Did man land on the moon?

[khazadman]

gabriel you would also have to have the ground control crew in on it.and i think the idea of threats to their lives is a crock.remember when it was discovered that the government was conducting radiation experiments in the hospitals?that is far more damning in my eyes than a faked moon landing.but they would put more effort into lieing about the landing?naaah!

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


This is known in the trade as 'Ockham's Razor'

---

Hate to nitpick, but I believe that it's Occam's Razor, or at least that's what I've seen it spelled as.

[NobleNick]

Hmm... I feel that I shouldn't even waste the time. Whoever started this string must have just been trying to waste peoples' time; but... Oh, well...

First fact: Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people were involved with the space program.

Second fact: Three men can keep a secret... IF two of them are dead!

Third fact: There was a rod holding out the flag, from the top, so that it would look like it was flapping in the breeze. (I watched them set it up.)

Fourth fact: Scientists were astounded at how little moon dust there was. If the dust had been on the order of thousands of feet deep (as they expected), instead of on the order of about an inch deep, the lander would have kicked up enough dust to make a nice pit.

Fifth fact: Virtually the entire human population from the entire industrialized world, including tens of millions of sceptics, watched the low (1/6 G) gravity antics and problems our astronauts encountered on the moon: A show that would be very, VERY hard to duplicate in a 1 G (earth) or 0 G (space) environment.

sixth fact: The U.S.S.R. and China (among others) did have the capability of E/M and visual monitoring of our moon shot, and either country would have gleefully and immediately exposed a hoax, had there been one. (No, please, don't even think of trying to tell me that they were in on it, too. At that time in history, both countries would much rather have nuked us back to the stone age than help us perpetuate a lie that made them look technologically inferior.)

Seventh fact: Do you see stars in daylight on Earth? Sometimes yes, but typically not. Are they just as bright in daylight as they are at night? Yes, roughly the same amount of energy reaches the Earth's surface. Are the stars brighter at the moon's surface than at the Earth's? Yes, more star light (energy) reaches the Moon's surface than reaches the Earth's. How much brighter are the stars as seen from the Moon? About the same amount brighter as the sun appears brighter. Without an atmosphere, lighting at the perpetually-in-daylight landing zone on the Moon was much more intense and high contrast than on Earth. Just like your eyes, cameras must adjust to high light conditions by narrowing the aperature that the light comes through. This compensation makes faint light sources (like stars) invisible.

If you really want a conspiracy theory, go back and carefully inspect fact four. At the current rates of dust accumulation on the moon, it appears to be thousands of years old (vs. the hundreds of millions of years old required by the theory of evolution). Everyone knows Armstong's first words as he stepped onto the moon's surface. Does anyone know what his next words were? It went something like this: (Tone of surprise) "It's firm!" Quite an embarrassment to the evolutionary biologist community; but somehow you don't hear much about it.

[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: NobleNick ]

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


Hate to nitpick, but I believe that it's Occam's Razor, or at least that's what I've seen it spelled as.

---

Never nitpick a nitpicker Neb. I have seen it spelt both ways.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'

In other words if there a number of possible answers it will usually be the simplest answer that is true. So if it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks then it probably is a dog rather than a cat genetically altered to resemble a dog.

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:
Never nitpick a nitpicker Neb. I have seen it spelt both ways.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'

In other words if there a number of possible answers it will usually be the simplest answer that is true. So if it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks then it probably is a dog rather than a cat genetically altered to resemble a dog.

---

Try reading the book "Permutation City", it's a pretty nice sci-fi-ish book which has a lot of it's plot based on Occam's Razor.

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SecretMaster:
Thanx Evil Al for defending me. Yes the light is another factor i forgot. And Lord shield, no offense but you were kinda wacky.

---

Pot, Kettle , Black.

You have some strange ideas SecretMaster but you haven't given us any facts to back your theories up.

[norompanlasolas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:
Never nitpick a nitpicker Neb. I have seen it spelt both ways.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'

In other words if there a number of possible answers it will usually be the simplest answer that is true. So if it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks then it probably is a dog rather than a cat genetically altered to resemble a dog.

---

now i see it! donut is part of a worlwide conspiracy to cover the fact that all dogs are genetically altered cats!!!

[Epona]

Mate, I hate to sound negative, but if you believe everything you see on Bravo channel you must be really gullible. You don't honestly believe that they have any factual programming, surely???

[Azred]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grojlach:
In highschool, I had a teacher for music lessons who was convinced that Paul McCartney died 30 years ago in a car crash... Back then, he showed us a complete conspiracy theory, including the disappearance of the winner of a Paul McCartney look-a-like contest and symbolism in their LP covers... I was only 13 back then, so we were gullible enough to believe it. But I've come to realize soon enough how ridiculous the entire conspiracy would have been, that very same evening when I tried to convince my dad of McCartney's death.

---

But Paul did die! So many song lyrics prove it! Just listen to them! [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NobleNick:
Second fact: Three men can keep a secret... IF two of them are dead!

---

How about this one? A friend is someone who helps you move; a real friend is someone who helps you move a body.

[ 02-28-2002: Message edited by: Azred ]

Okay, I'll behave this time [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick is right, though. What on Earth is the POINT of this so-called conspiracy? I even read one that suggested we were spacebound about 2 decades BEFORE the moon landing

All those fancy tenchiques to trick evveryone for what?

sorry, but until I see proper evidence (and not circumstantial guessing) I shall not care one way or the other if it's a hoax