[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]

Re: Tough questions for the conspiracy theory nuts...

moon hoax

From: krissy
Date: 08 Mar 2004
Time: 18:59:25
Remote Name: 168.254.225.254

Comments

your wrong.even though you think your big,you have no clue what you are talking about. maybe you should just think. you are all fakes. you have made up all this evidence. and you need to get real. of course they went to the moon. how did we get all those pictures and moon rocks? this is all a lie to get attention.

From: LeptisMagna
Date: 26 Feb 2003
Time: 13:15:35
Remote Name: 63.156.116.13

Comments

<<Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. I ask you- which would be simpler, sending men to the moon just as all historical records indicate, or maintaining a global conspiracy involving thousands for three decades? Remember, even if it HAD been a hoax NASA still would have had to do the same amount of work to make it seem plausible. The space capsules are on display in museums, their schematics are on file, and expense reports clearly indicate how much was spent on what.>>

Again I see error in thinking. Sorry to belabor this, but if we don't adhere strictly to Logic our interpretation of the data will be inaccurate, no matter the quality or quantity of our data. Occam's Razor is essentially meaningless anyway. Ask someone 500 years ago what causes lightening, and ask someone today what causes it and you'll get a different answer. One's answer is influenced not only by the time period, but also by the individual's education, biases, culture, faith/beliefs, etc.

To go with what is the most "simple" explanation is like saying "I will believe what is the most believable explanation to ME." To use this approach is a highly risky (and vague) means of analysis. Occam's razor has no place in the application of absolute Logic. As an example I see skeptics often employing Occam's razor (as if it were some timeless ecumenical guide) to rule out the ET hypothesis for the origin of crop circles. They will claim, for some unexplained reason, that the ET hypothesis violates Occam's razor. Why the ET hypothesis is not the simplist explanation (based on available evidence) for crop circles is beyond me. Seems to me that ETs is a simple explanation, but it is not an easily ACCEPTED one, eh? Another example of the failure of Occam's razor: To view the arora borealis as the "devil's tail" is far simpler an explanation than atomospheric ionization. It took quite a bit of COMPLEX scientific insight and knowledge before man discovered the phenomenon of atmospheric ionization as the cause of the arora borealis; while calling it the "devil's tail" requires only faith/belief. Why would an eskimo ever think the arora borealis was the result of atmospheric ionization?? But we know it is. So much for Occam's [dull] razor.

About the moon expeditions, it would not require thousands of confederates to pull it off...only the astronauts, specific government personnel, and those behind the FX part of it. Noone else needs to know...not even the engineers who built the spacecraft! All blueprints, funding, planning, training, research, necessary materials, etc. will be normal/expected. The only difference is that the spacecraft will NOT continue to the moon, but only orbit the earth. (The portion of the spacecraft that is not supposed to return to earth can easily be jettisoned out into space.) So you see, it may actually be simpler to hoax it than it would be to actually create a successful trip to the moon and back. But remember, it doesn't matter how simple or complex it is. The government will hoax anything if it is important enough (for their agenda) to do so.

Being a skeptic is healthy. But there is often a fine line between a skeptic and a debunker. One must always be vigilant of one's biases and thoughts, and maintain strict adherence to absolute Logic..instead of what is comfortable to us.

<<If you're going to build a spaceship anyway, why not use it?>>

Because it won't work..but is believed to work..or some other reason I am not privy to.

Last changed: May 21, 2006