suggest?) or Watergate (it was only two reporters stirring the bowl)!! Why couldn't Blair manipulate the British media to stop them forcing the resignations of some of his key people? Why did Bush's choice for Homeland Security Secretary Bernard Kerik, have to pull out because of possible conflict of interest, embarrassing the white house in the process? Surely such things can be easily managed by people with such overwhelming power over the entire sociopolitical system? Of course, they don't because they can't, even when they would like to.

I'm sure people in power can abuse that power on occasion if they feel it will protect them. But they can only pull those strings which they hold. I am amazed that you think that they can do this any time they wish with impunity and cooperation from everyone who could possibly report it. They obviously can't.

BTW, if the reality behind various scandalous incidents has never been revealed and I can't know about them ... then how can you know about them? They either have or haven't been leaked. Or is this more of your "I'm sure, I just don't have any evidence" type of argument.

You are not aware of U.S. news suppression. It is inconceiveable to you. I have experience with suppression of news. Suppression of news of an outlandish sham by the U.S. government, media, and universities, is very real to me.

We can all buy the fact that governments suppress news from time to time to protect their own interests. Your perspective on it however encourages a level of exaggerated paranoia and cynicism - without justification.

Men on the Moon

Comments