25-11-2010, 04:16 PM
Peter,
Ask yourself, for serious scientists to become involved, they need data. Since NASA has taken steps to insure that there is no data, it takes a very special kind of scientist to become involved. The case is murky, messy, and politically loaded. Few scientists are going to be willing to run the kinds of risks involved from being assailed for contesting the moon hoax.
Those who are familiar with the Van Allen Radiation Belt, however, are in the category of knowing that the moon landing story has to be a fraud, but so many receive funding from the government and want to stay out of controversies, especially politically loaded like this, they are unlikely to speak the truth. That is not commendable, but it's how things are, alas!
Serious scientists who do become involved, however, would reach the same conclusion after studying the case as it has been laid out here, namely: that the weight of the evidence supports the occurrence of a massive deception. The points I quote that Dave McGowan makes in (8), (9), and (10), moreover, may also explain why more scientists are not involved.
It is another fallacy, by the way, known as the appeal to popular sentiments, to reason from "Most people believe X" to the conclusion "X is true". Most people have (at one time or another) believed that Earth is flat, that a lone gunman killed Lincoln (JFK, RFK, or MLK), that we were justified in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or that man really did go to the moon.
If you could disabuse yourself of the invocation of various fallacies, such as the straw man (by offering an exaggerated version of my position to make it easier to attack), the ad hominen (by attacking me instead of my arguments), special pleading (by citing only evidence faborable to your side), and popular sentiments, you might be able to sort all of this out.
It would have been great to have had you as a student in one of my courses on critical thinking, because you would have been less likely--far less likely, I would conjecture--to commit fallacies like these. This thus has aspects of a tutorial, where I would like to believe you are going to become a more critical thinker as a consequence. But I admit that I could be wrong.
Jim
Yes I did, actually. There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of the method used to transmit images from the moon to the earth.
I don't agree that that is what this means, and again, the absence of a large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of material is an indication that there likely isn't a strong case to be made that that is what this means.
What you fail to take into account is the fact that for a hoax to work a whole bagful of data would have had to have been fabricated, from thin air, and given out to scientists for analysis upon the occasion of each Apollo mission - and from that day to this, any new collection of data would stand to expose the Apollo data as being fraudulent, because to falsify data accurately, across all the areas where data was collected on the moon missions, would be akin to winning the lottery once a week for an entire year. And that is quite unlikely.
Ask yourself, for serious scientists to become involved, they need data. Since NASA has taken steps to insure that there is no data, it takes a very special kind of scientist to become involved. The case is murky, messy, and politically loaded. Few scientists are going to be willing to run the kinds of risks involved from being assailed for contesting the moon hoax.
Those who are familiar with the Van Allen Radiation Belt, however, are in the category of knowing that the moon landing story has to be a fraud, but so many receive funding from the government and want to stay out of controversies, especially politically loaded like this, they are unlikely to speak the truth. That is not commendable, but it's how things are, alas!
Serious scientists who do become involved, however, would reach the same conclusion after studying the case as it has been laid out here, namely: that the weight of the evidence supports the occurrence of a massive deception. The points I quote that Dave McGowan makes in (8), (9), and (10), moreover, may also explain why more scientists are not involved.
It is another fallacy, by the way, known as the appeal to popular sentiments, to reason from "Most people believe X" to the conclusion "X is true". Most people have (at one time or another) believed that Earth is flat, that a lone gunman killed Lincoln (JFK, RFK, or MLK), that we were justified in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or that man really did go to the moon.
If you could disabuse yourself of the invocation of various fallacies, such as the straw man (by offering an exaggerated version of my position to make it easier to attack), the ad hominen (by attacking me instead of my arguments), special pleading (by citing only evidence faborable to your side), and popular sentiments, you might be able to sort all of this out.
It would have been great to have had you as a student in one of my courses on critical thinking, because you would have been less likely--far less likely, I would conjecture--to commit fallacies like these. This thus has aspects of a tutorial, where I would like to believe you are going to become a more critical thinker as a consequence. But I admit that I could be wrong.
Jim
Peter Dawson Wrote:[/B]James H. Fetzer Wrote:Peter,
The point I was making is that I have been actively researching complex and controversial issues for two decades and no one has laughed at me yet. So I take this to be yet another example where you simply don't know what you are talking about. I do not think you are a disinformation agent, but rather a solitary soul who has not come to grips with the limitations of his intellect.
When you acknowledged you didn't know the answers to points (8), (9), and (10), it was apparent to everyone here--with the possible exception of you--that you don't know enough to continue this exchange. While it is true that many are unwilling to debate the issue because they run the risk of ridicule by an ignorant public, that is not true of me, as I presume that you can see.
I have been tackling the task in this public forum and on the EF, where, if I were concerned about the opinions of others, I would not be defending the case for the proposition that the moon landings were a hoax. I gather the very idea transcends the boundaries of your imagination. So be it. But let us not continue to debate an issue when you are so obviously unprepared.
One additional point of logic. For the moon landings to have actually taken place, a rather large number of events have to have taken place. To show it is false, it is only necessary to expose some of them as fraudulent, not all. I offered ten points that strongly suggest the landings were faked, which you could not rebut. That suggests the evidence is on my side, not yours.
And do you not appreciate the inconsistency between observing (correctly) that arguments should stand on their own, while appealing to the absence of an organization of Scholars for Moon Truth as though it undermined those I have presented, such as (8), (9), and (10)? Those arguments, after all, seriously undermine the position you are attempting to uphold.
Enough, Peter. There is no point. But thank you for having done your best.
Jim
Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, yes, and if there is no one prepared to even present a particular argument, then that tells us something. And in the case of the moon hoax theory, there isn't a thousand-strong group of professionals who have joined together to question the authenticity of the moon landings, as we have seen happen in the case of 9/11. And note that 9/11 is less than 10 years old, whereas the moon missions are over 40 years old.
Quote:[B](8) Do you actually believe that NASA "lost" the Moonwalking footage "back in the 1970s", which was surely the world's most precious strips of videos?[/B]There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of footage.
Quote:[B](9) Did you realize that none of the footage broadcast was actually "live" but that it was all "displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera" first?
Yes I did, actually. There is no large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of the method used to transmit images from the moon to the earth.
Quote:[B](10) Do you realize that this means the scientific community does not have data to verify the authenticity of the flights that NASA claims to have made?[/B]
I don't agree that that is what this means, and again, the absence of a large and growing group of scientists protesting the 'suspicious' nature of this loss of material is an indication that there likely isn't a strong case to be made that that is what this means.
What you fail to take into account is the fact that for a hoax to work a whole bagful of data would have had to have been fabricated, from thin air, and given out to scientists for analysis upon the occasion of each Apollo mission - and from that day to this, any new collection of data would stand to expose the Apollo data as being fraudulent, because to falsify data accurately, across all the areas where data was collected on the moon missions, would be akin to winning the lottery once a week for an entire year. And that is quite unlikely.