Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ufodiscussion] Did Man Walk On The Face Of The Moon?

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    In proving that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are extraterrestrial in origin, it is not enough for there to be a large body of evidence. Lest,
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      " In proving that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are extraterrestrial in
      origin, it is not enough for there to be a large body of evidence. Lest,
      scientists the world over would have accepted UFOs as being extraterrestrial
      wholeheartedly.
      Rather, the burden of proof is such that those who allege that UFOs are
      extraterrestrial must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that they are
      extraterrestrial. And for as long as scientists the world over can prove
      that UFOs are weather balloons or the results of weather phenomenon like a
      plasma storm, then the evidence regarding UFOs being extraterrestrial is
      false or, at the very least, inconclusive. "

      Ah but I think there is a much bigger issue here. The scientists are
      believed only because they have degrees in science or physics, etc., so
      again society seems to think because of this they know what they are talking
      about and would never in your wildest dreams state a fallacy because they
      were told to so they do not loose their jobs. That just doesn't happen...
      But see here society has set up an easy way(to get out of work) to assess
      people for jobs and such so they themselves won't be taken for a ride by
      someone without proper qualifications. ha ha Do you see the catch here? The
      problem is that society expects those in government or science to be
      completely honest, unable to tell a lie. Wouldn't it be nice if their noses
      started growing every time they even hedged a little bit??? What they have
      failed to consider is, what is keeping them honest? The checks and balances.
      Where are they???Absolute power corupts absolutely, especially when egos are
      involved... I wonder what would happen if we went back to the point in time
      where the first assumption was made in science (in order to prove something
      of course)and began over from there not utilizing assumptions at all for
      anything. It would be interesting to see what direction science took... I
      guess the proverb to all this is that you can not expect others to get the
      education and study one subject while you may study others, we each need to
      study all subjects and keep abreast of all issues so that the checks and
      balances are maintained and no one just because they have a degree will be
      thought to have all the answers and be trusted above others because of it...


      -----Original Message-----
      From: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Light Eye
      Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 12:59 PM
      To: global_rumblings@yahoogroups.com; Global_Rumblings@...;
      SpeakIt@...; ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com;
      changingplanetchat@yahoogroups.com; astrosciences@yahoogroups.com;
      GS5555@...; giuliano.marinkovic@...;
      wayfarer9@...; parascience@...
      Subject: [ufodiscussion] Did Man Walk On The Face Of The Moon?


      Dear Friends,


      http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/522179/did_man_walk_on_the_face_of_the_mo
      on/index.html?source=r_space

      Love and Light.

      David

      Did Man Walk on the Face of the Moon? By Ahmad Faiz
      NOW, why would any respectable publication question whether man walked
      on the face of the moon? After all, there is overwhelming evidence to prove
      it, yes?
      Check out Wikipedia for a quick guide to the nearly insurmountable
      evidence regarding lunar landings at http://
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations, and you will
      feel assured very quickly that man did land on the moon, not once but
      several times.
      However, does it mean that those who choose to question the evidence are
      lunatics obsessed with conspiracy theories? Not necessarily.
      It is in the nature of man to question. It forms the very basis of
      science.
      More importantly, understanding the concept of proof helps us to
      distinguish between truth and falsehood. And for this, we turn to the
      following illustration.
      In proving that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are extraterrestrial
      in origin, it is not enough for there to be a large body of evidence. Lest,
      scientists the world over would have accepted UFOs as being extraterrestrial
      wholeheartedly.
      Rather, the burden of proof is such that those who allege that UFOs are
      extraterrestrial must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that they are
      extraterrestrial. And for as long as scientists the world over can prove
      that UFOs are weather balloons or the results of weather phenomenon like a
      plasma storm, then the evidence regarding UFOs being extraterrestrial is
      false or, at the very least, inconclusive.
      Now, let us apply this standard of proof to lunar landings. History
      tells us that they happened several times, beginning in 1969, based on
      overwhelming evidence.
      But can that evidence be contested? Most certainly, because the standard
      of proof that applies to those who say that UFOs are extraterrestrial in
      origin also applies to those who say that man walked the face of the moon.
      To put it differently, those who say that lunar landings happened must
      prove beyond all reasonable doubts that they really did happen. This burden
      of proof is heavier than the one borne by those who bring up reasonable
      doubts.

      In turn, this makes scientific documentaries that question the truth of
      lunar landings perfectly reasonable, provided that they are fair and
      balanced.
      Unfortunately, Fox TV's Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?
      first aired in 2001 allegedly does injustice to Nasa spokesperson Brian
      Welch by having his comments so heavily and misleadingly edited. If so, the
      documentary by itself does nothing to disprove that lunar landings had taken
      place.
      However, many of the issues raised in Fox TV's documentary appear
      reasonable. Not surprisingly, scientists feel compelled to respond to those
      issues regardless of the value they attach to the said documentary, and in
      many respects, they have done so exceedingly well.
      For example, in some Nasa photos, the crosshairs used to measure
      distance and size appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them
      where they should be, as if the photos have been altered.
      The scientific reply is that, the light-white colour of an object behind
      the crosshair makes the black crosshair invisible due to saturation effects
      in the film emulsion.
      Another issue is that there are no stars in any of the Nasa photos, and
      the astronauts never reported seeing stars from the capsule windows. The
      answer to that is stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir,
      International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting
      events that take place at night.
      Yet another issue is the appearance of the same background in pictures
      with different objects in the foreground. The answer, quite simply, is that
      what appears as nearby hills in some photographs are actually mountains
      several kilometres high and 10 to 20 kilometres away.
      It is akin to seeing distant mountains appearing exactly the same on
      Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different
      foreground items.
      However, some of the answers to reasonable doubts raised give rise to
      suspicion. For example, on the issue of inconsistent light sources, as well
      as different shadow angles and lengths, it is said that these are due to
      there being three light sources: the sun, Earth and the moon itself.
      Additionally, the moon's surface is not flat, meaning that shadows falling
      into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted, and the
      cameras' wide-angle lens creates a subtle fish-eye effect.
      As reasonable as this explanation sounds, seeing is still believing. And
      based on some of the bizarre lunar landing video footages, the arguments on
      distortions of light, terrain and camera lens appear doubtful, considering
      that a much simpler explanation exists - the use of arc light found in film
      studios.
      And on the issue of the two seemingly matching "Cs" on a rock and on the
      ground that could be "prop continuity markers", the explanation given is
      that they are most likely printing imperfections, not in the original
      negatives but in some of the later generation copies. Unfortunately, it
      sounds a little too convenient.
      There are also lots of other highly contentious issues. But whatever
      one's beliefs, it is highly disappointing that Nasa cancelled the
      commissioning of a book to be written by Jim Oberg meant as a point-by-
      point rebuttal of the hoax claims.
      Bearing in mind that the burden of proof lies on those who say that
      lunar landings happened, the excuse that such a book would only dignify hoax
      accusations is a lame one. If anything, it gives further credence to the
      accusation that Nasa has something to hide.
      And for as long as reasonable doubts are not addressed properly, the
      debate on whether mankind landed on the moon would rage on to the point that
      hoax proponents become as easily believable as hoax sceptics, if not
      already.
      The rock video Amerika by German rock group Rammstein, for example,
      bears testimony to this. Using props borrowed from Hollywood studios,
      Rammstein band members question the very reasonableness of lunar landings by
      mocking the behaviour of American astronauts with nonsensical activities
      such as moving in slow motion, playing Star Trek pinball and holding a live
      concert in space.
      The symbolisms portrayed would remain apt until the debate is largely
      and substantially put to rest.
      (c) 2006 New Straits Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and
      Learning. All rights Reserved.

      Source: New Straits Times




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      a.. Visit your group "ufodiscussion" on the web.

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.