PDA

View Full Version : Any Credible Debunkers of the Lunar Landing Out There?



mr. show
2003-Sep-23, 04:29 PM
Hey all - long-time lurker, first time poster...

I am interested to know if there are any credible people out there who have claimed the lunar landings were impossible. Are there any scientists or professors out there who have taken this controversial stance, or are all the moon hoax supporters cranks and nutjobs?

If anyone knows of any credible people who support the hoax, a link would be great!

wedgebert
2003-Sep-23, 05:25 PM
Wouldn't calling the moon landing a hoax pretty much destroy their credibility though?

jrkeller
2003-Sep-23, 05:33 PM
There are no credible people who support the moon haox.

Yes, the supporters are "cranks and nutjobs"

Madcat
2003-Sep-23, 05:34 PM
Not a chance. What wedgebert said.

mr. show
2003-Sep-23, 05:55 PM
exactly my point - if there is not one example of a credentialed professional in the field who has taken to criticism of the lunar landing, there really is nothing to talk about.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-23, 07:49 PM
The conspiracists argue that the mainstream is too fixed in its thinking to allow for the possibility of a hoax. A few even argue that the mainstream scientists the world over are actually in on it. Keep in mind that conspiracism is primarily a psychological phenomenon, and that part of the mindset is that a cabal of government authority and their academic stooges -- the "Establishment" -- are actively working to subjugate and oppress the masses. With that premise it's not hard to conclude that science is simply "wrong" on all the objections to the hoax.

You seem to draw a distinction between academics and nutcases. While the vast majority of academic authorities are perfectly rational and stable, you can have nutcases in the ivy-covered halls. Nothing about having a PhD and a professorhip ensures correctness, respectability, or mental stability.

I can think of two PhDs who have thrown their hats in the hoax ring: James Fetzer and John Costella. They both follow JFK conspiracy theorist Jack White.

James Fetzer is a professor in Minnesota. His speciality is the philosophy of science, which is interesting when you see how far over the edge he goes supporting his wacky "assassination science". His writings on less controversial subjects seem lucid -- even brilliant. But get him started on "Gubmint conspiracies" and all lucidity goes right out the book depository window: anyone who disagrees with him is a "disinformationist" and he sometimes threatens to sue them. Even though the majority of his attention is directed toward the Kennedy assassination (specifically the theories of Jack White), he has made public statements saying that the Apollo record is suspect and can't, in his opinion, have represented a true occurrence. But it soon becomes apparent that Fetzer is too far out of his element with Apollo to be considered much of an authority on it.

John Costella is a professor of quantum physics at a university in, I believe, Australia. He has "validated" some of Jack White's attempts at image analysis, both in the JFK case and the Apollo case. Unfortunately in this case too it is clear that Prof. Costella is all too happy lending credibility to sciences that are far outside his training and specialty. Most amusingly he provided a lengthy expert analysis for why certain photos containing Armstrong's shadow were geometrically impossible to compose in sunlight. Whereupon many of us took our cameras outside and shot perfect replicas of the photo. Quantum physics is largely a gedanktexperiment. It lacks, by its own choice, a basis in or appreciation for empiricism. Thus his approach is to "think through" a problem rather than to try to duplicate it and study it.

Both of these individuals have used their credentials to bully the arguments. Neither is especially adept at speaking to the special issues of Apollo photography, or to many of the geometrical and physical aspects of photography in general.

mr. show
2003-Sep-23, 08:16 PM
JayUtah~

I appreciate your informative response - just what I was looking for...
Seeing as how humans by nature love to spill secrets, the notion that "The Establishment" is on it seems ludicrous. Keeping a secret is hard to do, especially if there were one of this magnitude.

Others have attempted to explain this away by saying that scientists, professors, et al would risk loss of tenure, loss of credibility - overall ostracization from the scientific community if they even broached the subject of an Apollo hoax.

JayUtah
2003-Sep-23, 08:48 PM
The notion that vast numbers of scientists -- many of them with no love whatsoever for the United States government -- could be fooled or be coerced to keep such big secrets is pretty ludicrous. But that's the status quo for some of the conspiracy theorists: the bigger the conspiracy theory, the better. The more people it involves, the more likely it is to be true. Keep in mind that some of these theories border on the clinically psychotic -- a fairly clean severance from reality.

Science is only helpful when it's right. To practice it as a lie is useless and doesn't appeal to scientists. Engineering is science that people pay for (and in many cases trust their lives to). I'm an engineer, and if the universe doesn't really work the way I think or say it does, I could wind up before a judge. Clearly I'm not motivated to keep a secret that exposes me to liability.

As near as I know, you can't lose tenure for being a crackpot. That's kind of the point of tenure: your continued employment isn't necessarily based on the social or philosophical implications of your findings. It's supposed to encourage researchers to research what their intellect tells them to follow, not what they think will retain their jobs. Of course there are many shortcomings to the tenure system, and one of those is the accusation that crackpots are being retained in untouchable professorships. But that's an argument for another day; the vast majority of academics are conscientious, inquisitive, hardworking, underpaid, and very smart.

For researchers who are already at the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, there's not much to lose in terms of credibility. Publicly advocating crackpot theories will certainly alienate mainstream funding for your activities, but if you aren't getting any of that anyway then it's no big deal if you close that door permanently. You can then turn to the "dark side" and get big bucks from the conspiracy publishers who will handsomely pay for a bona fide PhD to sign off on their wacky theory. I could certainly make much more money as a conspiracy theorist than as a debunker.

The conspiracists argue that lots of academics are itching to tell "the truth" about what they know, but they are being restrained from doing it. This is the classic appeal to conspiracism. If there were a deeply established coverup, you'd expect to see vocal opposition to the hoax theory, and those that could verify it would be too scared to speak out. But of course that's also what you would expect if there weren't any such conspiracy -- vehement denials and complete silence from the hypothetical insiders. It's all just circular reasoning. The defensiveness of the Establishment could "only" be to hide something.

Jason Thompson
2003-Sep-23, 11:26 PM
Keeping a secret is hard to do, especially if there were one of this magnitude.

Keeping a secret of this magnitude is, as you say, implausible, but in the case of the lunar 'hoax' the implausibility factor goes right through the roof when you realise that the conspiracists are not only arguing that a huge secret is being kept, but that an even bigger fabrication of an entirely different set of circumstances is going on! Keeping a secret involving this many people is hard enough; perpetuating a lie on this scale is virtually impossible.

jrkeller
2003-Sep-24, 02:00 AM
It also requires that the hoax is so good that people decades later are still fooled.

I'm still waiting for the HBs to tell me how NASA was able to fool everyone who was involved in communications and tracking, especially those people in Spain and Australia.

freddo
2003-Sep-24, 02:04 AM
... Not fooled - in on the hoax. :roll:

jrkeller
2003-Sep-24, 03:33 AM
. . . and that everyone is corrupt, or has no conscience or are a bunch of lemmings or . . .

freddo
2003-Sep-24, 04:00 AM
... assasinated prior to their conception, or...

Astronot
2003-Sep-24, 04:03 AM
. . . and that everyone is corrupt, or has no conscience or are a bunch of lemmings or . . .

But wait, lemmings donít intentionally run off a cliff to their death. That really was a hoax, proffered by the producers of a Disney documentary who drove the poor creatures off that cliff. When I see lemmings and cliffs, I always want to know who the producer is?

jrkeller
2003-Sep-24, 04:21 AM
Didn't know the lemming story, but here it is,

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

Anyway, the word lemming has now taken on the meaning just following blindly.

Glom
2003-Sep-26, 03:29 PM
The ring leaders all are remarkably light on qualifications but remarkably talented at spin. They know how to make themselves look expert and authoritative.

wedgebert
2003-Sep-29, 02:49 AM
Here's a question, since most conspiracy theorists think that everyone who disagrees with them is a disinformation agent, how do they think people become disinformation agents?

Is there a college level course I've missed called "Disinformation 101" or "If you reveal the truth about the material in this class you will be killed, so always use the coverups we teach" (that's a class that is in dire need of an acronym). Are all students required to take these classes? Or just science and engineering majors? Either way, I only have 9 credit hours left to graduate (after 8 freaking years :evil: ) and I haven't seen either of those classes offered.

Of do g-men come in black suits after you get a job and tell you to hush up?

Andreas
2003-Sep-29, 12:55 PM
Are all students required to take these classes? Or just science and engineering majors? Either way, I only have 9 credit hours left to graduate (after 8 freaking years :evil: ) and I haven't seen either of those classes offered.
Would you have said anything different if you in fact had been through the disinfo training? :P

JayUtah
2003-Sep-29, 03:48 PM
I must have been sick the day they taught us engineers how to mislead and deceive the public in order to keep the government's secrets. And I still haven't figured out where they keep the "real" reference books. See, I know that there are companies out there who build things for the government. Now naturally the government is going to want its equipment built according to the real laws of physics, not the bogus ones that it foists off onto the unsuspecting public so that they'll believe its lies. I mean, what's the point of knowing the "real" laws of physics if you can't take advantage of them? So I figure there must be two sets of references: one for government use, and one for private use.

So when we sit down to design one of these big monster computers that's built right to the edge of the envelope when it comes to thermal and mechanical design, we'd have to be careful that we don't accidentally use the "government" design principles on a system that's going into private use. But so far we're using the same laws of physics for both types of contract. Did I miss a memo here?

But if you broaden your scope, you see a much more alarming picture. You can say that every engineer on the planet has been brainwashed or coerced into keeping a government secret, but just within the moon landing conspiracy theory you've got astronomers, geologists, physicians, and all manner of highly trained, very intelligent people that represent the finest in all those fields. When you examine all the other conspiracy theories and the fields that apply to them -- chemtrails (aviation, meteorology, chemistry), the AIDS epidemic (epidemiology, virology), the Kennedy assassination (photography, history, too many others to mention) -- you quickly discover that everyone who went to college or received special training of any kind is presumed to be some kind of "disinformationist".

This demarcation makes more sense. Conspiracism, like religion, is based around the abstract concept of "us" and "them". And when you put the disinformationist claims into this perspective you find that conspiracists don't trust highly educated people. They are part of the alleged conspiracy. The conspiracy hypothesis, which began as a government conspiracy, is extended to include the ranks of experts who -- in the conspiracist's view -- only exist to provide credibility for the government and for the major corporations who are equally deceptive and also in cahoots with the government.

In short, it's a line of reasoning calculated to ignore any source of expertise. Some have speculated that distrust of knowledge and capability stems from the conspiracists' own sense of inferiority. There is a psychological framework, in theory, for that notion. But Ralph Rene is the only one I've heard specifically express resentment for formal education, and that was simply because he felt he was denied it.

Eirik
2003-Sep-29, 08:05 PM
Funny, I used to have conversations about this when I was in college with respect to evolution and creationism. There are more than one Creationists (and others) out there that beleive that the theory of evolution is just a conspiracy of science and (sometimes) the government.

It was funny, though, that I spent a lot of years getting my B.Sci in biology and never happened across that conspiracy. Perhaps I was just brainwashed! :o

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Sep-29, 08:12 PM
Funny, I used to have conversations about this when I was in college with respect to evolution and creationism. There are more than one Creationists (and others) out there that beleive that the theory of evolution is just a conspiracy of science and (sometimes) the government.

It was funny, though, that I spent a lot of years getting my B.Sci in biology and never happened across that conspiracy. Perhaps I was just brainwashed! :o

That's because at the graduation ceremony a man dressed in black with dark glasses told you to look at the red light and erased all memories of being brainwashed 8)

The same technique they used with everyone at NASA and related organizations (including the Russians!) to guarantee there would be no first-hand accounts of the "Lunar Landing Hoax" :lol:

bowie
2003-Oct-03, 12:58 AM
I remember a time during my elementary schooling when 'continental drift theory' (proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1915 and now developed as 'plate tectonics') was considered crackpot science, too. No reputable peer of Wegener's would openly discuss it or write about it for decades.

[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html]

Ever seen "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" entries on 'Negroes' or 'aborigines' from the beginning of the 20th Century? That rubbish was written by reputable academics and scientists of the day.

If scientists are human, they can be cowed into silence and/or conformity and have pre-conceived notions, just like the everybody else. For most laypeople, what distinguishes science from socio&religious dogma is its self-corrective mechanisms stemming from the ability to admit when it's wrong. The moment I hear authority tell me that something is crackpot, I question whether this person would have taken Wegener seriously and allowed his theory shelfspace until proven or disproved or denounced him as a crackpot...

And for the record, not everyone who questioned the Apollo success was a nut. My late uncle, one of the brightest, most practical souls I've ever met, was watching the landing broadcasts with my sister and I. King and RFK were just getting good at rotting, Vietnam was sucking family members into its maw, and the country was still reeling with racial unrest. He told us then that the landing wasn't real. I asked why would they make this up. His reply (I'll never forget it):

"To give you all hope. You can't raise children without hope. They will do it, though, probably before you two are in your teens."

Anne

(My uncle also said we wouldn't win Vietnam, like we did WWII; our assumptions about Asians were wrong and we'd have to declare victory and then go home. He died in 1971 never knowing how prescient that statement would prove.)

Jigsaw
2003-Oct-03, 02:36 PM
Ever seen "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" entries on 'Negroes' or 'aborigines' from the beginning of the 20th Century? That rubbish was written by reputable academics and scientists of the day.

If scientists are human, they can be cowed into silence and/or conformity and have pre-conceived notions, just like the everybody else.
But the difference is, those racist entries were eventually rewritten or deleted altogether, as society changed and as people's values changed, and as new scientific facts came to light.

However, the Apollo landing story shows no signs of being rewritten. This is because there are no new scientific facts that can come to light to knock it off the "True Facts" list. And because it doesn't depend on social values for its place in the encyclopedias. So that comparison, at least, IMO is not valid.

Also, even at the height of the "white superiority" days, or the "Wegener is a nutcase" days, there were scientists who disagreed--publicly--and who made their voices heard. So if the Apollo landings really were a hoax, there ought to be more than a few scientists nowadays who disagree--publicly--that we went to the Moon. So, where are they?

Since the moon rocks are available for study to any geologist who wants to study them, why aren't more geologists coming forward and saying, "Hey, I studied these rocks, and they're just the same as Earth rocks. What gives?" How can TPTB possibly silence all those people? And for over 30 years? Not credible.


BTW, welcome to the BABB. :)

Astronot
2003-Oct-03, 04:17 PM
I remember a time during my elementary schooling when 'continental drift theory' (proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1915 and now developed as 'plate tectonics') was considered crackpot science, too....


Welcome to the board!

What about the facts of the Apollo landing, do these have any bearing on the issue?

Eta C
2003-Oct-03, 05:11 PM
The difference between plate tectonics and the Apollo hoax is simple. Evidence accumulated that PT was in fact correct. As that occurred, scientists changed their views. That's how new scientific theories get established. Similar stories could told of relativity (special and general) as well a quantum mechanics. They succeeded because they explained the data better than any alternatives.

On the other hand, all evidence points to the reality of the moon landings. This is a different case than a scientific theory since we're talking about history. Still, any "evidence" that supports the hoax is easily shown to either be a mis-interpretation, a fabrication, or just plain wrong. The case for the hoax gets weaker and weaker instead of stronger. Therefore, there's no reason to accept it.

Andrew
2003-Oct-04, 10:05 AM
I can think of two PhDs who have thrown their hats in the hoax ring: James Fetzer and John Costella.

Are we forgetting Dr. David Groves?

aporetic_r
2003-Oct-04, 04:01 PM
I can think of two PhDs who have thrown their hats in the hoax ring: James Fetzer and John Costella.

Are we forgetting Dr. David Groves?

But as we have discussed before (I just don't feel like trying to find the thread), having a Ph.D. doesn't mean much by itself. The real questions are: in what field? from where? what are you doing with it (i.e. job)? As I have mentioned previously, people who go around appending ",Ph.D." to the end of their names do it because that's the only way you could possibly know they have one. That is, they don't do advanced research or teaching in their field, they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals, they don't attend serious professional conferences, etc.

Of course, field of expertise is a big issue. A friend of mine from grad school works with a moderately prominent Ph.D proponent of the Kennedy assassination hoax, but the guy is an expert in phenomenology and logic systems. These fields have no bearing on Kennedy research, and all his colleagues know it. That's why he doesn't bring that work around the office - his colleagues can call him on it in a big way, but they still knock on his door if they have a question about Husserl.

Aporetic

bowie
2003-Oct-06, 10:33 PM
Thanks to all for the welcome!

I, actually, no longer doubt that we did go. What makes me uneasy is the dismissal of all questioning of events.

Part of this is dark nostalgia; I can see now how my uncle would be mistrustful of what he was seeing. These were also the years following the Gulf of Tonkin incident when guvmint lied through its teeth to protect political butt and get its way:
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

Our days can seem as dark as his were. How common is it for populations to embrace crop circles, lizardfolk Illuminati (I like Icke!), friendly alien visitation, and any other rational improbabilities in times of politico-economic stress? Is stubbornly clinging to wild-eyed conspiracies a sign of massive undercurrents of public distrust? Isn't that what we are actually dealing with here?

There are days I believe I could plot a chart of off-the-wall theories by the unemployment, prime lending, credit card and/or crime rates. What they're saying is wrong, but something important's got em talking out of their heads.

Anne

informant
2003-Oct-07, 06:54 PM
I remember a time during my elementary schooling when 'continental drift theory' (proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1915 and now developed as 'plate tectonics') was considered crackpot science, too. No reputable peer of Wegener's would openly discuss it or write about it for decades.

[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html]

Someone mentioned recently on this forum - sorry, I don't remember where - that Wegener's picture of continental drift, although correct in the overal picture, was not supported by convincing evidence. In other words, Wegener's idea of what was happening was right, but he was not able to come up with a mechanism - an explanation - that made continental drift plausible. We had to wait for the plate tectonics theory for that.


Ever seen "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" entries on 'Negroes' or 'aborigines' from the beginning of the 20th Century? That rubbish was written by reputable academics and scientists of the day.

If scientists are human, they can be cowed into silence and/or conformity and have pre-conceived notions, just like the everybody else.

I agree that those were shameful episodes in the history of science. Other posters have mentioned that those theories were eventually corrected as more evidence was collected, and I agree, but I don't think that's the whole story. Why come up with such theories in the first place? And based on what evidence and reasoning?
This particular example is of a different kind than the Apollo landings, though, IMO. The Moon Hoax conspiracy theory can be debunked with "hard" science, like astronomy, physics, and photography, but in the example that you gave we're talking about anthropology, or other social sciences. I think all sciences are subject to human error, but there's more room for error and human bias in some of them than in others.

jscotti
2003-Oct-08, 04:01 AM
I, actually, no longer doubt that we did go. What makes me uneasy is the dismissal of all questioning of events.


As far as the moonlanding hoax goes, we are not just dismissing the true believers claims about the moonlanding hoax. We've actually looked into their claims and found them to be wrong. They do not listen to our explainations and dismiss our rebuttals, regurgitating their incorrect claims.... After a couple rounds of this, it might start to look like we're unjustly dismissing their claims.

Jim.

bowie
2003-Oct-13, 10:46 PM
Hello All,

Let me begin with a public service announcement for those in the central Mississippi Valley: There is a viral strain on the loose that is so hateful that although it isn't fatal, by the 4th day you wish it were. It produces fever, nausea, long sessions with a porcelain object, and headaches so vicious you'd burn down the house if anybody suggested it as a cure...

Now, on to the goodies.

As I Understand it (AIUI*), Wegener's theory was based on his observation of coastlines, rock composition and fossil data; why wasn't that credible to his peers? He did a beautiful piece of deductive(?) reasoning and although his mechanics were off, his overall grasp of what was... is happening was lightyears ahead of his peers.

Crackpot question: The US of the early 20th Century was still enthralled to creationism and Darwin's little theory was being fought desperately. Wegener's theory played into it perfectly by holding, with Darwin, that the earth was certainly more than 6K years old. How much of the ridicule was religious, and therefore politically, based?

Donnie B.
2003-Oct-13, 11:40 PM
Hello All,

Let me begin with a public service announcement for those in the central Mississippi Valley: There is a viral strain on the loose that is so hateful that although it isn't fatal, by the 4th day you wish it were. It produces fever, nausea, long sessions with a porcelain object, and headaches so vicious you'd burn down the house if anybody suggested it as a cure...

Now, on to the goodies.

As I Understand it (AIUI*), Wegener's theory was based on his observation of coastlines, rock composition and fossil data; why wasn't that credible to his peers? He did a beautiful piece of deductive(?) reasoning and although his mechanics were off, his overall grasp of what was... is happening was lightyears ahead of his peers.

Crackpot question: The US of the early 20th Century was still enthralled to creationism and Darwin's little theory was being fought desperately. Wegener's theory played into it perfectly by holding, with Darwin, that the earth was certainly more than 6K years old. How much of the ridicule was religious, and therefore politically, based?

There may have been some of that, although I'm not sure how far the Continental Drift hypothesis penetrated into the general public's awareness. It was, after all, a "fringe theory" in the scientific community, so it may not have been well-known to the layperson.

The main reason that it wasn't accepted at first is that no one had a reasonable explanation for how a continent could move -- at least, how it could move that much. It wasn't until the midocean ridges were understood to be sites of seafloor spreading that the idea made any sense.

Another problem was that the coastlines themselves don't really fit together very well. Later, when the continental shelves were mapped, the fit got much better.

Once the evidence was there (including the seafloor mapping and the evidence of patterned magnetic pole reversals in core samples from opposite sides of the spreading sites), the reality of plate tectonics was accepted.

In fact, I'd say the case of "continental drift" is a fine example of the scientific process working exactly as it should. In hindsight, we might decry the geology community for having fossilized thinking (pun intended), but it's certainly better to wait for the evidence than to jump on any new bandwagon that rolls by.

P.S. Welcome to the BABB! :wink: :D

Conrad
2003-Nov-11, 12:32 PM
I believe that John Mack holds tenure somewhere in the US, and puts himself about as an academic.

ToSeek
2003-Nov-11, 03:07 PM
I believe that John Mack holds tenure somewhere in the US, and puts himself about as an academic.

He's a professor at Harvard (http://envlib4.harvard.edu/henvdir/MACK_JOHN_E.html); he's entitled to claim he's an academic.

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-12, 06:48 PM
Where do these wacko academics who promote such weird ideas get trained? I go to a large college, and I haven't met a wacko that was a professor (students can and will be wacko though) nor a class on wackoism. Is there some sort of secret training cabal I don't know about?

Joe Durnavich
2003-Nov-13, 01:14 PM
I don't think these guys train for this. They are simply blessed with a capacity for suspicion far above that of the typical person. John Costella (as well as Jim Fetzer and Jack White) are convinced that rain sensors in Dealey Plaza are really listening devices used to spy on conversations by researchers:

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm

Paul Beardsley
2003-Nov-23, 05:28 PM
Sorry to come in late, I read this thread at work (where I can't reply) and only just got a chance to respond.

Bowie, I was very interested by your comments. Some responses come to mind:

Jscotti's point is valid. I once got into an open discussion with a Hoaxer, during which the various bits of evidence - lack of stars seen from moon, radiation belts etc - were systematically debunked. The Hoaxer stubbornly insisted that he still believed we didn't go to the moon. I asked him, "Which piece of evidence do you base this on?" His response was, "All of it!"

Now, had he systematically challenged the debunking, the discussion might have proved worthwhile. But it simply wasn't possible to engage him on a getting-at-the-truth level.

There is a clear them-and-us division between the people on this discussion group and the Hoaxers. But that division is NOT between people who believe the moon landings were real and the people who believe the moon landings were faked. It is a division between people who will look critically at evidence and draw a sensible conclusion (which may change if new evidence comes in) on one side, and people who will stubbornly hold onto baseless conclusions on the other.

We think we're right but we know we might be wrong. So we politely ask Hoaxers for evidence, prepared to get answers we might not like. But we don't get answers, we get the same rubbish quoted as if the previous conversations never took place.

If the moon landings HAD been faked, we would be the ones arguing that they were fakes. If this was pre-Apollo and NASA had presented the movie Destination: Moon as fact, we would be vociferously arguing that the astronauts were actors, that the producers had paid Robert Heinlein for the rights to base it on his novel Rocketship Galileo, that the surface of the moon seen in the film is quite different to that seen by Russian probes, and so on.

I take your point about people's suspicion where governments are concerned. Yes, that has to come from somewhere. But in the case of the moon landings, they are attacking the wrong target. Furthermore, they aren't being silenced for their attacks - indeed, the media is being allowed to protray their views as having a validity equal to that of those who believe the moon landings occurred as described.

Please let me know if I've misunderstood any of your points.

Paul

RBG
2003-Nov-23, 06:41 PM
Re continental drift/plate tectonics:

You know, I don't fault science, scientific method or science investigation for "getting things wrong" or missing the "truth" in the past. And I don't see mis-understanding nature as any evidence that the scientific method doesn't work or that this proves that the investigators are somehow flawed.

I think history has proven that understanding is something that begins as a nebulous cloud of truth that slowly comes into sharper focus as thought and theory and evidence are tested and refined. Thus it is valid to say that there is some approximation to truth when discoveries and proofs and theories once pointed to the sun revolving around the Earth. Over the years, critical study has allowed this model to evolve to what it is today. Even now, we are sure not to have a correct understanding of exactly how the universe works. But you can bet someone out there has some unaccepted theory or other (complete with evidence) that ultimately will be shown as truth someday (ie: repeatable; predictable; etc.).

RBG