I guess you can accept it though if you feel it couldn't have been faked, again, like crop circles or other hoaxes.
I never accepted crop circles. I suspended judgement on the issue since I didn't know much about it.
Just as evidence should be proven before accepting it.
No. There is no way to prove conclusively that evidence is not faked. Therefore it is illogical to presume that it isn't without evidence. In other words, you are given evidence. You accept that evidence until you have reason to believe it is dodgy. Do you have reason to believe the huge body of evidence in favour of Apollo is dodgy?
Becasue they couldn't make it when the great Kennedy said they would.
Yes but why? What was the showstopper?
Perhaps they thought to fake the 1st one and hold them over until they could get there.
Such things have been suggested and they demonstrate complete ignorance of the program on the part of the proponent. You can't just skip the testing phase and jump straight to functional missions.
This of course is merely my hypothesis based on the circumstances surrounding the issue. Am I right? Who knows? I don't even know. All I am saying is that to date I do not yet believe they landed.
Then you have suspended judgement on the issue of their landings. And yet you have held the proposition of them orbiting. Your analysis is rather strangely structured.
I would assume this would also apply to any info NASA has that is with held. Meaning that until all info is declassified, disregarding medical records or other info that would not be pertinent in proving the issue, then you cannot make a logical assessment or judgement and thus making a decisive choice in favor or against.
Anal retention. Saffy can show me a hundred photos of her on top of the Eiffel Tower. But if she refuses to show me the photo of her flashing her boobs to Paris below, I won't then claim she has provided insufficient evidence of her claim that she went to the top of the Eiffel Tower.
If your standards of proof are so stringently high, there's not much we can do. Are twenty thousand photographs not enough? Are complete transcripts of the Lunar surface stays not enough. Are hours of television and sequence footage not enough? Are scientific results published in many reports not enough? Are you really saying that all of that is insufficient but a few designs of a booster will be enough? You don't even doubt the Saturn V. It sounds like you're constantly moving the goal posts to keep the football out.
Would you propose high standards of proof to be foolish?
There are limits. You simply blissfully unaware of the enormous amount of evidence available. You haven't even specified a means by which it could all be faked. You've simply said in the abstract that someone might be able to figure it out.
Correct. I don't beleive I said they didn't. I beleive my point was that I do not beleive they did.
But if NASA won't give up all the info, how then can anyone make a proper judgement as this violates your statement?
They've given plenty of data. Are you this suspicious when your friends come round to talk about their holiday to the Caribbean?
"Yes the photos and the video is all well and good. The copy of the boarding pass and the souvenirs are fine. The sea shells and the lucious Caribbean girl you have on your arm are okay. But you still haven't shown me the in flight magazine, so I'm sorry, but I don't yet believe you were actually in the Caribbean. I'd need more evidence before making a judgement."
I don't see how medical records would be factor in proving or disproving unless they showed something like Armstrong had no legs so he couldn't have walked on the moon. What I am refering to is information that one may request to verify or backup already posted information. If they chose to not provide that info then I would reach the assessment that perhaps they were not being completely honest. Just as if you asked me where I got my source and I said, "sorry, can't say". Would you really even consider that information as viable or trustworthy then?
What evidence are they concealing then? There's plenty of information to backup what we've said. That's where we learned this stuff. Just take a browse through nasa.gov. Their history section is extensive and thorough. Plus also check out astronautix.com. We accept though that not all information will be retained or be available. We respect that ultra-heavy lift boosters are not exactly something that should be given how to build instructions over the Internet.
As to ensure I do not to post bogus or misleading info I am waiting until I get back my FOIA filings.
The Armstrong crash information you posted was bogus and misleading. True you didn't realise that and no malice was interpretted. But you should be aware we know a lot about the program and evidently more than you do. So you'd do well to listen to us rather than try to outsmart us.
I will of course post any denials as to show this program was not and never was completely open to the public as suggested in prior posts.
Nothing is completely open, particularly when dealing with super boosters. But the amount of information available to us is staggering and awe inspiring. You seem to want to interpret the slightest classification as evidence of maliciousness.
Are you saying that the astronauts and pilots that have reported such sitings during lunar missions and other missions are not credible as there are several that have made public statements about their sitings and beliefs that they were of extraterrestial nature.
If they saw a light in space, then it was obviously extra terrestrial. I am not aware of any cases where astronauts thought and firmly attached themselves to the belief that they'd seen alien spacecraft. Possibly Ed Mitchell, but he's a bit weird. I know about John Glenn's fireflies incident, but that was attributed to thruster exhaust.
Please provide more details and sources of any events of which I am unaware. This is not to demand you prove such a thing, although that's part of it, but to learn more about the event so that I might comment on it properly.
If these people's credibility is to be held in high standard and used for proof of a moon landing then I guess you have to lend them the same credibilty for these statements.
First, their testimony is only one component of a much larger body of evidence. Second, did they actually go Hoagland on us?
Yes and why, "as to leave no discretion". They won't tell you because they don't want to raise any judgements against them, which is exactly what they know that info will do. Yeah, thats' a great way to validate and prove an arguement.
There you go with the presumptions. You are interpretting classification as malicious. If the information is classified, how do you know that it contains damning evidence? For all you know, it could be Aunt Martha's Secret Recipe for Bacon Squares in toothpaste tubes. And if you've so honourably suspended judgement on this issue, where do you get off making claims like this?
But we do not need this classified data to draw our conclusion. There is already ample evidence in favour of Apollo.
You won't accept this from me so why accept it from them?
The only evidence you've provided so far has been a completely inaccurate account of an LLTV crash. NASA on the other hand have provided ample evidence. You are simply getting worked up over a few classified documents. Until we see that evidence, we cannot know if it is corroboratory or contradictory. It may contain data on city sized evacuated soundstages at 1000km from the core, but then it might contain an astronauts report on his urinal habits in flight. We cannot know and so we must use what rather abundant evidence we have to make our judgement.
You are just hung up on your friend showing that in flight magazine because all the other goodies from his holiday aren't enough.
The police often get contradicting stories from eye witnessess, just as well many eye witnessess have seen David Copperfield make elephants or mountains disappear and many others have seen ghosts, bleeding statues, demons, god and we have millions of eye witness UFO sightings. People can be decieved.
Testimony is a small brick in the wall of evidence. In personal recountings, there will never be total consistency, but if there is a large amount of consistency between astronaut testimony, it may be used.
Beleieve half of what you see and none of what you hear. Again people can be easily tricked with photos, video and audio.
A paranoid mentality. If nothing is wrong with the footage, then there is no reason not to accept it.
It is my understanding that NASA had a filter delay on the recording of converstaion. If this is true, why would it be so? Unless it was to have a chance to hide anything that they would not want to be known. Sounds like a pretty wide open project to me.
Astronauts are expected to be paragons of virtue. They shouldn't swear. But they are also test pilots and so do. After Gene Cernan's "son of a bitch" on Apollo 10, NASA was very aware of the need to add a delay to bleep out bad language. There was also a delay inherrent to processing the unusual signal.
That doesn't prove anything other than you seen a video where that looks to be the case and heard a debunking arguement and hold that to be true. Are you saying that every single piece of evidence that they present could have no way in any shape or form been faked?
But what if one minute of the hours of footage could not be faked? That would send your argument crashing down.
But it appears you've been ignoring my points. I've already said that you are not logically at liberty to dismiss evidence because you imagine that someone (you haven't even given a process yourself) would figure out how to fake it.
We don't care what
could be faked, we care about what
was faked!
Until you provide evidence it was faked, you have no argument. Saying you distrust NASA because you distrust the footage because you distrust NASA is, at a moment's thought, circular. Stop playing mind games and thought experiments and get down to the facts.
That this is completely 100% impossible to simulate? Because that does not sound very realistic. We can put a man on the moon, but it's too hard to simulate it and it make it look real.
You are bent on your ignorant notion that faking it would be easier than doing it for real. David Percy and Bart Sibrel are as well but for all their arrogance, at least they have the good manners to present a method by which it could be faked more easily than doing it for real. Even though their ideas are laughable, at least they try. It may not sound realistic to you that it would be impossible to fake, but you don't even bother to say why. How do you evacuate a city sized set? How do you build one 5000km below the surface of the planet?
And you still haven't said what your expertise is.
Please explain how you know that every single moon sample came from where they claim it came.
I've never examined a selenogical sample. But many geologists from all over the world have. Although it may be logically ideal to suspend judgement until you've seen for yourself, given that neither you or I have doctrats in geology, there is a necessity in life that we defer to the experience of experts.
They all say that the samples are indicative of material that formed in an airless, waterless environment with no protection from high energy particles or micrometeroids. That rules out Earth rocks.
But again, you depend on your paranoid mentality to give your stubbornness credibility. You doubt NASA's word because you doubt the samples, because you doubt NASA's word. Quit it with the circular arguments.
Do you believe they put landers on the moon prior to take samples?
No I do not. There is no evidence for this. The poop 'n' scoop proposals of conspiracists is not based on evidence. It is merely a feeble, conjectural way to explain away evidence that contradicts their conspiracy theory.
How do you these or other landers did not gather them? Clearly you don't.
Something gathered those samples. We can either say it was the Apollo missions or we can conceive of some hypothetical poop 'n' scoop probes, for which there is no evidence. Occam's Razor dictates we go for the former since the latter involves us indulging in conjecture. Know this: logic is not on your side!
I frankly don't know how you get through life. It must be awful for you. You have a family? You want to keep them fed. When you cash a cheque, how can you be sure the banker actually cashed it? Did you see what was on his computer screen? For all you know, he entered the money into his own account. What about when you pour out the cereal for your kids? It says Cheerios on the box, but how do you know it's really Cheerios? Were you at the Cheerio factory when they made and packaged the cereal? It could be cyanide for all you know.
There is a certain degree of trust we must use in life. We cannot live by doubting everything. We may ask questions when things don't make sense, but if it all seems okay, why complicate.
And certainly, we don't endulge in conjectural cases that simply cloud the issue. We have known, documented launches of Apollo. We have selenogical samples. It is much simpler to accept that those selenogical samples were gathered by Apollo, at least until contradictory evidence comes along. It's much better than saying something unknown happened with Apollo and some conjectural secret missions retrieved those samples instead.
And so would it be for Christians to sin as they all believe god is looking over them and knows their every move. Yet they still do. You may call it stupid, others may just say they had a lot of balls to do it.
Some doubt that god is really looking over them. Some believe god wants them to do it. Some are driven by their urges. But don't even try to say that such a conspiracy could be undertaken because James Webb woke up horny one day!
Well, its late and I'm tired and going to bed, but I would still like to know how you would feel or respond if it were to come out that it actually was faked. And please don't reply something like " I don't know, because it couldn't have been faked". That's like saying "god moves in mysterious ways"
I would obviously feel a bit gutted because I'd have to face people with a lot less maturity who would gloat. But I would take solice in knowing that my judgements were based on logic. The evidence at the time logically pointed towards authenticity. New evidence contradicts that. That's science.
Personally, I would feel relieved to know that it really happened and have no problem in saying that I used to not believe. Being right doesn't matter to me, I am merely looking for the truth and feel the need to question info that gives me doubts.
Then why are you so obstinate about accepting the huge body of evidence available to you.