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

[JayUtah]

I have no problem conceding that Armstrong was more private than the other astronauts.  As a matter of fact, all the crews hated the press junkets and public appearances.  But Armstrong did not enjoy the intense publicity, and never did.  But to attribute this to some supposed shame over faked Apollo missions is purely conjectural.  Most conspiracy theorists obsess over Armstrong, as if he were some sort of proxy for all the astronauts, or conversely, the only astronaut that mattered.  Having identified in him a salient personality trait, they simply build a house of speculation upon it.

Romulus has asserted that the contributions to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal attributed to Armstrong are instead fabricated.  That's his burden of proof.  His skepticism on this point his selective.  He doesn't question the authenticity of the quotes he wants to interpret as confessions.  Those are presumed authentic.  Nor has he provided any proof that ALSJ fabricated the Armstrong quotes -- it's simply what he needs to be true in order for his beliefs to hold.

Most people are surprised that an astronaut would resign from NASA.  As a senior astronaut, Armstrong had flown in space many times, including in the X-15 before joining NASA.  While the Apollo missions have more historical gravitas and more notoriety, Armstrong mentioned he preferred the X-15.  More importantly, as a highly recognizable astronaut, it is highly unlikely Armstrong would have been assigned another flight after Apollo 11.  His resignation from NASA is not as suspicious as it seems when all the factors are considered.  In the general case, being an astronaut is strenuous work that most men did not want to do for long periods.  Early astronautics took its toll on marriages and friendships.  NASA now has a policy allowing families to watch their astronauts train, hoping to extend the time an astronaut is willing to make that degree of commitment.

[onebigmonkey]

When I started my analysis of Apollo images of Earth I set about it by gathering all the evidence, looking for all possible explanations for the images, using logical processes to eliminate possibilities and to come to reasonable conclusions that are supported by the evidence. I referenced all my sources and made sure everything tied together. My work is out there for anyone to challenge and to use the same data and sources to provide alternative explanations for the fact that every image of Earth taken by Apollo contains time and date specific meteorological data that is perfectly matched by at least one, and occasionally 3, other sources of data. These data also tie in with different secondary sources of information, such as TV broadcasts and mission transcripts.

What part of that was not following a scientific process? What standard of proof have I not met?

Here's another thing. Although I have a science degree and PhD, I don't actually have to follow that scientific process, because my work is not a science project. There's nothing that says I have to.

I am not acting as a scientist. I am not up for peer review.  I am not proving a hypothesis. I am not even providing results to a funding body. I am demonstrating that the historical record is accurate, and it is. I am defending the integrity of people involved in the process, many of whom are still alive, against the accusations of morons and fraudsters. I am doing this not to follow some paradigm, but because it is important to defend the truth against liars.

The people who have analysed the data from the seismic probes, or any other aspect of the ALSEP data, or the rock samples - those are the people that need to follow the scientific method and their work is publicly available for others to verify or discount as appropriate. I have several volumes of conference proceedings where that has happened.

I've seen this disingenuous approach before, and sooner or later it will boil down to "all the data come form NASA, and NASA tells lies" with a healthy dose of "no one else has replicated the process therefore it is suspect". It's just a verbose JAQ-ing off.

If the OP is merely indulging in philosophical point scoring about the nature of debate then good luck, it's not a debate I give a **** about. If he wants to claim Apollo didn't happen and we are all wrong because our proof is inadequate, then put up or shut up. Let's see some alternative hypotheses and data.

[JayUtah]

Or, just maybe, he wasn't an egomaniac looking for praise.

That is substantially the consensus of those who knew him, including his biographer.  He didn't let fame go to his head.  Ironically that sensible approach is what the conspiracy theorists have latched onto as somehow suspicious.

Contrary to Romulus' insinuation this is not a novel or especially convincing claim.  Fundamentally it's just, "I think Armstrong should have done ___ but he did ___ instead; therefore hoax!"  That he was treated as a superstar by some seems to create the expectation that he should behave as one, or as how some people think superstars should behave.

Setting up the investigator's expectations as a standard by which data is to be judged is expressly non-scientific.  The way reproducibility really works in the scientific method is that any sort of measurement or judgment or reckoning that's part of a scientific experiment has to be the result of an objective process, not the opinion of someone.  If data can vary based on who conducts the investigation, it is not reproducible -- that same person would have to be there to render the same judgment in all reproductions.  Hence proposing to judge the propriety of Neil Armstrong's behavior based on what the investigator personally thinks should have been done is a patent violation of scientific methodology.  Romulus promised us he would adhere to the scientific method, but he's messed up already.

And as if that weren't bad enough, attributing Armstrong's behavior -- subjectively judged as "odd" -- to remorse over allegedly participating in a lie is an absurd begging of the question.

Maybe, just maybe, he wanted an orderly classroom environment that benefited his students, without the distraction of his fame.

The story I heard, probably apocryphal, is that he allowed the first class period of each semester to be a discussion of his space missions, and thereafter the subject was forbidden.  Reasonable enough, in my opinion.

[W]hy Jay in particular?

He already answered that, sort of.  He considers me the kingpin in a cadre of debunkers.  So apparently he thinks that if he can conspicuously confound me, no one else will matter.  I guess it's the same sort of obsession that AwE130 exhibits.  And yeah, it's inappropriate.

[Allan F]

 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced

I haven't read it  all yet - but here is a clear piece of nonsense.

Apollo CAN be reproduced. If somebody PAYS for it. The main problem with getting back to the moon is FUNDING.

[Chief]

Romulus has set criteria which in my opinion are nonsensical. He is apparently not interested in debating his hoax theories, which are undoubtedly not unique nor robust. He is the worst kind of conspiracy theorist. So close minded it beggars belief.

Apparently because he thinks you must apply a scientific process to determine whether the missions were hoaxed or not and,because we have stated we would not apply scientific methods to the problem, because you can't, he thinks he has won, something. Not sure what, but there you go.

What he does not appear to realise is that many here are directly involved with the aerospace industry and contract to companies who rely on their expertise to produce serviceable products. Others such as myself are in allied fields and understand enough of the technology to make a confident decision on whether it was faked or not.

I really detest the ''blind faith'' slur. It is because of the complete opposite that we can understand the truth. Not taking things on face value and not trusting common sense is how we keep people in the air or in space as safely as possible.

[onebigmonkey]

 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced

I haven't read it  all yet - but here is a clear piece of nonsense.

Apollo CAN be reproduced. If somebody PAYS for it. The main problem with getting back to the moon is FUNDING.

Precisely! And which elements can not be reproduced exactly?

Launching something to orbit and then onward to the moon?
Entering lunar orbit?
Landing on the surface?
Sending data back?
Lunar samples?
Orbital rendez-vous?
Biological material to the moon and back?
An EVA suit that functions in a vacuum?

Every material element of the Apollo programme has been done by other nations and in other programmes - the only exception being feet on the ground.

Sooner or later there will be feet on the ground again, probably Chinese. Then what?

[JayUtah]

Romulus has set criteria which in my opinion are nonsensical.

Nonsensical, circular -- take your pick.

Not sure what, but there you go.

It's all based on the word game of calling Apollo a "scientific achievement."  He seems to think that label magically converts Apollo into something that all the features of scientific methodology have to govern.  The word "science" was used, after all.

What he does not appear to realise is that many here are directly involved with the aerospace industry...

I think he disbelieves that, or else considers it a motive to lie.  Keep in mind that Romulus has already invoked the meme of the Monumentally Ginormous Conspiracy, which naturally would include the aerospace industry and all of us associated with it.  So for that reason, I guess, he thinks we're all paid propagandists.

I really detest the ''blind faith'' slur. It is because of the complete opposite that we can understand the truth. Not taking things on face value and not trusting common sense is how we keep people in the air or in space as safely as possible.

Of course.  The "blind faith" slur is especially odious because the "Recluse Armstrong" argument is not original to him, nor especially new.  He just read and believed someone else's claim that Armstrong was a recluse, that he never gave interviews or talked about Apollo.  He says he has done extensive research into Apollo, but we've seen none of it.  Typically when a hoax advocate says something like that, he means he's read a lot of hoax books and just believed them without question.  So when examples of Armstrong's Apollo mission discussion are presented, the predictable thing happens -- he changes the subject and departs the field.  Those factors weren't covered in his sources, so he has no answer.

[Dalhousie]

 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced

I haven't read it  all yet - but here is a clear piece of nonsense.

Apollo CAN be reproduced. If somebody PAYS for it. The main problem with getting back to the moon is FUNDING.

It could be argued that most aspects of Apollo have been reproduced technically.

1 All basic operations required by human spaceflight including launch, living in space for a week or more, rendezvous and docking, EVA and EDL - Russia, China and of course the US (independently of Apollo through the Shuttle program)
2 Lunar orbit - Russia, China, ESA, Japan, India, and numerous unmanned US missions
3 Lunar soft landing and surface operations - Russia, China and of course the US (Surveyor).
4 Living things returned safely to Earth from cis-lunar space - Russia and (probably) China
5 Return to Earth from lunar surface - Russia

Only an end to end human mission to the Moon (either orbit or surface) has yet to be repeated (beyond the six landings and three cis-lunar missions of course).

EDIT - Sorry, just saw onebigmonkey's post

[gillianren]

So . . . does going on 60 Minutes count as never talking about Apollo publicly?  Because wow.  That's a pretty public venue, I thought.  And the video clips are lots of places online.

Also, I'm trying to remember the last time I communicated with Phil, and it's been a while.  Certainly it was never here.  BABB/BAUT, before the Accursed Merger, sure.  Here?  No.

[nomuse]

I do not care to reveal what my screen ID was on that forum. It is not my responsibility to do so to you.

Interdimensional Warrior, I'm guessing.  He didn't even last the evening before descending into a bannable series of obsessive and insulting remarks.

Naw. The flavor is similar, but IDW would never get this far without starting to snarl about the juice, and begin general meltdown. And I refuse to believe in the spellcheck software that would make his usual output look like this.

[dwight]

I am just happy that the latest group of hoax advocates have seriously lifted their game. Surely Im not the only one who has noticed solid arguing with mountains of facts, a marked absence of the usual psychotic nonsense, and complete abandonment of personal attacks and focus on one Mr Jay Utah. No sir, these days it is nigh on impossible to mistake the new generation of hoax advocates for absolute nutbars.

[smartcooky]

Romulus' whole focus appears to be on attacking Jay, with whom he seems obsessed. I think he reasons that if he can take Jay down, then it will substantially weaken our resolve. I could liken it to continually using "unnecessary roughness" on Tom Brady to try to injure him in order to make the Patriots easier to beat.

I expect he'll just be another drive by shooter, which usually takes the form of

1. Regurgitating tired old hoax claims that have previously been debunked,
2. Get angry when things don't work out the way he expects and start abusing people.
3. Claim censorship.
4. Declare victory.
5. Flounce in a fit of pique.

Nothing new there then!

[beedarko]

I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically. And I'll tell you something else, HE KNOWS IT. What he doesn't know is who he is insulting and demeaning, which is always the mark of an idiot.

This thread started with so much yummy bluster.  Rom's stance was predictably absurd, but he showed at least some semblance of an ability to defend his positions with carefully chosen nonsense.  Sadly after being a few pages in, it became apparent that our new guest is just a common jarrah/adrian zealot, his game devolving into schoolyard name-calling and embarrassingly transparent appeals to his own (lack of) authority.

"we"
"propagandist"
"burden of proof"

The unmistakable talking points of the modern day internet hoax theorist.  Second only to the cesium atom for enduring predictability.

[onebigmonkey]

There's another typical hoaxer trait, which is to dictate a very narrow frame of reference within which they consider debate and/or evidence to be acceptable, refuse to countenance anything outside that frame of reference and call foul whenever their self imposed diktats are ignored. The goalposts are set inches apart, then routinely moved later.

If our new friend wants to have a 'scientific' debate, then he needs to reveal his or her academic credentials so that we can examine their research record in this field.

[RAF]

You do realize it is common knowledge he represents NASA  in an "outreach" program (propagandist), and operates this website?

Gee whiz!

Wow...how clueless can one hoax believer get.


added...sad thing is that Phil is no longer frequent on ANY discussion board. Apparently he prefers to talk at others rather than with them.