Comments Posted By karl
Displaying 1 To 14 Of 14 Comments
||The points that you make have been made over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again. I have heard them all before and remain unconvinced. Everything you say all rests on having faith in NASA, believing in NASA. You have that faith, I do not believe [in NASA].||
You’ve heard them but remain unconvinced why? We’ve demonstrated several times above the answers to the claims you made don’t rely on NASA. The TV show Myth Busters answered several.
||I do not consider NASA a reliable source of information on the man walking on the moon story as they have a vested interest in convincing people that the story is true. Their story may well be an elaborate collection of lies.||
Pilots have a vested interest in convincing you they know something about flying planes. Your car mechanic has a vested interest in convincing you he put your tires on correctly. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
I’ve asked a few times what has NASA done that leads you to believe you can’t trust the science coming out of NASA?
||However, astronauts walk around the moon and they make very clear footprints in the lunar surface. At least an inch or so deep. Maybe more. The lunar lander makes no impression whatsoever in the moon’s surface.||
Again, this was answered in a link provided and I quickly summarized it. The lander’s engines produce less pressure in the final assent than a human step. The math is right there on the page. If the math is beyond you, I’d ask you to find someone within the Krishna fold to pick it apart. Merely hand waving it away is poor scholarship.
You keep claiming we’re not open minded but I keep reading your claims, answering them, and then asking you to explain why the claim is poor. So I can understand why you think the claim is poor. But the moon hoax side never has an answer. People simply return and repeat the original claim (“why haven’t we been back!” etc.)
Who is not being open minded, exactly?
» Posted By karl On July 26, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
||Why did the flag move when the two men walked past. ||
Because this scene never happened? Can you link to a video where you claim this happened?
» Posted By karl On July 26, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Another claim by the original poster that has been answered already and easily disproved by a simple search of a NASA photo archive:
||By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. **Not one** was badly composed or even blurred.||
How about at least two (and plenty more if you care to look):
I’ll pose a third question to the moon hoaxers, given the above, do you still believe this is a valid claim? Is so, why are the photos found at that link well composed?
No one has answered my previous question about there should be stars in the photos, as claimed by the original poster. The claim has been answered. I’ll take it from this point that the moon hoax believers here accept that this is a false claim. If you don’t agree, please speak up.
Additionally, there was a claim about dust and a blast crater. We should see dust on the lander foot pads, we should see a blast crater. Those claims are answered here:
(I can’t seem to find my previous post on this topic and gather the mod didn’t approve it. I’ll try again.)
To summarize the links.
No dust: no atmosphere on the moon. Dust doesn’t billow. Goes straight up and down. It would have settled before the lander landed.
No crater: The engine was throttled back before landing. The PSI from the engine are less than the PSI of a human foot print.
The math is available in the links. As I noted in my unposted comment, there are certainly scientists within the Krishna fold who would be able and happy to review those figures, if you doubt them. Yes?
So we have, by my count, three major claims with not only counter claims but claims answered by both math and by actual experimentation (again refer to my comments about Myth Busters).
» Posted By karl On July 22, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
||If you can do this while using technology only used in the 1960’s and make it look as real as NASA’s, then I will believe you. My guess is you can’t. and since the technology is from the 60’s it won’t be expensive to fake if its just models, my ipod has more memory than an entire room sized computer had in the 1960’s.||
Indeed. You reinforce my point that moon hoax proponents are not actually EVER answering the explanations offered.
Moon Hoax: We should see stars in the photos.
NASA stooge paid off by the space lizards: No. Because when you’re exposing for a bright foreground object like a moon surface reflecting naked sun light, you can’t capture the tiny light of stars using a camera’s exposure time.
Wait 1 month.
Moon Hoax: But we should see stars!
You have to now tackle the counter claim. Why are STman’s counter claims poor explanations for why the various anomalies are not anomalies but can be reasonably explained?
The moon hoax believers simply then shift to some new chestnut.
As you noted McG, a very powerful counter is to set up conditions and demonstrate that the anomalies are truly anomalies and can’t be explained by the hypothesis man really landed on the moon and two guys walked around on the moons surface.
China wants to be the first nation to walk on the moon, not the second. If the evidence is so good, China with all its scientific resources could blow the “myth” out of the water. It’s only three days to the moon with a space probe. It could easily assemble a team of international scientists of firm believers in NASA’s “story” to oversee a Chinese overflight of the apollo 11 site and image the site. These scientists would be compelled to accept photos showing no landing site. China could then claim to be the first to walk on the moon in the coming decade.
Hmmmm. China does not do this because NASA’s claim is beyond scientific dispute. Or maybe they’re part of the conspiracy too!
The TV show Myth Busters, I will point out again, tested what the moon hoaxers should be doing for themselves instead of following around old men into airport washrooms with a bible and trying to get them to swear on the bible. Much of the footage is available on youtube. They tested the claims and counter claims. They found the counter claims by, you know, actual scientists like Phil Plait to be supported by the experiment.
Moon hoax believers NEVER do this. Why?
The writer of the original blog’s claims have been debunked for a decade. The debunkings are easily and freely available on the internet a short google away. No one has ever explained why he did not practice good scholarship and researched the actual counters to these claims and then offered detailed explanations why the counter claims do no violence to the moon hoax position. This would have been a much stronger post. Good scholarship demands you not only marshal evidence for your position but anticipate all extant decade old objections and then crush those objections. Real scientists do this. If they didn’t they’d be laughed out of their jobs.
Does anybody still believe we should see stars in the photos taken on the moon? Given the counter claim is exposure time, can you offer a scientific explanation why cameras of that era should be able to expose both a bright foreground and dim starlight?
» Posted By karl On July 19, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
||“Now the Russians are part of the Hoax? That’s a new one that I have never heard.”
I’m no expert on this subject but David Percy is and he gives very plausable explainations for this. If you really haven’t heard this before then this shows your poor fund of knowledge. Perhaps you need to catch up with what he is saying?||
So why don’t you give a brief summary of his explanation here? Could you document where he offers such an explanation? You can claim he does but that doesn’t make it so. You don’t take NASA’s word for it, why should we take your word that X said Y?
Further, no one has ever said why anything NASA offers is immediately discounted and not to be trusted. You (or someone else) compared this to a legal trial (doing science and backing a scientific claim and proving guilt in a trial are not highly similar but let’s run with it). In a legal trial, a witness is presumed to be telling the truth until good evidence is offered otherwise. For example, a witness can be shown to be more likely than not to not tell the truth, or is a known liar. So, I’m curious what your evidence is NASA can be so dismissed out of hand?
» Posted By karl On July 17, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
When confronted by a raving lunatic, when does the Christian faith require you to place your hand on the bible and testify before a raving lunatic? You’ll note Buzz popped the guy in the nose and the judge ruled it was entirely reasonable.
So your contention then is because two astronauts refused to be part of some guys lame CD project, all 18 are liars? Based on what evidence?
» Posted By karl On July 17, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
||If these so-called “well documented historical facts” were so true then why such a strong contingent of experts in the acknowledged scientific field are crying hoax!||
Because when Fox tv does a special saying your life’s work is a hoax, you might to argue with such people. If Fox TV had a special that said Srila Prabhupada’s life’s work was a hoax, the reaction would be… what exactly?
» Posted By karl On July 13, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
madhudvisa-dasa let me ask you this. 18 men have gone to the moon in successful landings. All 18 of these men have the same story. Most are professed god believers, christians. Ed Mitchell who believes in a government UFO cover up (and has gone against what some would label “The big science conspiracy” many times) himself still claims to have walked on the moon.
Now, either these 18 christians are all liars or they’re telling the truth.
Do you have good reason to believe all 18 are liars? And not just liars, I mean huge liars. Lies that are going to win them a horrible place in their hell. I mean how many people died in shuttle accidents (plus plane crashes) pursuing a dream they kicked off. I would hope there is a very special place in hell for such liars.
That you discount their testimony, to me, seems to imply you’ve judged their moral character. So yes or no, are they telling the truth or are they all the worst possible liars?
You earlier suggested science requires repeatability. I’m glad you’re concerned about the method and forms of science. In science, you take a scientist’s word for it unless you have good evidence that he’s fudged data in the past. For example, that Korean clone scientist Wang Woo Suk will never publish in a legit journal again because he was found to falsify data.
In science, we would take Mitchel (et al) and NASA at face value. When 18 scientists all report the exact same findings, in science, you take the position the claim is more likely than unlikely. You’re free to wave your hands but you’re no longer doing good science.
There is, in science, a thing called peer review. Scientist assume your data are true but then hammer your without mercy on your interpretation. They demand you eliminate all other possibilities. If you’ve not done that, your claims are not accepted. For example, you claimed that laser ranging is rigged and returns could possibly be coming from a crater or another light source. You assume, however, peer review has not demanded scientist eliminate the possibilities you mentioned.
Another example: Two scientists turning on their radio telescope kept getting a strange signal no matter where they turned their scope. Before claiming this was indeed cosmic background radiation (a claim that would and did win them a nobel prize), they did everything they could to eliminate other possibilities, right down to cleaning bird poop out of their scope.
» Posted By karl On July 11, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Again, China is planning to go there. As I’ve noted above, you have to do it step by step. You can’t just strap on a rocket, throw a bunch of money at the problem, and go tomorrow. Please see my previous comments and comment on why that is not a reasonable answer to your claim.
Using your Everest example, if I were skeptical about a summit claim, I could repeat the experiment myself. But I could not simply do it tomorrow right? Even if I had the money? I would have to train. I would have to hire the right guides. I would have to do do a number of steps before I could reach the top of everest and see evidence of past visitations.
And yes, NASA provides independent researchers many opportunities to perform repeatable experiments: testing moon rocks, anyone can bounce a laser off the LRR pads, etc. I’m sure if you wanted you could even get NASA to provide you with the original negative film roles for examination.
» Posted By karl On July 10, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
||You are taking the same approach with NASA’s moon landings. You are simply defending the “official story” without really questioning if the official story is true or not.||
That’s not true at all. The original post and follow on posters have been making claims that X is impossible therefore moon hoax. STman (and myself) have been pointing out X is not impossible because of Y. STman has also gone out of his way to rely on non-NASA information. He’s pointed that out at least once, but you simply repeat your same claim, despite it being pointed out to you your claim is inaccurate.
It’s not about defending the official story. It’s about pointing out the official moon hoax story has massive holes, easily explained by basic science. As I pointed out originally, the original poster regurgitated the standard moon hoax claims that have been answered, some for the last decade. The OP could have easily did a quick google search and found the counter claims. A good researcher would have explained why the counter claims are misleading or poor. Further some of these claims are easy to test and debunk. Myth Busters did just that. You can find the video on youtube I believe. They looked at the moon hoax claims, examined the counter claims, and then TESTED the counter claims. They found the counter claims accurate.
Why don’t moon hoax believers do that themselves? Again, good researchers put forward a hypothesis, explain why it’s a good hypothesis, find counter claims to their lines of evidence, and then establish why counter claims do no violence to their lines of evidence. That’s good scholarship.
Again, let me ask. Some people have said above that if NASA controlled telescopes could resolve Apollo equipment on the moon, that would be good evidence. The LRO currently in orbit plans to do just that. If the LRO resolves moon equipment, would you agree that’s good evidence for man on the moon?
» Posted By karl On July 10, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
||if man has landed on moon once he can land on it now too. If they colud do it in 6os they can do it now, the technology present is far greater now.||
Your claim has already been answered a couple times. I’m not sure why you don’t deal with the response to the claim instead of simply repeating the claim “if we did it before, we should be able to do it again.” The answer is “yes”. We can also send space probes out of the solar system but we’ve only done that three times, the last time in the 1970s. Because we’re not doing it in the 1990s and the 2000s, are you suggesting the Voyager missions are fake?
» Posted By karl On July 10, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
||As I have said the “proof” of man walking on the moon comes only from one source, NASA. ||
Again, that claim has been answered. Review Stman’s final comments at a minimum:
[So, once again: There is proof: The astronauts, who’s stories have remained consistent for 40 years. The photos, video, movie film, the rocks, dust (tested by geologists around the world), and the people inside and outside of NASA who tracked the missions (including the Soviets). And yes, even to retro reflectors.]
You repeat the pattern as the original poster: claims that have been answered are ignored. Why, for example, should a Chinese geologist lie? You claimed moon rocks were similar to earth rocks, but I point out again a cat is similar to a dog. There are important differences in earth and moon rock composition. These differences would be obvious to geologists.
||You do accept that they are telling the truth||
No. I accept that science has peer review. If NASA is lying, there is HUGE body of scientists not connected to NASA that would challenge NASA’s claims in the scientific literature. Science isn’t about having “we’re right” parties. Scientists make their name tearing down the work of other scientists.
||So for me the “evidence” comes down to the moon rocks and the Luna Lazar Ranging experiment. I have investigated both of these and found them to be not conclusive proof.||
I don’t recall seeing your documentation for the moon rocks other than a vague and unsupported claim they were “similar” (similar doesn’t mean identical and as I’ve noted differences are key). Your laser ranging claim is anecdotal and easily countered by the great body of published scientific literature (one I linked to) that do find good and accurate results. You maybe have misinterpreted what you heard. Atmospheric conditions may not always be right to get a good reading. A thermometer is an accurate measure of room temperature but if conditions are not right (for example, direct sunlight is on the thermometer), you won’t get an accurate measurement. Anyway, this is where peer review is important in science. Not trusting the word of a single individual’s observations and recollections. I don’t. I trust more a body of independent research across disciplines and national borders over the word of one individual.
||You may consider that the moon is a reflector anyhow and it has craters. So it just may be that some of those craters are shaped like parabolic reflectors and if you fire a lazer at the right craters that will give the impression that there is a reflector on the moon. I am not saying this is the case but it is a plausible explanation why the LLR experiment may get some returns even if there are no reflectors on the moon place by the Apollo mission.||
And maybe we’re hitting the top of UFOs parked on the moon. Your story is a just-so story. I could make one up as well. I did. Again, we come back to peer review. It would be very easy for scientists to calculate the intensity of the light returned if it came from a highly polished purpose built reflector pad or a crater. Also they would not leave the pads near such craters, thereby risking a false reading. That would be a little silly. They know the location of the pads and the craters.
||You can not make a conspiracy theory about something that there is clear proof for. Anyone who is reasonably fit and prepared to spend the time and money can climb Mt Everest and prove for himself that this can be done.||
No. They are then part of the conspiracy. Anyone reasonably intelligent can study geology or optics and analyze the moon rocks or do a laser reflector experiment. If they find data that is not consistent with your moon hoax belief, then, as you’ve already claimed, they are dishonest. You merely hand wave away data that does not fit with your preconceived notion.
||And now, after almost 50 years, no one has been able to put men on the moon since, and even NASA, after being ordered by George Bush to put man on the moon again and given a budget to do it, had to say, “Sorry, we can’t do it. Maybe in 30 or 40 years we can do it…”||
If you investigate what has already been written above, you will see that claim has been answered. You’re repeating it again. Please investigate the answer given and explain why it’s a poor answer.
||All the countries like India, China and Japan who have money and are prepared to spend it on going to the moon should be able to go. There is nothing missing. The information on how to go there is available from the Apollo missions, the money is available from the governments of US, China, India, Japan and others, but no one is able to put men on the moon?||
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but China is doing just that. But you just don’t strap on a rocket and go to the moon. And there is nothing missing? Based on your authority? Says who? Specific HUMAN skills are needed to be learned first hand and for every stage of space exploration. You’ll notice China is repeating the NASA state by stage approach. (Man in space, space walking, long duration orbits, etc.) Your whole premise is faulty. Note as well, China is a very proud nation. It’s going to go to the moon under its *own terms*. No doubt it has used the science and knowledge made public by NASA but China won’t simply copy NASA’s technology. Further, the Apollo project is 1960s era technology. You can’t simply put together a moon lander using Apollo blueprints. The parts aren’t available. You have to build it from technology we have now. While better, you still have to test it stage by stage for space.
||It is nice that Karl admitted that he has some dobut if we actually went to the moon and perhaps STMan can also consider that really there is not conclusive proof and perhaps he can keep an open mind on this issue.||
The proof is conclusive. Every claim you’ve made has been answered. It has been answered for years.
||As I said I do not have the time, energy or inclination to continue this discussion but there will be no end to the suspicion that NASA faked the moon landings until we can go to the moon again on a regular basis and do practical things there.||
People will always doubt everything touched by the government. But in science, there is an end to the suspicion NASA faked the moon landings. It’s pretty clear NASA didn’t fake it. You, alas, don’t have any science behind your position and you’re trying to argue against an event firmly rooted in science and made possible by science. You’re allowed to label non supporting evidence as being dishonest or lies. Science isn’t allowed that “out”.
I do think you’ll be back. So, let me ask you this: the LRO currently in orbit will soon image the Apollo landing sites. If they image the LEM pad, the moon buggies, etc. would you agree this is good evidence? Or will you claim NASA faked those photos? (Someone above raised the issue that if NASA-owned telescopes could image the moon landing sites, this would be acceptable evidence. Are you on that side?)
» Posted By karl On July 8, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
||This is religion not science.||
Define science. Define religion. They both share some similarities but so do a cat and dog (ears, fur, tails, have litters). A cat is not a dog. Differences are also important. In science, for example, all knowledge is tentative and subject to revision or overthrow. Not many religions are ready to abandon core beliefs in the light of overwhelming evidence.
||STMan is worshiping NASA and he accepts them as his authority, he believes in NASA, he has absolute faith in NASA, and he will try to defend and prove that everything NASA ever says is true. ||
Of course the poster’s claims could also be lies as well. To say STMan has absolute faith in NASA is a straw man. I wonder what his opinion of NASA was during the shuttle disasters. STMan and me both happen to place more trust in the consensus of scientists and experts regarding things like space science than someone with no expertise making claims that have extant detailed science-based, factual answers.
||So he is a true believer, in NASA. He is not at all impartial or honest. He does not admit even the slight posibablity that NASA may be wrong and does not even consider the possibility that the manned moon missions may have been faked.||
I guess when confronted with the facts, you can just label your opponent as not being honest. Convenient. Facts that don’t support your world view are simply lies?
So for example when someone claims we should have been able to see stars and someone explains that it’s a matter of exposure, you go “oh you’re not being honest”. Better, you could actually run the experiment yourself. Point a camera at the night sky with a bright light source (say a street lamp). Find out if it exposes the light source and the stars. You might know that the show Myth Busters actually DID this. They tested the scientific counter claims to the moon hoax allegations. And they found the scientific claims to be valid. More dishonesty? Hmmm?
And yes, we DO entertain the possibility that the moon landings were faked. That’s why we’ve explored the evidence for them.
||The thing is everything can be “explained” “scientifically.” But if the scientist is not impartial then that explanation is useless. STMann will only ever worship NASA and if he comes across anything that questions NASA he will conveniently ignore it or try to cover it up with his “science.”||
You don’t know anything about STMann but you feel free to assume certain beliefs?
||There are so many “scientiests” like STMan in so many fields who are actually working for some vested interest and in the name of that vested interest presenting so much “science” that is nothing more than a political attempt to mislead the people who hear them.||
It’s very easy to avoid facts, evidence, and logic and explain it away with a conspiracy theory.
||For example look at “man made global warming.” It is a nonsense theory completely disproved by so many actual scientists. But you get fools like Al Gore and a few paid of scientists trying to establish that all the problems of the world come from the man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Which are completely insignificant in the “big picture.” But you see they are doing this for another reason. They want to introduce a global carbon tax where the whole world will be forced to pay tax to and the promoters of the “man made global warming” nonsense will make a lot of money out of this.||
A few paid scientists happen to be every meteorological society in every major nation in the world? This is a red herring in any regard.
||Similarly NASA is making a lot of money by sending these fake missions to the moon and other planets.||
Really? Pay scales in NASA are far, far below industry averages.
||There is still no proof that men went to the moon, and there are still so many anomalies.||
As I originally asked what would you accept as proof? Give me a real goal post. What would falsify your belief? I’ve stated mine. Please state yours. Again, an anomaly is only something that you think has no answer given the claim. These anomalies have been answered. Your counter claim is hand waving: lies, conspiracy, dishonesty. Could you give me the top three scientific counter claims and explain why they’re not good counter claims without merely claiming the answers are dishonest?
||What has happened with the moon mission has never happened before in the history of mankind. Apparently we had many successful manned missions to the moon in the 60s with very primitive technology but in the fifty years following that no man has ever gone to the moon again. And now George Bush gave NASA the mandate to put a man on the moon again, and NASA’s reply was basically, “Sorry, we can’t do it…” They may do it in 20 years time? ||
That claim was already answered. Why are you back repeating an answered claim?
||This is crazy. Once one man climbs Mount Everest and the path is chalked out many other men will follow. So if we have actually been to the moon so many times in the 60’s and now for 50 years no one has been and NASA say no, we still can’t go there, not for at least another 20 years, one obviously has to question, “Did we ever go to the moon.”||
Some might argue we never climbed Everest too using the same “logic”. Photos? Fakes. Witnesses? Liars. Mountain climbing is a big industry. Lots of people pay huge sums to visit Everst. None make it to the top but they lie about it because they don’t want to seem foolish having spent $15,000 and never reaching the top. If you’ve been to the top yourself then you are just part of the rascal industry and dishonest.
It’s easy to disprove a claim when you can wave your hands and make up evidence. No?
||- Moon rocks, that are very similar to earth rocks and which could have been made on Earth||
What is your evidence for that claim? The solar system was formed out of the same cloud of matter. Why shouldn’t two bodies close together be chemically similar?
||-But mostly they can not get any returns from the supposed reflectors on the moon. ||
Says you? Could you document this claim? You don’t take STMan’s word for it. Why should I take yours?
||And the experiment is “rigged.” ||
Wait. They rig it but they also have a hard time getting a return? Why not rig it so it works better?
||I have also spent some time in Australia at Siding Springs where some more honest scientists were doing this experiment. In Australia they are in the best place to get reflections from the supposed reflectors on the moon but despite doing this experiment as Siding Springs for many years they could never conclusivly say that they were getting any reflection from the supposed reflectors… And for some time the French were also doing this experiment. And they claimed they could always get the reflections of their lazer returned. They claimed they could even do it in full sunshine…||
Says you? Could you document this claim? You don’t take STMan’s word for it. Why should I take yours?
||Of course the moon itself is a reflector so in theory if you fire a powerful enough lazer at it you will get a reflection, even if there are no reflectors on the moon.||
Yes. But you will get a better return if you hit the pad. If you move the laser slightly off where the pad should be, you’ll get a lower return. Anyway, this page contradicts your claims about poor results:
» Posted By karl On July 7, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
«« Back To Stats Page
@Russ Hawkins and other doubters
It would appear STMan has a logical, scientific explanation for every single one of your so-called anomalies that, I gather, make you questions the obvious truth that man walked on the moon. Given STman has answered all of your questions, would you now agree that believing man walked on the moon is a reasonable position? If no, why? What goal post of evidence is required by you (short of flying you personally to the moon) for you to change your position? What would falsify your belief? There’s a lot of talk about science in this thread but a good scientific thinker can articulate, very clearly, what it would take to falsify his/her position. Let me state mine: I believe man went to the moon. NASA, Japan, China, the EU are sending many space probes to the moon. If one of those probes took a photo of any Apollo site and the camera should be able to resolve equipment that should be there, then this would falsify my belief. I would not retort “well, China/Japan/the EU erased the evidence in the photos!”.
Can you do the same? Or would you always move the goal post and claim you now need evidence the government didn’t photoshop pictures, etc.
What I find amusing about the original posting is all of the original author’s questions have been answered by half a dozen sites written by space scientists like Phil Plait, Stuart Robbins, etc. A simple google would have answered ever single one of the author’s questions. For example, the “why are there no stars?” question the poster raised has been debunked for the last, oh, 10 years.
Did he not do this? That seems terribly poor scholarship. Good scholars try to first falsify their own claims. The author would have presented a MUCH stronger article if he examined the extant answers to these often repeated claims and explained why they’re poor answers.
I found these sites in mere seconds:
» Posted By karl On July 3, 2009 @ 2:48 pm