17-11-2010, 04:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-11-2010, 05:32 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
No problemo, Peter Dawson. They still talk about "The Fetzer School of Tact and Diplomacy". Let me make five comments about your arguments:
(1) On the moon, for any mass, it would be possible to throw it, jump it or whatever 6 times the distance on Earth by using the same imparted force. The astronauts strength would be the same as on Earth, but the resistance to motion on Earth would be massively less. So your analogy is flawed.
(2) Since our atmosphere scatters, distorts, and reflects light from stars, they should be decidedly more conspicuous when viewed from the Moon. The moon's sky is always black and the stars should have been visible without standing in any special location, such as the shadow of the lander.
(3) The use of wires in the video are quite evident, not to mention the light flashes from hitting the wire. You need to give this more thought. Given your argument about gravity keeping them from jumping as high as they ought to be, your appeal here to low-gravity appears inconsistent. Not only is it obvious that he is being lifted by wires, but it occurs in a physically impossible fashion (if he were actually getting up on his own).
(4) Similarly for "Splashdown" and "18-day quarantine". The first concerns the accuracy of the landing and the absence of film footage. The quarantine was completely unnecessary for the reasons alleged, but would have been important as part of the cover-up. That way, the fact that they don't even look as though they have been on an arduous space trip is concealed by having had the opportunity to "recover" and their embarrassment at being fakes would have subsided amidst the news coverage. It would also have given NASA the chance to evaluate their "trustworthiness" in public before their release.
(5) You seem to be looking for possible explanations consistent with the moon landings having actually taken place, where NASA has covered its tracks. You can find "answers" about most of these issues from them. But possibilities are not probabilities, much less certainties. You seem to me to be failing to explain why your possible explanations are more likely than the faking alternative. "Splashdown" and "quarantine" are examples. NASA claims to have "lost" the most historic footage in human history due to its zeal to save money. Not only has NASA never shown any concern for "saving money", but the idea of their having been "erased" is absurd. The probability that the tapes were erased in order to save NASA money is, without doubt, extremely low.
So NASA has offered a possible explanation for losing the moon footage, but it is a very implausible one. The hypothesis that this was deliberate so they could redo it digitally to remove evidence of fakery is far more likely. Since one hypothesis is preferable to another when its likelihood, given the evidence, is higher than its alternative, the deliberate destruction of that footage is better supported than that it was erased to save NASA money. So please give some thought to the alternative you want to defeat. It is not enough to offer a possible explanation. Tell us why your hypothesis is preferable to fakery because it has a higher probability given the evidence; otherwise your alternatives are merely implausible possibilities and should not be taken seriously.
(1) On the moon, for any mass, it would be possible to throw it, jump it or whatever 6 times the distance on Earth by using the same imparted force. The astronauts strength would be the same as on Earth, but the resistance to motion on Earth would be massively less. So your analogy is flawed.
(2) Since our atmosphere scatters, distorts, and reflects light from stars, they should be decidedly more conspicuous when viewed from the Moon. The moon's sky is always black and the stars should have been visible without standing in any special location, such as the shadow of the lander.
(3) The use of wires in the video are quite evident, not to mention the light flashes from hitting the wire. You need to give this more thought. Given your argument about gravity keeping them from jumping as high as they ought to be, your appeal here to low-gravity appears inconsistent. Not only is it obvious that he is being lifted by wires, but it occurs in a physically impossible fashion (if he were actually getting up on his own).
(4) Similarly for "Splashdown" and "18-day quarantine". The first concerns the accuracy of the landing and the absence of film footage. The quarantine was completely unnecessary for the reasons alleged, but would have been important as part of the cover-up. That way, the fact that they don't even look as though they have been on an arduous space trip is concealed by having had the opportunity to "recover" and their embarrassment at being fakes would have subsided amidst the news coverage. It would also have given NASA the chance to evaluate their "trustworthiness" in public before their release.
(5) You seem to be looking for possible explanations consistent with the moon landings having actually taken place, where NASA has covered its tracks. You can find "answers" about most of these issues from them. But possibilities are not probabilities, much less certainties. You seem to me to be failing to explain why your possible explanations are more likely than the faking alternative. "Splashdown" and "quarantine" are examples. NASA claims to have "lost" the most historic footage in human history due to its zeal to save money. Not only has NASA never shown any concern for "saving money", but the idea of their having been "erased" is absurd. The probability that the tapes were erased in order to save NASA money is, without doubt, extremely low.
So NASA has offered a possible explanation for losing the moon footage, but it is a very implausible one. The hypothesis that this was deliberate so they could redo it digitally to remove evidence of fakery is far more likely. Since one hypothesis is preferable to another when its likelihood, given the evidence, is higher than its alternative, the deliberate destruction of that footage is better supported than that it was erased to save NASA money. So please give some thought to the alternative you want to defeat. It is not enough to offer a possible explanation. Tell us why your hypothesis is preferable to fakery because it has a higher probability given the evidence; otherwise your alternatives are merely implausible possibilities and should not be taken seriously.
Peter Dawson Wrote:Peter Presland Wrote:For Peter D and Jim F
I was not endorsing Peter D's two substantive points, I was simply flagging them as valid pieces of technical/scientific evidence that can be debated on their merits.
What I was objecting to - a bit too soto-voce perhaps but objecting nonetheless - was the personal attack disguised in a (too) clever rhetorical device that comprised the last sentence.
FWIW I have reposted the entire Metapedia article on WikiSpooks here. I haven't tested all 476 footnote links so there may well be a few broken ones. Those I have tested work fine though.
BTW - I intend to incorporate all Jack Whites stuff (duly credited and linked) into the article today - or as and when I get time.
I wasn't intending what I wrote to be a personal attack on JW and JF, though given the way I inserted myself into this discussion, I can't blame you for thinking that it was exactly that. What I was attacking was the moon hoax proponent's position in-general, not any particular moon hoax proponent.
I should take this opportunity to apologise for my initial rudeness:
Jim, sorry for my rude words - my social skills are often found wanting, to my chagrin.