Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?

[smartcooky]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

The over whelming evidence is that the Apollo programme took place as claimed and the 12 American astronauts walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

1. Almost 500,000 people from numerous countries (and many in other countries) took part in the development of the spacecraft and its systems, the launching and the tracking of the spacecraft and their safe return to earth

2. Millions of people saw the launches both on TV and live and in person at the Cape. Several amateur radio operators actually tracked the Apollo spacecraft privately, and listened to the men who walked on the moon on their own radio equipment.

3. Scientists at Jodrell Bank in England actually tracked the Lunar Modules as they approached and landed on the lunar surface. In the case of Apollo 11, they were even able to tell when Armstrong took control of the LM and stopped descending when he started to look for an alternative landing site.

4. Anyone who claims to have been involved in scientific debates nearly their entire life, and who claims any scientific understanding at all will realise that the lunar surface video could not possibly have been faked on Earth in a 1G environment by merely running video in slow motion. Such things as falling objects and dust kicked up by both the astronaut's activities and the wheels of the lunar rovers was NOT acting as though it were in a 1G environment with air, but was acting as if it were in a low G environment in a vacuum. This was impossible to fake in the 1960s and 1970, and it is still impossible to do now without the use of very sophisticated CGI software that simply was not available in 1969.

5. Scientists from all over the world, including those from Cold War enemy countries who had every reason to pour scorn on the USA, confirmed that the rocks the missions brought back could only have come from the Lunar surface.

6. The Apollo Programme was the most massively, minutely and intricately documented scientific endeavour of all time. That documentation, from first principles through, engineering and electronic schematics, drawings and diagrams, photographs, journals, film and video, all the way to the scientific results, is all available to anyone who wants it. NONE OF THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE HAND WAVED AWAY, which its what idiots like Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing have tried, and failed, to do.

Those who undertook the Apollo missions can account for the entire process in a coherent, moment by moment account, in detail. Every part of the Apollo program ties in with every other part. They can say how it was done. Meanwhile, NOT ONE of the Hoax proponents has ever been able to put together a coherent time line and description of how every stage of the programme was fakes. They always come up with easily debunkable half-truths and "unique" interpretations of the science involved.

Either

a: the Apollo landings took place as claimed. or

b: half a million people of various nationalities world wide, including many of the world's leading scientists and engineers, have been involved in a massive, ongoing global conspiracy for the last 45 years, and NOT ONE OF THEM has eve come forward. and if somehow, some people managed to overcome the impossibility of faking the video of the lunar surface, NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED has spilled the beans.

I know which one I find hardest to believe

[Romulus]

Jay, you made the claim you didn't try to paint people as nuts because they question your narrative of reality as it relates to NASA and it's claims, and in the same post made the claim that people that do are suffering from some psychological abnormality. There seems to be a pattern developing here.

Do you know what it is?

[Romulus]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

I know which one I find hardest to believe

Please pardon me for editing the content of you post. i read it, I just did so because I do not feel the need to answer every point. None of what you posted is scientific proof because either it cannot be independently duplicated and confirmed, or alternate explanations can be offered, or both. The burden of proving these things is on you. It is not on me to prove that I do not accept them as proof. I have answered every single one of these claims in great detail in the past and they do not prove a manned landing..

[smartcooky]

What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

Then explain them, every single one of them, in detail (to at least the same level of detail as is contained in the Apollo record) exactly how they were faked.

[JayUtah]

Apollo is a claim of a scientific achievement...

Asked and answered.  You simply applying the label "scientific achievement" doesn't magically invoke the scientific method.

I suggest that if you are as well informed as you claim to be then you must have serious doubts about the validity of your position.

I have no such doubts.  The argument you're trying has been tried many times before.

Correct. So why do you wish to ignore the scientific method, claiming it is invalid for judging the Apollo moonlandings?

Because it is unsuitable for that purpose.

I am satisfied to get you to admit that you willfully ignore the scientific method relying primarily on the bandwagon fallacy to prove your beliefs.

I have made no such admission.

I do not "willfully ignore the scientific method."  Instead, I know what it is, where it applies, and how and when properly to apply it.  You've presented no argument to the contrary, except to play word games.  The scientific method does not apply to the question of whether an event in history occurred as advertised or was faked.

I do not rely on the "bandwagon fallacy," which term you're misapplying here anyway.  I rely on a substantial knowledge of the facts and the fields from which they derive.  My belief is based on having tested many hoax theories and having found none of them to be even the least tenable according to the facts.  You concede that the unanimity of similarly informed people arrive at the same conclusion.  You insinuate that these people are somehow derelict or dissuaded in their duty to question their knowledge, but you provide only your vigorous assertion of this as proof.

It is rather telling that your purpose here seems to have been to "get people to admit" things, most of which are words you're trying to cram in their mouths.

All of which can be explained without the necessity of an actual successful manned moonlanding.

According to whom?  In more than 15 years of vigorously searching and studying these theories, I have yet to find one that offers anything beyond idle speculation.

Because they don't?

How do you know they haven't questioned it and arrived at the conclusion that Apollo was authentic?

Conspiracy theorists always beg the question of their own credibility and the foundation of their claims.  You have to realize that outside the small circle of such theories, the claims themselves are often patently laughable.  If you want to know why qualified scientists haven't vocally expressed the possibility that just maybe the conspiracy theorists have a point, it's because it's obvious they don't.

Claims involving scientific achievements require the sceintific method to prove of disprove, and you are obviously unwilling to do so.

I'm unwilling to have terms and definitions foisted upon me and to be browbeaten to accept them.  Don't confuse that with a willingness and ability to talk about the evidence that pertains to Apollo.

...have no basis of reality, just like your own beliefs about Apollo.

Well, you said you were going to let the debate play out before you drew a conclusion about "what I am."  But here's the second time you have clearly already made up your mind.  Since your mind was obviously made up before you got here, can you tell any of us why we should waste any more time talking to you?

[Romulus]

I would like to state for the record that I am not here on this forum to do the impossible and prove a negative. Science does not and cannot succeed to accomplish anything in that manner.

The reason I am here is to prove that a dishonest method is being employed to defend what i believe is a false claim.  I am as I said a scientist, I have earned that title by being a student of science for 45 years and I believe I have a base of knowledge that is at least comparable to anyone here and can back up that claim, as will become evident. I would pit my scientific aptitude , knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions. Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy, we all have them and they all stink.

[Luke Pemberton]

Jay obsession alert!!!

[JayUtah]

Jay, you made the claim you didn't try to paint people as nuts because they question your narrative of reality as it relates to NASA and it's claims, and in the same post made the claim that people that do are suffering from some psychological abnormality.

I made no such claim.  I said that psychologists are aware of what motivates people to take up strongly opposed minority positions.  I said nothing about an "abnormality" or anything of the kind.

There seems to be a pattern developing here.

Yes, there is a pattern of you desperately misrepresenting what other people have said.

[JayUtah]

By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

No.  In fact, let met state it more emphatically.

You are not a scientist.

If you feel it is an ad hominem statement, then report it to the moderator.  But of course it is no such thing.  It is a disputation of your claims to expertise.  You arrived here proposing to school everyone on what it meant to investigate something properly according to the "scientific method," and to establish your ability to do so you have now twice claimed to be a scientist.  Stating the foundation for an allegedly expert judgment is a fair argument, and attacking that foundation -- if it is suspected to be shaky -- is fair comment.

[Romulus]

What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

Then explain them, every single one of them, in detail (to at least the same level of detail as is contained in the Apollo record) exactly how they were faked.

As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings. I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it. Much of the information came from people just like yourself, who were trying to  validate their beliefs, and I do appreciate that. Where I can, I will give you the credit you deserve..

My sole reason for posting this particular thread to this particular forum was to get what I already have, an admission that NASA's dedicated proponents do not wish to and refuse to use the scientific method to prove their claim. These pages have been recorded as screenshots complete with verifiable proof they are unedited and as they appeared here on your forum.

[Romulus]

Jay, you made the claim you didn't try to paint people as nuts because they question your narrative of reality as it relates to NASA and it's claims, and in the same post made the claim that people that do are suffering from some psychological abnormality.

I made no such claim.  I said that psychologists are aware of what motivates people to take up strongly opposed minority positions.  I said nothing about an "abnormality" or anything of the kind.

And what is it that  motivates people to take up strongly opposed minority positions, as you characterize them?

[Luke Pemberton]

I would pit my scientific aptitude , knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions/

So you get to decide the ground rules and arbitrarily decide when others have opinions. That sounds like the rules for moving the goalposts already.

Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy, we all have them and they all stink.

I wash mine regularly thanks.

[smartcooky]

Actually folks, when it comes down to tin tack, Apollo is not a scientific achievement, it was an engineering achievement, with scientific spinoffs and benefits (ALSEP, LLR the return of lunar rocks etc)

The Scientific Method i.e. systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses, does not apply to engineering

[Romulus]

No.  In fact, let met state it more emphatically.

You are not a scientist.

I believe enough about your character, integrity and tactics have already been revealed to conclude you are not only not a scientist, but are nothing more or less than a character assassin without the courage to engage in a fair fight. I don't mind several against one, I have always been of the opinion that several inferior minds cannot defeat one superior one in an intellectual exercise. But then this isn't an intellectual exercise, is it Mr.Windley?.

[JayUtah]

I would like to state for the record that I am not here on this forum to do the impossible and prove a negative.

No, you're quite clearly here to engage in some fairly predicable rhetorical games such as shifting the burden of proof and stuffing words into your critics' mouths.  I have a few times now invited you to present the actual evidence you say is so strong and presumably establishes some hoax scenario, as you claim, to a commensurate level as the conventional narrative.  But you have done nothing toward that end, and wallow in silly debate tricks that fool no one.

The reason I am here is to prove that a dishonest method is being employed to defend what i believe is a false claim.

Your attempts to show that it's dishonest rely solely on your private definitions.  If your belief that Apollo missions constitute a false claim relies on affirmatively explaining away by other scenarios the evidence that many accept as evidence of its authenticity, then you have the burden of proof.

I am as I said a scientist, I have earned that title by being a student of science for 45 years...

One earns the title by means of a series of adjudicated events, beginning with academic study and followed by substantial work in the field, often including publication in peer-reviewed journals on applicable subjects.

What exactly did you do to "earn" your title?

I believe I have a base of knowledge that is at least comparable to anyone here and can back up that claim, as will become evident.

It's already evident.  You intend to browbeat everyone to accept your contrived standard of proof.  And I daresay you don't know anything about the people here or what their skills are.  Yet you've already written them off as merely having blind faith.

I would pit my scientific aptitude, knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions.

I choose to measure it in academic degrees in relevant fields from accredited universities followed by substantial professional-level practice in the relevant fields.  How do you measure up in that way?