Radiation

[timfinch]

I am not fixed in my position.  If any of you could give me a plausible reason for the unusually low mission dosages, I will discard my position and assume a new one.

You've been given a reason.  You just don't like it, because it means you have to abandon your fantasy of being a "discerning" person who doesn't need to actually know what he's talking about.

Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it.  Tell it to me once again.  You have my undivided attention.

[JayUtah]

I am of the mind that if I could definitively prove that the apollo missions never left ELO it is entirely unnecessary to prove that the landing was faked as it goes without reason that it had to be.  Is it really necessary to know how the magician does a trick if you can prove that it is a trick?

This is just a tautology:  "If I could prove my point, I will have proven my point."  I'm not talking about that fantasy, but the actual situation in which you find yourself now.  You haven't proven the spacecraft never left LEO.  You concluded that's what "had" to be the case because one thing you looked at didn't meet your expectation.  Then on the basis of that, you conclude that all the rest of the evidence "had" to be faked somehow, even if you don't know whether that's a reasonable claim.  It's an unconvincing argument because it's just one indirection after another.  Convincing arguments are able to explain all the relevant evidence.

[JayUtah]

Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it.  Tell it to me once again.  You have my undivided attention.

Your interpretation of the radiation information is simplistic and misses important details.

[timfinch]

Maybe in my zeal to express my opinion, I missed it.  Tell it to me once again.  You have my undivided attention.

Your interpretation of the radiation information is simplistic and misses important details.

Details such as?

[JayUtah]

Details such as?

I feel we've covered this at length.  I mention things like different particle species and in response you simply repeat your entrenched simplifications.  You keep responding with "the bottom line is..." or "the key concept is..." and thereby pull the discussion back to your oversimplified understanding.

[timfinch]

I feel we've covered this at length.  I mention things like different particle species and in response you simply repeat your entrenched simplifications.  You keep responding with "the bottom line is..." or "the key concept is..." and thereby pull the discussion back to your oversimplified understanding.
[/quote]

That is a definite shortcoming of mine, the need to simplify.  When there is simplicity there is clarity.

[JayUtah]

When there is simplicity there is clarity.

But not necessarily truth,

[timfinch]

How about this and who can argue with Einstein?

[JayUtah]

How about this and who can argue with Einstein?

I will happily disagree with Einstein on the many things he got wrong.  Being one of the first "celebrity" scientists, he was often asked to comment on things that had nothing to do with physics.  Needing funding and attention for his later research, he was happy to court the celebrity until he noticed what it was doing to his reputation.  In this case, however, this is one of many quotes attributed to Einstein that, in fact, he never said.

As to the substance of the quote, admonitions against unnecessarily complexity are sound.  That is not an excuse to oversimplify, especially when your simplification leads to a conclusion that differs entirely from that reached by people who are able to incorporate the necessary amount of complexity.  Simplicity is not an overriding virtue.

[bknight]

No amount of information and truth can overcome faith.  If your faith is in what you have been told then you can never see beyond it.  You cannot learn if you already know.  It is when you start with an empty bucket that you can fill it the most.  Be that empty bucket.

Personally I have no faith that Apollo landed 6 crews on the Moon, I know it from the data that is freely available.

[smartcooky]

How about this and who can argue with Einstein?

I can quote Einstein too...

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience"

Which means Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

[timfinch]

No amount of information and truth can overcome faith.  If your faith is in what you have been told then you can never see beyond it.  You cannot learn if you already know.  It is when you start with an empty bucket that you can fill it the most.  Be that empty bucket.

Personally I have no faith that Apollo landed 6 crews on the Moon, I know it from the data that is freely available.

I am a fan of the man.

[gillianren]

It's worth noting that the quote in question is dubiously sourced and might not have actually been said by Einstein.  So there's that.

But I am of the opinion that, if you don't have a full explanation of how everything was faked, it's simpler to assume that you just don't understand the thing that you do think was faked.  As it happens, I'm another one of those people with some knowledge of film, and it's literally impossible to fake the Apollo footage in live action.  I don't just mean the stuff on the Moon, either.  You may be thinking of Apollo 13 and how well director Ron Howard managed to make the scenes in space by filming on the Vomit Comet.  And that's certainly true.  But you will also notice, I'm sure, that those takes are short, or else spliced, because it simply wasn't possible to do takes as long as the footage from the Apollo missions in orbit.

Further, the worst footage as far as accuracy is the fantasy about walking on the Moon.  Because we to this day don't have the technology to fake all that properly without doing enormous amounts of it in CGI.  We can't get the gravity and the vacuum right.  We can't do it now; they couldn't do it in 1969.  And since that footage is impossible to fake, it must therefore logically be real.  And if the footage is real, you must be misunderstanding the thing that convinces you the missions were faked.

[timfinch]

It's worth noting that the quote in question is dubiously sourced and might not have actually been said by Einstein.  So there's that.

But I am of the opinion that, if you don't have a full explanation of how everything was faked, it's simpler to assume that you just don't understand the thing that you do think was faked.  As it happens, I'm another one of those people with some knowledge of film, and it's literally impossible to fake the Apollo footage in live action.  I don't just mean the stuff on the Moon, either.  You may be thinking of Apollo 13 and how well director Ron Howard managed to make the scenes in space by filming on the Vomit Comet.  And that's certainly true.  But you will also notice, I'm sure, that those takes are short, or else spliced, because it simply wasn't possible to do takes as long as the footage from the Apollo missions in orbit.

Further, the worst footage as far as accuracy is the fantasy about walking on the Moon.  Because we to this day don't have the technology to fake all that properly without doing enormous amounts of it in CGI.  We can't get the gravity and the vacuum right.  We can't do it now; they couldn't do it in 1969.  And since that footage is impossible to fake, it must therefore logically be real.  And if the footage is real, you must be misunderstanding the thing that convinces you the missions were faked.

I curious.  Without something to compare it to how can you be sure it depicts reality?  They could show us anything that we have never seen and call it real and who are we to say it is or isn't?

[timfinch]

I have a question for the group.  Look at the planned path of the Orion on its scheduled moon mission.  Why do you believe this is not he same path all the Apollo missions took and if it isn't why isn't it?