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

[Luke Pemberton]

I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Science by dictatorship. If we don't agree?

[Bob B.]

The only thing you've proven, Romulus, is that you don't know when and when not the scientific method is applicable.

[JayUtah]

You are quite the enigmatic case. Almost schizophrenic for lack of a better word.

Now you're a psychiatrist?

I will not allow you to reverse our roles.

You're making an affirmative claim of fraud.  You have the burden of proof.

As I pointed out, one cannot prove a negative using science.

You don't understand what "prove a negative means."  You're not proposing or being asked to prove a negative.  You say you have alternative explanations for the evidence.  That is an affirmative claim.  The affirmative claim has a burden of proof.  An affirmative proof is not proof of a negative.  It's proof of a different positive.

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.

The body of evidence in favor of Apollo is out there and widely accepted.  That's what you're frantically trying to explain away.  When you attempt such an explanation in affirmative terms, such as you have, you have the burden of proof.

We cannot prove Apollo astronauts wouldn't survive without duplicating the precise conditions, which is un-doable.

Who is "we"?
Why is duplication the only method of testing?
Why would such a test be impossible?

Prove it.

The biomedical science surrounding Apollo is well documented, including the testing programs.  It forms the basis of quite a lot of health physics.  Your claim is simply a handwaving denial of all that.  How is that evidence?

You claim I'm no scientist, well, prove that too.

You claim you are a scientist.  I disputed that claim and gave you my reasons for disputing it.  If you claim to be a scientist, and on that basis assert that we should accept your wisdom on what proper scientific methodology should be, then you have the burden to prove that foundation.

...until you prove every element of it those elements remain merely a claim and nothing more.

The body of evidence is out there and has been for decades.  It's what the hoax theorists have been trying to explain away.  You're simply assuring us there exist conclusive rebuttals for all that evidence.  Allusions to evidence are not evidence.

Unless someone independently reproduces the accomplishment...

No, that's one of the common layman's misperceptions of what the scientific method is.  Feats in history aren't required to be reproduced in order for the first one to be considered valid.  Reproducibility in science has to do with the way an experiment is constructed with regard to controllable or uncontrollable variables.

[Luke Pemberton]

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

You typed that thread title. How can that be an admission by Jay? Where did Jay make an admission, what did he admit? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[JayUtah]

Windley admitted it.

No, I didn't.  Instead I disputed the whole framework of your accusation, as did everyone else you spoke to.  You just selectively considered that disputation as if I had agreed with you.  How desperate can you get?

[LunarOrbit]

Apollo is a claim of a scientific achievement that has never been proved by the scientific method. As a scientific claim of achievement, only honest way to approach the question is scientifically.What you or anyone else claims to believe is unimportant to me.

I'm a little behind on this thread. I was going to read through it before commenting, but then I saw the above comment and can't resist. So forgive me if twenty people have already said what I'm about to say.

Apollo is more than just a claim of achievement. It's not like NASA just announced one day that they went to the moon. There was nearly a decade of work involved leading up to the first trips to the moon (and I'm just talking about the stuff that happened after Kennedy made the goal official). There were the Gemini and early Apollo flights that tested (scientifically!) the hardware and orbital rendezvous techniques, for example. And then NASA actually went to the moon and brought back all sorts of proof to validate their claims... things like photographs, videos, moon rocks, etc.

So yes, NASA has supported their claim with more than just words.

It's your turn now. NASA has given us their proof. Where is yours? Why should I believe you instead of NASA?

[LunarOrbit]

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

I'm the moderator here, not you.

[JayUtah]

I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Do you have any mode besides browbeating?  You were unanimously taken to task on the hidden premise your question rests on, which you subsequently supported only with delusions of grandeur.  Not only have you failed to prove your point, you have failed even to show there's a point to prove.  You have frankly admitted you came here to get an "admission" of some sort, which you think you have.  No one agrees -- not even the person who allegedly gave it to you.  But if this is the excuse you need in order to resign from a debate, then so be it.

[Romulus]

Unless someone independently reproduces the accomplishment...

No, that's one of the common layman's misperceptions of what the scientific method is.  Feats in history aren't required to be reproduced in order for the first one to be considered valid.  Reproducibility in science has to do with the way an experiment is constructed with regard to controllable or uncontrollable variables.

Feats in history and scientific accomplishments may describe the same thing, but science requires a much more treasonous burden of proof. Apollo is obviously a claimed scientific accomplishment that has many elements that can each be considered a scientific experiment because that's what they are.

 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced, it doesn't just let you off the hook from having to prove them. That's some twisted logic there. It's like a prosecutor saying because the conditions that existed when the defendant murdered the victim and the gun he used cannot be precisely reproduced, I don't have to prove he's guilty.
 , As I said, you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them. I am satisfied I have achieved my objectives and we can move on, if you will allow it by closing this thread.

[Romulus]

I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Do you have any mode besides browbeating?  You were unanimously taken to task on the hidden premise your question rests on, which you subsequently supported only with delusions of grandeur.  Not only have you failed to prove your point, you have failed even to show there's a point to prove.  You have frankly admitted you came here to get an "admission" of some sort, which you think you have.  No one agrees -- not even the person who allegedly gave it to you.  But if this is the excuse you need in order to resign from a debate, then so be it.

It is my contention that it is you suffering from delusions,  both of grandeur and otherwise. You are obviously pompous and full of yourself.

[DD Brock]

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.

Hold up there, Bub. You said:

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.

You did not place any conditions at the time you posted this, and it's too late to impose conditions now.

You categorically stated that you can provide a detailed alternate possibility to "every one of those pieces of evidence." Fine. Kindly do so, here and now.

[smartcooky]

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

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

This is not a claim, its a question. It was answered with neither a confession nor a refutation. You were told that the "Scientific Method" does not apply to history. The fact that you try to apply it at all tells me you have little or no understanding of what the "Scientific Method"is

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

How can one "observe" Apollo since it all happened in the past?

How can one measure Apollo, since it all happened in the past?

How can one experiment with Apollo since it all happened in the past?

How can one formulate a hypothesis about Apollo?

How can one test Apollo?

Additionally, you actually did make another claim. When gillianren posted this

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?

You replied

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.

You claimed you can explain all these things. You have failed to do so despite being repeatedly asked.

As with all HBs who come here, you talk big, but you deliver small. You're like a chocolate soldier; you melt when the heat is applied. As soon as you run up against people who are not sycophants and who challenge you to prove your claims, you suddenly find you are out of your depth. Right now, you will be planning your escape, getting ready to back-pedal into flounce mode.

Nothing new to see here then!

[Luke Pemberton]

It is my contention that it is you suffering from delusions,  both of grandeur and otherwise. You are obviously pompous and full of yourself.

Use of pompous negates the need for the struck through words. Hope that helps.

[Romulus]

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

I'm the moderator here, not you.

Yes, you are. Add how you handle this situation will either reveal your bias and lack of integrity or not. Your rules say no ad hominems or  personal attacks and your man is using them in his attacks upon my character and honesty

[LunarOrbit]

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

I'm the moderator here, not you.

Yes, you are. Add how you handle this situation will either reveal your bias and lack of integrity or not. Your rules say no ad hominems or  personal attacks and your man is using them in his attacks upon my character and honesty

You've basically called everyone here a mindless believer and you DARE to complain when someone calls you out on your claim to be a scientist? You are on thin ice. Choose your words wisely.