nickc - exactly. It is a shame as Kryton and others are not in any way racist, but have been sucked into the web which helps perpetuate this.
tjagain- no issue.
Kryton
No-one else is making unsupported assertions.
Its up to you to prove what you say.
It is no-one elses responsibility to disprove your notion.
That doesn't make both sides equal.
Am I being unclear?
For clarity, read this https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russel l's_Teapot
"Russell's Teapot draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works."
If you read that carefully, you may not be any the wiser but you will at least be better informed.
Its not that mad .. I think some of the pictures were a bit too good..
Agree, along with your thinking behind it - It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine US producing some fake photo's. This then leads to the naysayers saying the whole thing was faked as the photos don't hold up to scrutiny.
I still don't get the OPs original link between being able to fully understand how you could get to the moon leading to you then not thinking it was faked. 2 completely different things.
eat the pudding:
that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
There's no proof that Aliens influence our development or have been present on earth, so in context the lack of such evidence is evidence in itself they didn't do either.
I get that. But the opposite is also true - see Nickc's post about Pyramids:
what is it that makes you question the evidence that these structures were built by ancient humans
Irrefutable evidence and therefore the existents of doubt, vis a vis that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I also can't believe it now implied I'm a racist based on these thoughts, only in STW..!
I also can’t believe it now implied I’m a racist based on these thoughts
Kryton, I don't think for a second that you're racist, please accept my unreserved apologies if that's what my post implied, that wasn't my intent at all.
There is absolute proof that all the types of ancient structures that have the mill stone of "Alien worship/help/building" hung around their necks were designed created by ancient indigenous human cultures. Again, think why it is that no-one thinks the English didn't build any number of Castles, but structures that are concurrent with that, (the beginning of Angkor Wat for example) still have a whiff of Eric Von Danikan about them?
And it's repeated, The Nazca lines, Inca Temples...any number of Meso-Mexican temples...and on and on.
Neither has anyone else provided evidence against my theory in this discussion, so yes a status quo.
Theory? You mean "what I reckon" don't you?
Anyway, we are arguing in pointless circles, lets not continue.
Before we move on to other things I'd like to add my name to 'you're talking mince' camp.
Yeah the Colliseum was just hard working Romans - although it wasn't built in a day
But Machu Picchu and Teotihuacan needed friendly aliens
Kryton
Still no evidence to back up your notion then.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Neither has anyone else provided evidence against my theory in this discussion, so yes a status quo.
I'm sure someone upthread has said this already but...
What you're doing is known as shifting the burden of proof and it's a fallacious argument form. If you make an outlandish claim it's up to you to supply evidence of it, not up to me to refute it.
I'm not going to get pulled into implied insults or derogatory comments, its been interesting, thanks Nickc mostly as there's some direction to some interesting reading for me, but - I'm out. 🙂
As an aside, I don’t really want this to be about me, marginally suspicious that the three of you played the man not the ball there. A bit of an uncharitable undertone like “with that in mind”, are you trying to make assertions about my character?
5plusn8. I very sorry if I have come across that way - I have no intent to make any negative assertions on you character. No undertone or overtone of that nature was meant. Please accept my apologies.
I (Understandably, I believe.) inferred that you were questioning the presence of critical thought in non-science or engineering degrees. That I would disagree with. That is all - nothing else and certainly not questioning your grammar.
Or perhaps soften your response . It’s aggressive, yet you have no counter.
It was not meant to be agressive, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
As for a counter, well, you're right, I don't have one. Because it's not possible to have one. This is a lazy way of trying to give credence to random beliefs because it's impossible to disprove a negative. It's Russell's Teapot, or if you like, the majority of god-based religions.
I can say with a degree of confidence that there's no such thing as god. The theists go "prove it" and I can't, because it's not possible. It will only ever possible to prove them right, by finding some form of evidence to substantiate their belief. The fact that over millennia not a single shred of evidence has come to light to support this idea coupled with Occam's Razor leads me to conclude that our modern notion of "god" is likely beyond reasonable doubt in my mind to be a man-made construct. But I can't prove it.
Which leads us nicely to a thing called Burden of Proof. See, I don't have to prove anything. If you're making wild claims about alien technology (or god) then it's your responsibility to put forward supporting evidence to back up your claims if you want them to be taken seriously. If you can show us something that proves what you're saying then I'll believe you (and you'll also be very, very rich). If all you've got is tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories then I'll cheerfully dismiss them as mince, or some other less-aggressive term for "nonsense" if you prefer.
Cougar, this is the point about science, and the philosophy of science that many non scientists (and scientists it has to be said) do not get. Science is never right, any theory backed up by evidence and experiment just has the best explanation until better evidence comes along.
Things like Newtonian Physics, (I know you know this anyway) without some serious equipment it is hard to find flaws in Newtonian Physics, it is demonstrably correct in 99.99999% of everyday observable situations, but we know that in theory it is wrong and everything is controlled by Quantum Physics. So it is equally feasible that at some point in the future Quantum physics will be wrong and we will have a greater theory (Hawkin was heading that way anyway) .
and everything is controlled by Quantum Physics.
Well Quantum Physics in combination with General Relativity - which is the the theory that explains some of the slight observational flaws in Newtonian Mechanics - the orbital precession of Mercury being the most commonly cited example.
So it is equally feasible that at some point in the future Quantum physics will be wrong
We actually already know its wrong or rather that its at least incomplete - it doesn't incorporate gravity at all. Likewise General Relativity doesn't work at quantum scales
Richard Feynman once said that science was "a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance". Science just gets on with the job of being less "wrong" I don't think its ever trying to be completely "right"
Another innovation of the Pegasus engine was that the Low pressure spool and high pressure spools of the engine contra-rotated, this canceled out any rotational forces from the rotating parts of the engine and negated the need for any sort of tail rotor type of mechanism to counter the gyroscopic reaction forces of the engine when manoeuvring in the hover.
Interesting stuff. I grew up at Wittering when 1 squadron were flying Harriers from there and I didn't know that.
Yeah I defer to your physics knoweldge, mine is ummm ad hoc at that level, I'm happy working with newtonian for my everyday life. When you want to make sense of it all, look up Feynman.
Yeah I defer to your physics knoweldge, mine is ummm ad hoc at that level, I’m happy working with newtonian for my everyday life.
So was I as a Civil Engineer. Physics is less wrong than most other options.
You’re asking the same questions over and over from a basis of incorrect assumptions and then ignoring the explanations that myself and many others have given you. If you didn’t learn “one of these things is not like the others” from Sesame Street then it’s difficult to know what else to tell you.
I have a vague recollection of another member who did exactly the same thing on almost identical subjects...
Its not that mad .. I think some of the pictures were a bit too good..
Compared to what? The transmitted film was pretty poor, but that was stretching the limits of the technology back then. The stills, on the other hand, were taken with Hasselblad medium format 6x6 cameras, which is as good as stills film gets. The cameras are still on the moon, worth a fortune to collectors...
Digital scans of the original negatives are on-line, and show amazing detail that was lost when the prints were made and copies made of those.
Some ace pics here and one amusing one:
Befoer you get carried away go get your convex ski goggles and hava look at the the refection of you nearest and dearest in them.
It’s a shame that links to the Express (news)paper.
Can we have a proper link to someone who can string a sentence together without some “outrage” and “it’s all immigrants taking your jobs y’no” please, ta.
I have a vague recollection of another member who did exactly the same thing on almost identical subjects…
Oh? Who's that then?
-------------------------------------------------
When I said
I totally disagree with this hence my theory requiring science education. Arts and social “science” require no understanding of logic and proof, they do logic, but many don’t get it.
-------------------------------------------------
how did you arrive at such a generalisation?
doesnt seem very scientific or logical.
did you make some kind of careful, detailed observations?
i was never a 'faker', but the problem in the mainstream media was that no valid argument was presented against the 'van-allen' belt radiation danger.
this created such an impasse for joe public that all the rest of the 'evidence' against the moon landings started to look plausible.
it was only recently that someone on YouTube piped up with "different kind of radiation"
aaaaah! if only someone had raised that forty years ago:)
but knowledge of radiation seems like a fairly specialised branch of science, so it's hard to determine if an unscientific background makes you gullible.
the real question is why NASA air-brushed a lot of their photographs of the moon. Spooky!!!
the real question is why NASA air-brushed a lot of their photographs of the moon. Spooky!!!
Proof, please. Direct digital high-resolution scans of the original negatives brought back by the astronauts are available on-line. I’ve seen quite a few of the photos of the lunar landings, I’ve done airbrush re-touching of photos and Photoshop retouching, and airbrush work, on photos of the sort NASA have would be very noticeable. I’ve never heard of anyone, outside of the conspiracy cults, talk about re-touched lunar photos.
Oh? Who’s that then?
Honestly? I truly cannot remember, I have a notoriously poor memory for names, which has proved awkward when it was my sister-in-law’s name I forgot one day. When I was round her and my brother’s house... 😱
Moon pics were retouched but not to con people:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5938190/why-its-so-hard-to-find-photos-of-neil-armstrong-on-the-moon
're-touching' of moon photos...documentary on netflix...probably 'redacted' by now, lol.
tho, I think that the problem with the whole moon hoax debate was that each sides arguments weren't very well articulated from the start*
And nasa kind of dropped the ball by not publishing a bestselling book in the 1970's, denouncing the hoaxers.
apart from the van-Allen stuff, most of the rest of the arguments were concerned with a basic understanding of photography (where are the stars?)
*as they appeared in popular culture.
Honestly? I truly cannot remember,
'They' must be on to you
i was never a ‘faker’, but the problem in the mainstream media was that no valid argument was presented against the ‘van-allen’ belt radiation danger.
I tohught this had been done so many times it was completely debunked?
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-3
https://gizmodo.com/van-allen-belt-mystery-solved-with-student-built-satell-1821252545
Compared to what? The transmitted film was pretty poor, but that was stretching the limits of the technology back then. The stills, on the other hand, were taken with Hasselblad medium format 6×6 cameras, which is as good as stills film gets. The cameras are still on the moon, worth a fortune to collectors…
Its not the quality it’s the fact that they didn’t have viewfinders and some of the iconic ones are just so good.
I’m not really arguing they’re fake btw or the landings but the USA really needed good pics and sometimes strange things happen when people need a win.
Cheers for the heads up that the originals are online I’m gonna have a gander.
‘They’ must be on to you
🤣 It’s only names I really have problems with.
re: the lunar photos, it was a while ago there was a feature about them I read via Flipboard, and looking at them on my pad I’m pretty sure you can see some stars, but only the very brightest, for very good reasons that it’s a bit difficult to explain, and the conspiracy nuts can’t, or won’t, understand.
Just did a quick google, and there’s 8400 on Flickr:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9442951/nasa-apollo-moon-mission-photos-flickr
A bit more background:
https://www.space.com/30791-nasa-apollo-moon-photos-online.html
