• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
ApolloGnomon said:
Every single one of the samples must be "explained" for any "hoax landing" theory to stand.
Click to expand...

To be entirely fair, one, two, or even a dozen samples could be disputed if there was a reasonable explanation that had not been falsified.

The main problem being, of course, that Hoax Believers rarely produce falsifiable alternatives. "There might be some sort of 'radiation oven' beyond the geology most of us know" is not falsifiable, nor is "All geologists might be lying or insane."

The best they have managed so far is the Antarctic Meteorites alternative, which is falsifiable and has been so falsified; fusion crusts versus zap pits, for one.

Apollo stands largely on the preponderance of evidence. Evidence which is consistent, but perhaps more importantly, of which each little piece has so far withstood falsification.

For me, however, the reality of Apollo is a simpler question. I accept it because it is the more reasonable answer, and I reject the "alternative" offered by the Hoax Believers because it is; a) inconsistent, b) implausible, c) incorrect, and d) insane.

To accept any part of the Hoax Believer alternative is to accept not just an implausibly grand conspiracy, and to accept that somehow, magically, every piece of evidence for Apollo's reality the conspiracy theory has NOT touched upon can similarly be disposed of. No; it is to accept clearly wrong science. Usually basic, kitchen table science; the conspiracy theory variously requires me to believe that rockets can't fly, cameras have a dynamic range thousands of times that of the human eye, lines of linear perspective do not converge.......
 
Non scientists, it seems, discount or fail to understand the word "Falsify" and all it implies.

Real scientists try with all their might to falsify their own results before turning their theories over to others.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I will not disclose the name of one person whom I contacted. For obvious reasons. I would like to carry on my communications with all of them. You are free to do the same. As implied above, you'll get the same answers I did, I am sure. So have at it.
Click to expand...

Ok, name some of the others. If they are willing to talk openly 40 years out as you claim then they won't mind putting their names to it.
 
Patrick1000 said:
These reflectors most certainly were not "passive", not passive in more ways than one.
Click to expand...

You have not provided any evidence they are not passive while there is ample evidence that they are.

And what does "not passive in more ways than one" even mean.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
I will not disclose the name of one person whom I contacted.
Click to expand...


Just post the email you sent and the responses you received. Redact names where necessary.

If they were written letters, well... it sounds like this was a recent activity for you, which makes it all the more impressive that you managed to send a letter across the Pacific and receive a response in such a sort span of time, but... whatever... Scan those letters and redact names where necessary.

Having names would be nice so that we may confirm with these professors that you did indeed contact them about this topic. At the very least we can confirm that someone recently contacted them about this topic, seeing as how you're probably quite unwilling to divulge your own name. Your word isn't worth very much around here. If you believe your position to be absolutely true, you should be willing to work extremely hard to establish your credibility and expose the truth.

ApolloGnomon said:
Gee, I'm lookin' at the time and making a guess about what time zone he's in . . .
Click to expand...


I thought about doing that, but... meh...
 
Last edited:
More very uncomfortable facts.

Some additional facts. None of this comes from me, so no personal attacks please. These are quotes from the professors.

1) "NASA had a very accurate position for the lander --- good to a few ten's of feet,"

(This response was in reference to a question regarding real-time landing coordinate determination capabilities. That is, what "NASA/Houston" claimed in communication with the Lick Observatory staff was their up front accuracy capabilities while the astronauts were on the moon, well before the astronauts took off.)

2) From Professor Wampler;

"Unfortunately, I misunderstood the lander's coordinates which were relayed by telephone and not by a printed medium, such as by fax.** I thought that NASA said 00 41 50, not 00 41 15, and so at first I aimed the telescope at the wrong position."

(This is in reference to what occurred while the astronauts were still on the moon.)

3) "In addition, the software that opened a timing gate for the detector to receive the returning pulse also had a software bug and the gate was opened at completely the wrong time.** It was several days before we got our mistakes sorted out."

(Confirms why it took so long to successfully target the LRRR, timing problem. The coordinates the Lick team was given were perfectly good. Matter of fact, they were exact.)

4) "The Russians could, and did, range to the retro-reflector, but that only tied the Eurasian continent to the moon, not the American continent."

(We could get the French to range the thing from their side. The Russians had no such ally over here, on this side of the Atlantic.)
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
Non scientists, it seems, discount or fail to understand the word "Falsify" and all it implies.

Real scientists try with all their might to falsify their own results before turning their theories over to others.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You haven't met many real scientists have you?
 
Not a chance

Cl1mh4224rd said:
Just post the email you sent and the responses you received. Redact names where necessary.

If they were written letters, well... it sounds like this was a recent activity for you, which makes it all the more impressive that you managed to send a letter across the Pacific and receive a response in such a sort span of time, but... whatever... Scan those letters and redact names where necessary.

Having names would be nice so that we may confirm with these professors that you did indeed contact them about this topic. At the very least we can confirm that someone recently contacted them about this topic, seeing as how you're probably quite unwilling to divulge your own name. Your word isn't worth very much around here. If you believe your position to be absolutely true, you should be willing to work extremely hard to establish your credibility and expose the truth.




I thought about doing that, but... meh...
Click to expand...

Not a chance. Do your own research and confirm mine yourself. That is what science is all about is it not? After all, to quote one of your colleagues, you guys have been studying this for 40 years and I have been studying only 4 months. Have at it. I am going swimming.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Not a chance.
Click to expand...


What? You won't even post the emails or letters you sent and received? You just want us to take your claim of having contacted these professors on... faith? That's pretty baffling. It's as if you don't even want to be taken seriously.

Do your own research and confirm mine yourself. That is what science is all about is it not?
Click to expand...


No. That's an idiot's interpretation of "independent confirmation".

I am going swimming.
Click to expand...


While you're there, can you independently confirm a conclusion I just made up? It recently occurred to me that humans have spontaneously developed the ability to filter oxygen from water. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this—it just makes sense, after all—so I just need you to confirm that I'm correct. That's how science works, right?
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Not a chance. Do your own research and confirm mine yourself. That is what science is all about is it not? After all, to quote one of your colleagues, you guys have been studying this for 40 years and I have been studying only 4 months. Have at it. I am going swimming.
Click to expand...

You haven't presented any research. You've just made claims you don't want to back up. Since you've mentioned Wampler by name it should be a simple matter to post a screencap of the email.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Some additional facts. None of this comes from me, so no personal attacks please. These are quotes from the professors.

1) "NASA had a very accurate position for the lander --- good to a few ten's of feet,"

(This response was in reference to a question regarding real-time landing coordinate determination capabilities. That is, what "NASA/Houston" claimed in communication with the Lick Observatory staff was their up front accuracy capabilities while the astronauts were on the moon, well before the astronauts took off.)

2) From Professor Wampler;

"Unfortunately, I misunderstood the lander's coordinates which were relayed by telephone and not by a printed medium, such as by fax.** I thought that NASA said 00 41 50, not 00 41 15, and so at first I aimed the telescope at the wrong position."

(This is in reference to what occurred while the astronauts were still on the moon.)

3) "In addition, the software that opened a timing gate for the detector to receive the returning pulse also had a software bug and the gate was opened at completely the wrong time.** It was several days before we got our mistakes sorted out."

(Confirms why it took so long to successfully target the LRRR, timing problem. The coordinates the Lick team was given were perfectly good. Matter of fact, they were exact.)

4) "The Russians could, and did, range to the retro-reflector, but that only tied the Eurasian continent to the moon, not the American continent."

(We could get the French to range the thing from their side. The Russians had no such ally over here, on this side of the Atlantic.)
Click to expand...

Patrick -- those all come from you without a reputable cite.

In addition, if you are using them to advance an argument, you are standing behind them and must be therefor willing to defend them and explain them.

"I'm not a racist, but I have a friend who says the Irish are all drunks. Don't attack me...that's my friend saying that." That's exactly what you are attempting to get away with.

Patrick, I have no polite words for what you are doing here.
 
little grey rabbit said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You haven't met many real scientists have you?
Click to expand...

Well...real science often ends up short of what it would like to be. Real doctors break the Hippocratic Oath, too -- plenty of organizations fall short of their stated code. What we can say, however, is that not only is this an ideal, but that the norm falls closer to the ideal than it might otherwise.

In the severely pragmatic, though, scientists do make an effort to falsify their own results. It is a lot better to find a flaw with your experiment yourself, then to make it through peer review, publish, then get laughed in public by all your peers. Research is cutthroat enough without handing your competitors the knife yourself.

Novelty has value. You get very little credit for replicating an experiment or adding one more proof of a well-known. Come up with a unique test, though -- or better yet, find a better way of doing something...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom