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

[Romulus]

How could anyone win a scientific debate with you here?

By presenting their science maybe. Just a suggestion.

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

[JayUtah]

...unless you have intentions of altering your position...

Why should I?  You're altering it just fine on your own.

If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Given that several people have joined a fairly unanimous chorus asking you to present your evidence, I think you should do so.  The more you do that and the less you attempt to psychoanalyze your critics, the longer you'll be welcome.  I'm not sure what "other claims" you'll be discussing according to your understanding of the "scientific method," but I'm sure by now you realize that you aren't considered an expert in what that is.  That means you don't get to stack the deck by dictating what is or isn't scientific, and what methods are and are not appropriate.  Finally, I don't know what you mean by latitude in this context, but so far it seems like you're asking not to have a burden of proof.

[DD Brock]

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 explainations.

I will take you up on that generous offer. I very much wish for you to post those alternate explanations.

[JayUtah]

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

"Abide" is your word.  You were told several times that the scientific method doesn't mean what you think it means, and that it's not applicable to studying the authenticity of an event from history.  Many of us here are quite well versed in the scientific method and use it where appropriate.  You have provided no insight to the contrary.  You have simply asserted that, as a 45-year "student of history," you could easily trounce all of us with your knowledge of science and its methods.  Until you actually do, everything you've said is simply bluster.

One of the key concepts of the scientific method is the notion of falsifiability.  In discussing whether the historicity of Apollo were falsifiable, you mentioned you had strong proofs in the form of affirmative alternatives for every bit of Apollo evidence, alluding even to evidence that overt fakery occurred.  How are we to know if those disputed propositions truly are falsifiable if you refuse to show us the evidence that allegedly falsifies them?

In any case, if you had not intended to claim Apollo was faked, you probably shouldn't have.  Now that you have, you're on the hook.  You can either put up or shut up.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it.

So you're not even willing to try?

[Luke Pemberton]

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

[Romulus]

...unless you have intentions of altering your position...

Why should I?  You're altering it just fine on your own.

If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Given that several people have joined a fairly unanimous chorus asking you to present your evidence, I think you should do so.  The more you do that and the less you attempt to psychoanalyze your critics, the longer you'll be welcome.  I'm not sure what "other claims" you'll be discussing according to your understanding of the "scientific method," but I'm sure by now you realize that you aren't considered an expert in what that is.  That means you don't get to stack the deck by dictating what is or isn't scientific, and what methods are and are not appropriate.  Finally, I don't know what you mean by latitude in this context, but so far it seems like you're asking not to have a burden of proof.

You are quite the enigmatic case. Almost schizophrenic for lack of a better word. I will not allow you to reverse our roles. I believe Apollo was a hoax. You are claiming Apollo was according to the official version of events, and are therefor the one making the claim of a positive, which is provable using the scientific method. As I pointed out, one cannot prove a negative using science. I think that is why your forum is structured as it is, with the rules it has, to make it impossible to force you to prove your claims.

As an example, one of the primary reasons almost all persons who believe Apollo was a hoax cite for their doubt is radiation. We cannot prove Apollo astronauts wouldn't survive without duplicating the precise conditions, which is un-doable. We're not required to. You are the one making the claim they could survive. Prove it. That's how science works on the most basic of levels.  You claim I'm no scientist, well, prove that too. As for Apollo,  and until you prove every element of it those elements remain merely a claim and nothing more.Unless someone independently reproduces the accomplishment (this cannot and will not ever happen obviously) , the only other possible way to prove it is to prove every element using the scientific method. I will say it once more, it is not up to me as a debunker to prove a damned thing to you.

[Luke Pemberton]

As an example, one of the primary reasons almost all persons who believe Apollo was a hoax cite for their doubt is radiation.

What particular aspect of the radiation environment do you question?

[smartcooky]

Sheesh, if this keeps up, I'll be able to fill out a whole bingo card in one thread!!

[Romulus]

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

[smartcooky]

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

What confession was that then?

[Romulus]

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

What confession was that then?

Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.

[Luke Pemberton]

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

I'm sorry for your pain.

[Luke Pemberton]

Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.

Admitted what? Where?

[Romulus]

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

I'm sorry for your pain.

I just bet you are.

I will post a new thread if the request to close this one to further posting is honored. As long as it remains active, I will not post another thread. I believe it is necessary and advantageous to the interests of clarity and truth to work systematically, proving one element at a time. What I intend to prove is that NASA's claims of a manned lunar mission are a tissue of lies and fabricated evidence. I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

[Romulus]

Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.

Admitted what? Where?

Gee whiz. It is no wonder you believe in fairy tales. Read the freakin' thread for Christs sake.