Nasa / Space

One man's definition of science fiction


Author S. Andrew Swann has posited a discrete definition of science fiction as opposed to other genre work, like fantasy, superheroes and horror (found via SFSignal):

"SF is SF because the author consciously or instinctively believes that the universe runs by predictable and knowable laws. In addition, the author's world, while radically different from our own, is achieved by applying some sort of transformation on our world as the author knows it. The fantasy is created from whole cloth, the author's world is just plain different and goes from there. In SF, there's the unspoken premise that, given the author's assumptions, we could have gotten from here to there. This rational chain of logic is what makes a story feel like SF, even if it has elves and vampires in it."

It's an interesting take, with a lot of promise and some interesting implications. Of course, the quality of the science fiction becomes directly proportional to the quality and plausibility of the initial assumptions and the logic used to derive the SF world from those assumptions. This definition squarely places many alternative history novels in SF, particularly one with time-travel elemenst (like, say, Turtledove's Guns of the South). Future history, even in the near term, also would fall into this arena in most cases, particularly where science is a driver for the plot. This places many disaster movies clearly into SF, especially the current trend of future climactic catastrophe books and flicks.

This definition does, however, have the effect of excluding many genre-straddling works outside science fiction. Buffy the Vampire Slayer had many SF elements to it, but its clearly horror/fantasy by this standard. It also means that Star Wars probably isn't SF, as no amount of pseudo-scientific arm-twisting could get us from there to here. The Force alone precludes that, no matter how many midichlorian-inspired retcons Lucas foists upon us. Star Wars is high fantasy by this standard. And I'm OK with that.

About

Jay Garmon has a vast and terrifying knowledge of all things obscure, obtuse, and irrelevant. One day, he hopes to write science fiction, but for now he'll settle for something stranger -- amusing and abusing IT pros. Read his full profile. You can a...

136 comments
Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

But then i don't run Flash or Java or JavaScript for security reasons - what's the linked page about, please?

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

Down on Gore, huh? Don't tell me you believe the bunk put out by the Right-owned media, that crap about him saying he invented the internet, and the rest? Here's a good selection of links on the lies they've told about Al Gore. Remember, those who OWN the media (Hard Right-Wingers, all), and hire the senior editors/producers, are the ones who set the tone of the publication/programming. Not the individual reporters or mid-level editors. http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/Gore_In_Context.htm http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/Bush_Rule_Journalism.html

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

An Inconvenient Truth. I think that I saw it for sale in Woolworth's about a week ago. Col

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

is when I'm gutting a dead animal, I don't want any on my clothes. edited to add Now if Al's next running mate is a person named Blud, you could have posters of Blud and Gore everywhere (pronouced blood and gore). When Al makes a mistake it is a Gorey mess.

dawgit
dawgit

On that we certainly agree. -d

HomusOnline
HomusOnline

Is there nothing that can just "be" anymore? Well, it sounds like this might be fantasy, not science fiction. It might just be fiction. Fantasy is fiction, science fiction is fiction. Yup, it is fiction. Star Wars was fantasy, not science fiction. Well doesn't that change everything. I have been living a lie these past 20+ years. Apparently I should have been inspired to take up magic instead of technology. Wait, is magic still fantasy? Let me ponder a while. What is not fiction is this question. How do I get a job where I can debate what is science fiction and what is fantasy? Or wait, is that a greasy, flame-broiled meat patty or a hamburger? Are those cooking oil fried potatoes, or french fries. Are those stenciled and sewn together interwoven cotton fibers, or a t-shirt? There is entirely too much job security in semantics, and I want a slice. I would love to do something this useless and get paid for it.

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

We've been here before, but it was called "hard", vs "soft" SciFi. The soft is what you'd expect - hard to pin down the assumptions it operates on; totally up to the author's whim, as far as permissible technologies or new laws of nature. Ann McCaffery. Piers Anthony. Andre Norton. Robert Aspin (sp?) and Terry Pratt. The Hard stuff, on the other hand, is supposed to conform as closely as possible to actual natural laws, though the particular expressions can vary as widely as an author's imagination. Issac Asimov. Arthur C. Clark. Greg Bear (more or less). Much of Ursula LeGuin's work. And as someone who's done my share of drugs, and had my share of psychic/mystical experiences, I include Frank Herbert on the hard side too. I do prefer the hard stuff. The universe is strange enough as it is, without inventing talking magical dragons to spice it up. I think if you need that stuff, you don't have enough imagination. It's okay to read, but singularly unchallenging conceptually; for writer or reader. What I don't really like, is fantasy that's billed as SciFi; and there's plenty of that around, enough to make me think that authors (or their publishers) don't know the difference. There's certainly a plethora of such cross-filed fantasy in the SciFi sections of bookstores. What drives my interests are the possible permutations available to us as a species, as we progress in technology and (hopefully) wisdom; futurology, if you will. I don't forsee discovering elves and dragons, or wholesale esper powers, so if I'm tricked into buying a book full of such dross, it just wastes my time.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Sci-fi has always been sold as fantastic. MccAffery's Pern is bad hard sci-fi because it relies on too many completely unrelated pre-conditions to 'hold up in court'. Robinson's Mars trilogy, or even Greg Bear's Eon and Eternity needed far less fantastic to be credible. Which makes the Way and areoformation even more beautiful than a dragon. Encountering an alien race would be the big change, whether they would come all this way for a change in diet pales into insignificance.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

So much requires a faster than light space drive, yep she has them. ESP, proven to exist already. All she has is that it's so well known about that it's better trained and controlled, and more common. OK the FSP series also uses cyborgs, sheesh we're nearly there now. Back to Pern (which is what i think you're on about) colinisation of a distant planet by space drive, genetic manipulation of a local animal that uses natural gases to produce a controlled flame - we have many animals alive today that use natural gases etc. As for time travel through teleportation, please see my other long post on that in a related sub thread. Everything she uses is not that far out of reach, it's based on something we already know about or have science theories on. BTW two reason why people explore far and distant places - curiosity, to see hwta is there; and expansion, to find suitable colony locations for space or resources. Let's hope any aliens we meet are out for the first reason. Or very nice.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

and time travel and a biological mechanism for inter dimensional travel and .... Good books, too many 'fantastic' events though, requires a much greater suspension of disbelief though.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

definition places her in the 'hard' list. Three things McCaffery uses as core parts of her series, all are internally scientifically managed and consistent, also all are based on existing known science. Cyborgs - physically damaged humans whose working brains are used to control computers and manage technological resources like ships or space stations or cities. Research centres are working towards making this possible now, much of it is already possible, if you are prepared to spend the huge sums needed. ESP - like telepathy and teleportation. Still not properly understood, but proven to exist in some people, and some animals. This is the thrust of the Pegasus and Tower series, and used in the others as well. Use of gases by animals - many animals use naturally occuring gases in their internal biology. The Dragons of Pern are genetically enhanced variants of a local life form that uses phosperine rocks to create a gas to make flame. This is all explained in the books, how the fire lizards, flying fire breathing reptile like animals, are genetically changed to have enhanced intelligence and be much larger. They already have telepathic and teleportation abilities.

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

"I think you should go back an read McCaffery as your own definition places her in the 'hard' list." Then later: "The Dragons of Pern are genetically enhanced variants of a local life form that uses phosperine rocks to create a gas to make flame. This is all explained in the books, how the fire lizards, flying fire breathing reptile like animals, are genetically changed to have enhanced intelligence and be much larger. They already have telepathic and teleportation abilities. " The last sentence illustrates why I put her Pern books in the 'soft' list. Yes, there is marginal evidence for some sort of esper potential, if you take that to mean vague telpathic indications, remote sensing, precognition, communication with ex-human beings. But there is no scientific support at all (that I'm aware of) for the concept of teleportation. Got Proof? Over the ages, shamans have gotten a lot of mileage out of the idea of an appearance or disappearance from or into thin air. They probably started doing it long before "science" as a discipline began. It was too good an idea not to be invented by someone. But that doesn't mean it's real, or possible. The fact that magicians do it regularly means nothing. It's not scientific. Which is why it does not fall into the 'hard' SciFi bucket. BTW, neither is FTL drive, also a staple of the McCaffery books, until someone comes up with an actual theory of how a coherent time-embedded object, such as a person is, can fall through a rift in space-time, into another space-time-frame, not violate any essential tenets of reality, and still remain coherent and time embedded, in the new frame. I realize that there are several such now-conventional ideas in the literature, but I repeat, they are not 'hard' SciFi. "...all are based on existing known science." Not.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Anne's Dragonriders is one of the few example of a credible science background being provided for what was obviously started as a fantasy series. EDITED - removed the adjective 'hard' from in front of 'science', in agreement with other posts.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Unfortunately there were no psi's, tomorrow people or dragons involved. Quantum mechanics is much more weird than those. :D

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

A real honest to god clean cut hero. I tried to read them again about two years ago, just couldn't do it. Too dated both scientifically and socially. As a kid though I must have read the entire series over ten times. Shockingly bad science, but Galactic Patrol would still make a great movie.

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

It's a bit hard for me to keep track of different pieces of threads, here, so I'm not sure why the question of editions... If it's about my FTL reference in relation to the original colonization of Pern, I confess that I threw that in without really being sure. It just seemed to me that it was in the story line. I did read (only) one of those books, and it was long ago. FTL might very well NOT be in the story line. However, I have to stick by my opinion that teleportation, of whatever sort, is not based on any actual science I'm aquainted with.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

As you noted, it may be an edition difference. I don't have any firsts either, but my paperback copy is from '74 or so.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

may be different. But my copy of Dragonflight, has an introduction that give a very brief history of Pern, it mentions the colonisation and how it's fallen in to realm of legend, myth and fairytale. It's been a while since I read Dragonflight, but amost of the books include references to the colonisation through the Teaching Balads or Reords of the first days on Pern through out the story.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

SFBC has republished the Lensmen in two volumes. I once read of a seventh Lensmen novel, "Masters of the Vortex", but I've never been able to find it. If you like space opera and haven't read E.E. Smith's Lensman series, you are missing a treat and a foundation of the genre.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Ernie, Dragonflight was published first, years before Dawn. There's no hint of Pern as a colony, or any mention of the feudal system not having developed as part of the natural evolution of life on the planet. Fire lizards aren't even introduced until Dragonsong, the fourth book written. Time travel is possible, and we do it every day. However, it's only a one-way trip forward.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

or anyone else in his league. All I was doing was pointing out that there are many theories that are scientifically valid at this time, and will stay so until someone can prove them invalid in the real world, that are in support of the base concepts in Anne's stories. The fact that there is a valid theory, even if it isn't yet proven, for what she introduces, means it has a scientific basis. Thus it's a valid scientific extension. Regardless of all the discussion on this topic, the key point about science fiction is that it's a fun read and FICTION.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

I wouldn't even try to compete with him mathematically, some of the extrapolations from his mathematical models, though iffy. He wasn't a big fan of string theory because of the extra and unproven dimensions it introduced in order to work, yet ok with dark matter which is a fudge factor to keep various theories describing the expansion of the universe going. I'm seeing a problem here, not the only scientist/philosopher who has problems with paradigm shifts though. Try Roger Penrose, last I heard he was working on non point particle theories that don't require 10 dimensions and he thinks many worlds ( which includes many times) is twaddle.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

the popular science version of the article, not the hard science version. Please direct you question to someone who understands quantum science and quantum theory - Try Hawking.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

loose and muddy thinking. Stating it's point in time and space. Based on what coordinate system? Even at light speed, something one light second away is a light second into your future, you are a light second away in it's future. Instantaneous travel is time travel. So does the past still exist and the future already exist?

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

based than most. There are many science theories about time travel. we even use a form on a daily basis - every photo of distant objects in space is a trip into the past as we are seeing the object as it was many years ago. OK, I can't remember what the damn thing is called (be glad when I get better and my memory works better than my forgettory) but scientists are currently studying a particle that is fired from a projector and is registered as reaching its receiver before it is sent. Tell me that isn't time travel of some sort. Teleportation works instantaneously, as best as can be measured, we lack the proper equipment to track and measure it properly. Current theory is it is instantaneous. Now some time back, I saw a popular science variation of an article on quantum physics. It covered many things, including teleportation. What struck me about it was they had an equation that showed how, in theory, teleportation would work as per quantum theory. In the equation you noted the current place of something and changed that to the place where you want it; and it is instantaneously in the new location once the entry is made. Identifying an object's location was done by stating it's place in time and space. The article went on to say that, in theory, if you could teleport to a new location, you could teleport in time as well as the location requires you to identify a point in the space time continuim, thus you could alter one or both. Thus, Anne's use of teleportation to travel through time or space does have a theoretical basis in quantum physics. How valid that is in reality is another issue, but that's the same for any of the faster than light space drives as well. All good in theory but we don't have the technology to prove them, or disprove them in reality yet.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

as the first books written about Pern have the info about it being a colony planet and talk about the dragons being developed from the fire lizards. Then the prequels give the hard facts about the genetic manipulations and the landing etc. It is possible that Anne started with a wish to use dragons, but the science base for it was there from the first Pern story.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

saying that Dragon's Dawn is one of the most enjoyable books I've ever read.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

I've read a lot of science fiction (sci fi) and science fantasy (sci fan). The dividing line seems to be very similar to what you say. In one anthology of short stories that I read (many moons ago), a lot of top authors stated that there was no definition of the differences between sci fi and sci fan, until an editor put forth a definition of sci fi to a bunch of young authors who were submitting stories to him - the late 1920s-1930s. The editor, a fellow called Campbell, encourage the authors to use his definition and write stories along those lines, I'm sure you've heard of these budding authors - Asimov, Heinlein, Niven, Pournell, del Ray, and many more. All have become top names in sci fi since. The definition that Campbell put forward was simple - take today's society, take one aspect of it, evaluate the trend of that aspect, extrapolate that trend into the future using any rate you want, and write a story based on that new society that has some sort of technology aspects to it. All the technology had to have a base in current that was NOT PROVEN to be contradictory to existing scientific knowledge, so it was either based in existing theory, or could put forward and alternative theory that was not cproven false. Internally it had to be scientifically sound. One story about the first time he expounded on this concept puts him as saying "Take a modern trend, push it into the future and write a story about problems in the new society, hoepfully caused by that trend or its affect on something else." For many the technological aspect was extending a technology into the future, for others it was building the technology into the society and placing a story against it. Asimov's Caves of Steel series was based on the trend to larger cities, and the trend to more independently operating mechanised tools. You can see such aspects in many of the sci fi stories. Campbell was a top editor at a critical time in sci fi and pulp fiction, somehow he kept getting mags out, when others couldn't. It's no wonder he had a profound effect on the genre. edited to fix a few typos, sorry.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

He encouraged and help guide along many top authors in their early days as writers: Harrison, Asimov, Bester, Simak, Sturgeon, Anderson, Heinlein, Dickson, Cogswell, Thomas, Clement, Reynolds, G.O.Smith, De Camp, Niven, Pournell to name a few.

dawgit
dawgit

Out-ragous I say, May the Death Star visit your planet, then we will see... pssssfsft. (as in a "Bill the Cat" comment)

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Books far more interesting to read and look at things like Jules Verne writings which have proved terribly prolific particularly his first book that went unpublished for a very long time describing a Horrible Metal structure adversely impacting on Paris and traffic Grid Lock as an every day event. Even authors like HG Wells proved to be very interesting in their writings. Far more interesting is that neither of these 2 authors claimed that they where writing fiction but fact which has to make one wonder what was happening way back then. :) Col

dawgit
dawgit

They didn't have drug tests then :^0 -d

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Things like Cocaine where legal as well back then if I remember correctly Aurthur Conan Doyle's Main Detective Charter Sherlock Holmes was addicted to Opium or one of it's derivatives. [i]I suppose that I should look that one up but I think that you get the general idea.[/i] :( God even Indian Hemp was freely available back in those days as they made all the rope for the Sailing Ships out of it and it's still the best rope available that has ever been used to date. :p But you do have to admit that Jules Verne's description of Paris is very close to what is reality today and he considered it as a [b]Living Hell.[/b] :D Col ]:)

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

was one of the ingredients of most snuff mixtures, along with tobacco. All the rich used snuff on a regular basis, especially when at a party or calling on someone, it was appropriate to sniff while talking. However, you must remember that only the few rich could afford it, and usually they had other people doing the real tasks so getting high rarely caused any danger to anyone but themselves. Today is totally different.

BALTHOR
BALTHOR

In Star Trek they traveled the velocity of light or faster with Scotty's engines.How the engines worked just had to be plausible.What we didn't notice is that the Enterprise launched from outer space where little energy is required to achieve light speed!

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

when combined, generate an explosion of such horrific force that it actually tears a hole in the fabric of our reality. This opens a path through another universe where our laws of physics do not apply, including 186Kmph limit on the speed of light. Channelling the energy flow of the explosion through the dilitium crystals allow that hole in space to be shaped and wrapped around the ship. Or at least that's how Gene explained it to me :-)

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

Which of course is total scientific nonsense. Matter-antimatter anialations produce a lot of energy, but it most certainly is NOT more than the fabric of our universe can handle. "Dilithium" or no, that's not a way to cheat the speed of light. Also, to address other misapprehensions, light travels at one maximum speed, in space or not. Although there seem to be ways of slowing it (by "imprinting" a Bose-Einstien condensate with the light, using lasers), there is no practical or theoretical way to speed it up, or to outrun it. Dilithium Crystals are a form of literary magic. Truly "hard" sci-fi has no FTL.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

First they had to establish a Warp Field around the ship then with the deflectors prevent any collisions from occurring then they could enter Warp Speed but only after first performing precise Navigation Equations to that they didn't fly through a solid object. And according to Gene they could only travel in straight lines while at Warp and the top speed possible was Warp 10. Though as Gravitational Effects cause straight lines to bend I'm not exactly sure how this affected Warp Speed in Star Trek as with any big enough Gravity Sink there would be a bending of that straight path. :D Space Folding looks far more promising where a massive Gravity sink is created that causes a Fold in Space to appear and then the ship can transverse that fold in milliseconds before the Gravitational Sink dissipates. Interestingly enough it as only in the Andromeda Series that any form of Intergalactic Travel was undertaken in all of the previous Roddenberry Screen Plays the characters where confined to the same Galaxy but in Andromeda they could travel between the 3 Known Galaxies which was something new to the field of Space Flight. :^0 Col ]:)

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I can tell you quite honestly we not only saw TV Pictures but every school had telescopes setup to observe the spacecraft transverse the distance between earth and the moon. Then there where feeds from what you would now call Radio Telescopes to both track the craft and accept the return signals from both the Space Craft and the Lunar Surface. Both Parks and Guardrail Banks who where used to accept movie footage of the initial step know where their Radio Telescopes where aimed and they are not stupid enough to be out by .0005 of a degree. These where highly trained Astronomers who where helping NASA but not directly working for them when the first and subsequent Moon Missions took place. BTW I've seen quite a lot of footage of someone who it is claimed was the US President being shot in Dallas but since you've brought a Legal Mind to the Table there is no proof that JFK even existed other than a bunch of deluded misguided people who will tell you that he lived but all that could be faked with the resources available to any Government particularly the US Government. :D How do you explain Sputnik as that was all a hoax posted on the world by the USSR wasn't it? OH BTW GWB is nothing more than a [b]Glove Puppet.[/b] Now prove that both of those statements are incorrect. Incidentally in a Criminal Case here a Scientist was asked to give a 100% certain answer that some blood residue was actually Blood and because she refused to do so and gave a % error the case was eventually dropped because the Police could offer no solid Evidence to prove the crime had been committed. So the Dingo got incorrectly blamed and the guilty went free eventually. Col

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

If you could lay your hands on the negs you just might get to see some interesting things off the main area of the shot under extreme enlargement. Remember that these still Cameras where all 2.5 inch square film and has some interesting characteristics but it also depends on the speed of the film used to take the photos. As Blads are not the easiest camera to use under ideal conditions the F Stop and Shutter speeds whould need to be locked and set for a standard film that was being used so there whould be no different speed film like some super slow film for great detail on close ups and some super high speed film for the Action Shots. But if you are really at all concerned all you need do is look at the moon through a fairly decent Telescope and you'll see the rubbish left behind as there is enough of it and the actual Lunar Lander base remains in place and was what allowed the pictures to be sent as the LAN lifted off till it was out of range and the Signal lost. Col

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

"I go on record as saying that the proof is there, but you are willfully blind to it. Your ideas of what evidence could equate to truth are astronomical when the proof runs counter to your chosen stance; yet you insist on your own position with no proof whatsoever." (One word, Shaun ol' boy: Lithium. Take it.) AND "It seems that you're too wedded to your theory to examine the available information fairly." (Actually, i studied the hoax stuff before I studied the real stuff.) If I am guilty of this, then so to are you both guilty of the same being in the same position as is proposed of me. You are both so blinded by NASA that you will believe them if they told you the moon was cheese! Deadly Ernest, tell me, did you actually read what I wrote? Did I say that the Apollo flights never took place? No, I did not. However you write "Something else is the Apollo 13 crisis, it went up, had trouble and had to circle the moon, the whole world was watching that in their telescopes etc. For many days every telescope in the world (several thousand of them) was watching Apollo 13 go to, around, and back from the moon. So they clearly had the tech to get there. in such a case, easier to do it than fake it." (Actually, i studied the hoax stuff before I studied the real stuff.) I said merely I do not believe they landed on the moon. So before you rush off to show that the flights took place, please re-read what I wrote. There are none so blind as those who believe whatever NASA tells them! NASA "We landed on the moon because we said so." And what evidence do you have? "We have pictures and stones to show it." And what other evidence, sir? "Everyone saw the rockets go up." I am not disputing the rockets, sir. The simple question has yet been unanswered adequately: If they have been on the moon, and had lunar missins, then why have they not landed on the moon since?"

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

You write "How are you going to prove me wrong? By your own reasoning, you now bear the burden of that proof, just because I raised the question. For every piece of your life you throw at me, I'll come up with a way it could have been faked, and claim that you still haven't proved your existence. That's how silly this whole thing is" (From your "whatever Shaun" post) You are the one raising this idea, therefore, sir, the burden of proof is on you! Not on me. As for one line, quite possibly taken out of context, to show I state is a fact, means nothing, since if you read I state it as belief, opinion, and theory. Pleas go and read what I write, and if you are quoting me like that, reference me.

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

The paper was there as a line to show that there are other explanations other than the ones offered by NASA and other such people. It was not meant as a definitive work. It would also appear that you have not read what I have written, or you would see that I never say definitively, they did not land on the moon. It appears you are working from the stand point I did. I recommend that you read ALL I have written, properly. I am suggesting that in the same way that various people discredit what the so called 'hoax-type sites' say, can be applied to all the facts that support the landings. Furthermore, you are only offering what is already there, as evidence, to support that NASA landed on the moon. Again, I will say, that this data supporting the landings originate from the same source that claim they landed on the moon. This, sir, I would suggest, is wholly inadequate, and insufficient proof, to argue the case successfully. In any argument, if I say I went to Florida, and then put out numerous documents to support that I went, does not mean I went. And yes, I can have photos from Florida. I need only have ONE accomplice... someone that was there or in the vicinity of, florida. So me purporting I went and putting up manyu documents to say I went, is not enough to prove I went. If what I had written had been read it would be seen that I propose an alternative understanding, not based on any of the current thought patterns suggesting the hoax, or indeed the ones suggesting the landing.

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

I'm not going to waste any more time on you Shaun, because you truly do have Lawyer's Disease; ie, it's more important to "win" the argument, than it is to have a correct position on the question. This puts you in good company with loonies the world over. Sooner or later, enough people and cameras will go to the moon to satisfy even your stupid objections. When that day comes, you will blithely excuse your present day proof-dyslexia by saying "Well, how could I have possibly known, anyway?" I go on record as saying that the proof is there, but you are willfully blind to it. Your ideas of what evidence could equate to truth are astronomical when the proof runs counter to your chosen stance; yet you insist on your own position with no proof whatsoever. Like Rush Limbaux, when held to the same standards you demand from others, you retreat to the shelter of "it's only my opinion". Well, duh: I think that says it all.

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

Shaun, my point with Hubble was a metaphocal point. I did not, nor do I, claim that Hubble can see the trash we left on the moon. I meant to point out that there is a tendency on the part of the public to trust the pictures (of stars and galaxies) we get from Hubble. There are no "Hubble photos are bunk" loonies. Hubble's images have only a negligible political/sociological dimension, and are therefore immune to this sort of controversy. One cannot inflate one's sense of self-importance by doubting Hubble. And by the way, you are wrong, about where the burden of proof lies in the question at hand. As you are studying law, you should know better. When this supposed "controversy" started, there was plenty of evidence that the moon landings took place substantially as described. Then out come these scientifically illiterate crazies, claiming that this doesn't make sense, that doesn't make sense, I don't understand lens flares, and film exposure factors, or springs holding flags up in a vacuum where there can't be any wind; therefore you faked it all. NASA and the astronauts, dare I say it, see this for what it is: a circus of self-stroking ignorance. They have better things to do with their money and time, than to go on Billy-Bob's Huh-What Talk Radio Show, and fan the flames of a stupid idea whose adherents (present company not necessarily excepted) will never let it die, because there's always something further that they still don't understand. Note that your every objection has been answered, most of all by your own referenced links, but you are still flogging the horse of "proof", when all that really means is that you don't understand the proof you've been presented with. You know what? I think you don't exist. That's right, you are a bot, written by a super-secret NASA code-tank, with the sole aim of misleading the world that your birth and subsequent "life" has occured. How are you going to prove me wrong? By your own reasoning, you now bear the burden of that proof, just because I raised the question. For every piece of your life you throw at me, I'll come up with a way it could have been faked, and claim that you still haven't proved your existence. That's how silly this whole thing is. BTW, China landing on the moon won't solve this stupidity. The doubters will just doubt China's word now, as well as NASA's. You also, now, have unequivically stated your belief: "Simply, did they go to the moon? No, they did not, and therefore have no real data of what a lunar rock should be like..." But only a couple of paragraphs later, you state "As far as I can remember, I do not recall ever stating that the landings did not take place as a fact." Simply put, you are in the crazy bucket, do not recognize evidence when it bites you on the a**, and will make a fantastic lawyer.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

Sure you could set up a hoax to fool the people. But that would take a lot of people to do it. And any hoax would look much more realistic than the real thing anyway, as you have plenty of time to get it right. regardless of all that, we know about things one of two ways. Direct experience, or being told by another. If we did not experience it directly (and even then we could be fooled). We rely on the veracity of the people telling us. With the Apollo missions, there were a lot of people who say they went into space and to the moon. Hundreds who say they saw the space craft in transit and landing on the moon through their telescopes. All up many thousands of people would have been needed, in several countries to create such a hoax. Extremely doubtful that they could have arranged it. Also, enemies of the USA with the tech to monitor the situation, like the USSR and China, would have jumped at any evidence it was not real and made public announcements. ALways ask someone's enemy when you want to know anything dirty about them. No such announcements were made, thus they were not able to penetrate any such hoax, more likely it happened than they did a hoax that good. It seems that you're too wedded to your theory to examine the available information fairly. That's your right. Something else is the Apollo 13 crisis, it went up, had trouble and had to circle the moon, the whole world was watching that in their telescopes etc. For many days every telescope in the world (several thousand of them) was watching Apollo 13 go to, around, and back from the moon. So they clearly had the tech to get there. in such a case, easier to do it than fake it.

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

This could be a long project, Shaun, if it will be necessary to take every little point in order. I'll start with the first photo cited in the student paper you have referred us to, questioning the U.S. moon landings: (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/buxton/Did%20Man%20Land%20On%20The%20Moon.pdf) The first item, the photo of Buzz by Armstrong. If you look at the reflection of the horizon in Buzz's helmet (what kind of name is "Buzz", for a grown astronaut??), you'll see that the reflection of the horizon (the center portion of it) is higher, by a little, than a line drawn across the visor image from the horizon limb on one side of his helmet, to the corresponding limb on the other side. Spherical reflectors exagerate this sort of distortion, but it does show that the lens of the camera that took that picture was definitely below the level of the center of Buzz's vizor. Still, it wasn't *much* lower. The reflection of Armstrong in the vizor shows the horizon cutting across his body just below his shoulders, as opposed to the horizon behind Buzz, which cuts across his helmet. This shows that Armstrong was simply standing on higher ground than Buzz (amazing, the things that can confuse a simple human brain, isn't it?) Also, to nail the jello down, the normal stance in those unbalanced suits was a forward crouch, to balance the weight of the environment pack. View the ubiquitous video of astronauts bouncing across the terrain (lunain?) to see where the balance dynamic says the weight is. The next old saw in the paper is the complaint that the only visible star in the photos is our sun. If you know anything about film exposures, that's not even a question. The bare sunlight was so bright that exposures (film, remember; not digital) had to be stopped 'way down. This is the same thing that happens when you point your camera at the sun, and the photo shows nothing besides the flare of our local star. Remember, everything was white or reflective, for thermal control. So, until it aquired a layer of moondust, the light reflected into the lens was very bright. This said, you could probably take some of that old film and over-expose the prints enough, if it hasn't degraded too far, and maybe pick out a very bright star or two. I doubt, however, that even the astronauts saw the stars. They landed in lunar day, for good reasons, and their visors were like extremly reflective sunglasses. Try seeing stars at night wearing sunglasses. I won't bore this thread further with arguments that would have died long ago, but for humans' penchant for selective attention and self-deception. Here's a good grab-bag debunking of the whole no-moon-landings myth: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Col, theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena It appears that you are the one that has the incorrect ideas of theory and hypothesis are... You say of the legal mind " they demand a Yes No answer without a Percentage for error" again, you are and have little understanding of the legal mind... In Criminal law, the standard, generally, is reasonable doubt... that would suggest that it is not a yes or no answer, and a reasonable doubt suggests that there is a percentage for error. If that does not convince you, in Civil law it is about the balance of probabilities and this definitely contains a percentage. So the legal mind does not demand a yes or no reply, thus the main basis of your argument falls away. You state about science... the thing with science, is that if an experiment is conducted, and it fails, its a failure, however, should the same experiment be repeated a number of times, and each time it fails in the same way, this now becomes a successful experiment as it has failed the same way each time. How is this a solid basis to stand anything on? Furthermore, science cannot prove that something is happening right now...but it can only show what has happened, nothing more. Real Scientific Evaluation... I put it to you, sir, that if not for science, then finger printing would not be here, if not for science neither would DNA be here. And as for the claim "an unproven Scientific method accepted by the Legal Fraternity who are unwilling to have it examined by proper Scientific Testing", if it is so unproven, which it is not, as it was science that discovered it in the first place, then it would not be used. The legal fraternity are not unwilling at all. However, this deters from the main discussion, point of evaluating reseources. You are trying to argue against legal theory, which you will never successfully do, due to the legal minds and how they work. That, however, does not deal with evaluating resources. You can research on how to evaluate sources, and you will see that there are many places dealing with it. The simple fact is the most sites are not worth the time expended to evaluate them... and as for NASA "We put a man on the moon because we said so" means nothing to me. They are trying to prove themselves. There is still no substantial proof that they were on the moon, irrespective of all the sites saying otherwise.

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

You are presented with ideas that contradict the way you think, and because you ahve already made up your mind, everything else falls away. I am sorry, but that is just not good grounds for study or evaluation. As for the hubble telescopt, it cannot see the flag clearly, read Neilb's post http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211029&messageID=2170909. You make the suggestion, as has many people about the cold war issue and all the people involved... and how it cannot be done... Wrong. It can be done. It depends on how far you want to research. If I have a group of people I want to convince that I am landing on the moon, all I need to do is pretend it is happening for real... snd up a space flight, and allow that flight to be the broadcast centre for all the communications... Film the landing involving a few people, and everyones eyes are on the rocket and people talking, meanwhile it was prepared before flight, and then thos images are broadcast back from space, thereby fooling everyone. You mentioned a few thousand people. If they did not know they were participating in an "experiment" then how wold they know at all? They would not. Furthermore, if it is assumed that for one moment that it is true, then you sir, are suffering under the same misguided thoughts as most people in thinking it happened, however, that is an assumption...but then most scientific research and or any other research starts with an assumption. As for claims not holding water, each claim that has been made to refute the hoax claims I too ca refute, and I have shown a possible scenario of that occuring. If you are not open to that theory too, then I put it to you, sir, that your view is clouded by the misconception that what the majority tell you is fact, is fact. At this point may I remind you that many people claimed the earth was flat...and when people said that was not the case, the same occured as you are trying to do here...but as we know, the earth is not flat at all, so the minority were correct not the majority. Just because 2 million people say the moon is cheese and 1000 disagree, does not mean the moon is cheese. It is actually a foot ball. As for the rock... I have read about this a few times. Each time a rock was examined, the people were told prior to them investigating, that it was a lunar rock. My question still stands, what if they were not told? Would they have reached the same conclusions? You cannot say yes, bcause it is unknown. "All you had to say about validation of the author and their info applies more to those who claim it was a hoax." Wrong, it applies to every piece of work. This is not just for a legal basis. Go and actually research out on evaluating sources. It is my opinion that few people understand this process.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

The only technology that would see the flag on the moon from earth orbit is the Hubble telescope, and that's busy doing other things. The laser and radar reflectors work fine and give echoes from the moon, as does the moon itself. All you had to say about validation of the author and their info applies more to those who claim it was a hoax. None of the hoax conspiracy supporters had radar or major telescope running at the time of the Apollo missions. Those that did tracked the various missions to the moon and back, and they said so at the time, some reputable, some not so reputable. The fact that the USSR would have blown a conspiracy if it was faked is a very telling point, and not so easily shrugged off as you would want. An enemy is always the first to jump down your throat if given half a chance, they didn't as thye knew they had no chance. Unless we, individually, were involved, we are left assessing the probabilities of the statements of others. We have a few dozen people who say it was all a hoax, based on their own biases and reviews of second or third hand records. we have a few dozen people who say it happened as they went there. We also have a few thousand people who say it happened as they were involved in making it happen at NASA mission control and other support stations around the world. Then there is the various rock and soil samples brought back that the scientists have been working on, some are very unique. In the end it comes down to who you believe, and I don't believe the hoax conspiracy people as their claims don't hold water, not one has any substance once you look into it. They make a big deal about some of the photos, yet anyone with any real experience with photography in unusual light conditions knows that the conspiracy comments are crap.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

[i]AT the present time, they are just theories, on both sides[/i] This is wrong neither is a Theory as they have not as yet reached the Scientific Methods to claim that status what you are quoting here are Hypothesis which are the precursor of a Theory. Something that the Legal mind quite often gets confused with mainly because they demand a [b]Yes No[/b] answer without a Percentage for error which any Scientist will be unable to give as there are % errors in every thing Scientific even DNA Testing which isn't looked favourably upon by the Legal Fraternity as it would break their new play toy and make it less than perfect. :D The fact that Fingerprinting has never been exposed to [b]Real Scientific Evaluation[/b] doesn't help either as it's considered as real by those practising Law and they don't want to rock the boat because it works for them. So basically you have an unproven Scientific method accepted by the Legal Fraternity who are unwilling to have it examined by proper Scientific Testing and they not only refuse to accept that their blanket statements may be incorrect but they call it a Scientific Law and don't even admit that it has the element of error that a Theory has. Col

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Please refer to my source evaluation post located here http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211029&messageID=2174637 The presented sources... both are of NASA origins... Logically, if an individual or an organisation states that another individual or organisation is guilty of some offence, and the accused stands up and states I have produced this document and written that book that show I did not commit the aid offence, is this a good defence? I would like to suggest that this is a poor defence, until it can be evaluated and validated by an independent organisation. The links you post are from NASA, and it has been suggested that NASA and the US Government are guilty of a conspiracy to claim that the moon landings took place, on really flimsy unsubstantiated, uncoroborated evidence, that the links that these two institutions put forward as 'evidence' to support that they did land on the moon, inthe same way as in my scenario, are insufficient proof to show it happened. An independent, non-government funded, non-profit organisation need to make an investigation, preferably to examine the moon's surface to show whether or not, the Flag is there. China is making moves to land on the moon, so if the flag is there it may yet be validated... if it is not... The credibility of NASA and the US Government will be destroyed over night. AT the present time, they are just theories, on both sides... To make lie be credible you tell it as close to the truth as possible, including many elements of the truth in the lie. Hubble, as has been shown, is not powerful enough to photograph the sections of the moon required. The links you provided... the second one... this shows an image where there are footprints on the surface of the moon... NASA made the claim that there is no moisture on the moon at all... that is very dry... Now, let me ask you this... have you ever walked on dry beach? How many detailed footprints did you see? However, walking on the part where there waves wash up, clear distinct prints are left. How does this get explained? I dont think I have seen this explained. Also, the only REAL evidence to support the fact they did land on the moon are the 841 pounds of unual isotopic properties, and therefore have to be out of this world... Let me ask you this: Do we know and understand and have detailed down somewhere that I can reference, a journal, a book, that details EVERY single rock on the surface, or below the surface of our Earth? No, we do not. Therefore it cannot be conclusive. Also, there have been a number of meteorites hit earth and 841 pounds cold quite easily have been retrieved from just such a site, thus providing the said lunar rock. Independent studies on the rocks. Simply, did they go to the moon? No, they did not, and therefore have no real data of what a lunar rock should be like... second, they examined the rocks after being told that they are lunar rocks, and so the judgement becomes a biased one. If they had the rocks and they were not told where they were from (either NASA or the Moon) and were just given in for analysis, what would that analysis have been? We dont know. So again, it is inconclusive. All the evidence that is provided to either support or negate the proposition of "The Apollo Missions: Did the landings Happen?" is merely subjective in nature and wholly inconclusive. To arrive at any other decision is down to your own sbjective opinion, rather than an objective one. The opinion I gave at the beginning of this discussion was just that... a subjective opinion. As far as I can remember, I do not recall ever stating that the landings did not take place as a fact. However, the idea has been vehemently opposed on inconclusive evidence, and unsubstantiated replies. Each person is entitled to his or her opinion. Now you can say that after all I have written that I am not letting that happen, but all I have done is give an account of why I have the belief I have. I never saw FOX's video at all. Not once. I am not about to make a full blown thesis out of this, but I think based upon some of what I have seen and read, that I would have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to truly show one way or the other, that the landings occurred. There may well be much evidence on offer, but when establishing the validity of it, or if its authoratitive... will it stand up? I dont know, I have not carried out major research and I doubt if anyone here has either.

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

There are guidelines on evaluating the source of the information. Here are some guidelines, please apply it to the docudrama... I would like to point out, that the type of program already gives some aspersions over the data given. It is a docudrama... alluding to the fact that there is a degree of dramatisation taking place... Therefore this source is already not to be relied on... Primary sources not secondary or tertiary sources are requred for substantial proof. Negatory Evidence... from the fact you say about cold war, you are deriving that this is in itself a proof to show that a man walked on the moon? I think that is purely subjective, and I suggest, sir, an opinion, even if supported by others, nevertheless an opinion. Too many people think that because many people say it happened it happened... Many people used to say the earth was flat, and a few said it was round, and they were classed as heretic. There is enough current technology to focus on the moon and show the American flag. I dont mean from the government or nasa, an independent source. BUT this has never happened... why is that ou think? So, based on your idea of negatory evidence, this can then go to support the proposition that man did not land on the moon as this has not since been evaluated and or validated by an independent source. ==================================== Evaluating Resources This guide covers the main criteria for evaluating information sources to help you decide whether the information you have found is suitable to be included in your academic work. It is important that you do consider the relevance and reliability of your sources, as they must be of a suitable standard to be used in an academic environment. When using books and journals there are a number of criteria you need to think about to ascertain the resource's usefulness. Journals have some additional considerations which will be discussed later on in this section. Author Who is the author? What are their credentials? Have they got an educational background, qualifications or experience in the area they are writing about? What other material have they written? Have they been referred to in other sources? Are they associated with a particular organisation or institution and if so what are their aims? Are they approaching the subject from a particular angle? Some of these details may be contained in the information about the author, which can be found on the back cover, inside page etc of many books. Date When was the book or journal published? Books usually have this information located on the title page underneath the name of the publisher, if not check the reverse of the page where the copyright date is given. Is the source current or out of date? Some information written only a year ago may already be out of date, whilst other information first recorded in previous centuries may still be valid. You will need to evaluate the currency of the information yourself. Publisher Who published the work? The good reputation of a publisher does not necessarily guarantee the quality of what it publishes, but is an indication that the resource has fulfilled certain criteria. Items published by a university press are likely to be academic, whilst some commercial publishers specialise in academic books in particular subjects. Intended Audience Who is the source aimed at? What is the academic level of the material it contains? Is it too basic, technical, advanced or just right? Quality of Material Is the information fact or opinion? fact - an event or thing that can be proved to have happened or existed opinion - a statement, judgement or belief which may or may not be true Does the author quote other sources to back up their arguments? Is the author objective or subjective when arguing a point? objective - they do not bring their personal bias or emotions into an argument subjective - when a person's emotional or personal prejudices affect their argument Is the material primary or secondary information? primary - used by historians to describe material that has come from an original source ie. first hand accounts, diaries etc. Scientists use the term to describe observations etc that are published for the first time (ie they are not derived from other published sources) It is always best to obtain the primary source wherever possible rather than relying on some else's interpretation of it. This is especially true for students in the final year of their degree. secondary - when someone uses primary sources for their own material and therefore the information becomes 'second-hand'. Evaluating Journals When evaluating journals, as well as using the above criteria you also need to think about the following: Journal Type Trade/Practitioner - These tend to have short articles and are written by the kind of people they are aimed at eg lawyers, accountants etc and usually have the words weekly, monthly or news in the title. They are good for industry related information, but make sure your academic work is not based solely on them. Academic/Professional - These are written by academics, contain longer articles than trade journals, with references and the title usually contains one of the following words journal, review, quarterly or proceedings. Research - These academic journals are dedicated to publishing research articles. Peer-Reviewed Articles in many academic journals are peer-reviewed which means they have been scrutinised by a panel of subject specialists to check their suitability before publication. Look at the Aims and Scope section at the beginning of the journal to check whether it is peer-reviewed.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

There are a number of conspiracy therorist who claim they have evidence that they didn't, but there are two major things that prove they did. The first is shown in the movie the Dish (BTW this is very much a docudrama of the events - those guys out at Parkes were much like that). When Parkes lost the code to drive the computer to track onto the signal from Apollo, they simply pointed the dish towards the moon and moved it slowly back along the expected track until they got the signal. Why go that far and not all the way? But the most telling evidence is negatory evidence. This was at the height of the Cold War, the very core of the USA/USSR Space Race. If the USSR saw an opportunity to score some points off the USA, they would have. The USSR radar stations and telescopes tracked Apollo to the moon, and even saw it on the moon. If it hadn't gone there the USSR would have annouced it as a fake. Sheesh, even amateur astronomers saw Apollo in flight for most of its journey. ahhgh typos again

Lightning Joe
Lightning Joe

The Apollo landers left retroreflectors, which astronomers can and do use to bounce laser beams back to earth, thus measuring the actual earth-moon distance. Shine a laser beam at the moon, and you'll see a bright return from the landing sites where they set these up. The beam is sent through a telescope, and is abt four miles across when it hits the moon. The return is so faint that a naked eye cannot see it, after the resultant half-million mile journey and spreading of the beam, but it can be picked out easily, by instruments, against the background return, which is vanishingly faint. Most of the things Hubble takes pictures of aren't percievable by naked eye, either; that doesn't mean they don't exist. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=605 http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Conspiracy theories... a new one born all the time :D The dead sea scrolls deception - enlighten me please.

Shellbot
Shellbot

What is/is not relevent? As for the clarification on the moon bases, thanks. I'll check out those sites at home later. Ah, how dull the world would be without conspiracy theories :) Just finished reading this: The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Interesting, some utter sh1te, some really makes you think :)

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Why is that relevant? I read various things have different intersts...

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

21 This year? And last year and the year before that and so on for at least 30 years now. :D It's great never getting any older than 21 though I'll never be old enough to join that Bikers Group that I want to join as a Junior Member can be allowed in as a Probationer at 55 so I've got a very long wait in front of me. :( Besides after the last time of riding the Ducati I wore out $600.00 worth of tires in 3,000 KMS and destroyed several finial drive chains which is a real nuisance as you stop moving with the motor running. :( And got run over by some [b]Snot Nosed Lunatic Female Social Worker/Disease[/b] who was offended when I asked someone to get [b]This Bloody Thing Off Me[/b] apparently with the car on top of it and my right leg under it with battery acid dripping out it burnt a bit and that [b]Bloody Bitch[/b] was offended by me saying [b]Bloody[/b] If I had of known just how crazy she was I would have been much worse. :D Col ]:)

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

There's nothing going on there either, except a lot of money being made by the people of Roswell selling UFO souvenirs to tourists. Most of the moon base links were blocked by our proxy server as not business or research related. I'll have to take a look at them from home.

Shellbot
Shellbot

geez, just how old are you anyways? ]:)

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

I agree that the arguments given are good and plausable. I wont deny it. And I ahve no answer as to why they would want to make it a hoax. I just think that there is no smoke without fire... perhaps the coverups America has previously been involved in... area 51 and other such things. Why cover up those things? Anyway... There is much evidence to show they walked on the moon. Did you see the moon base video clip now? I got the link wrong before...but I located it.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

If it was a hoax, who developed the technology spun off to commercial uses? Medical advances, materials engineering, Tang? We in the U.S. don't believe much our government say without a lot of independent examination. We couldn't keep Watergate or Iran-Contra under wraps. Clinton couldn't keep his sex life quiet, and there were only two people involved. Spain didn't sink the U.S.S. Maine; Hearst did because a war sells papers. Reagan consulted astrologers. There isn't a credible scientific publication, be it paper or electronic, that doesn't support the moon landing as fact. With the strong history of journalistic independence in the U.S., it's impossible to believe these journals would continue to support a faked landing through almost 40 years of editorial turnover. If there was hard evidence of a hoax, the scientific journals would be on it like flies on manure. What's their motivation for keeping quiet? "I really do not know where the hoax ends and truth starts or truth ends and hoax starts." All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. It's up to you to decide what's simpler, man successfully walking on the moon or an ongoing elaborate hoax.

JamesRL
JamesRL

There were thousands of people working at NASA at the time. As well there were many more thousands in the US military and in the Federal government involved in the project. Billions of dollars were spent. Do you really think that a small number of people could fool all of those thousands? How many people would have been in on it if it were a hoax. Well lets say all of the Apollo astronauts, many people in launch control and everyone who plucked the capsules out of the water. The capsules were picked up by aircraft carriers who had thousands of crew members. Could those thousands fool tens of thousands or more who were in some way involved in the project? Do you think its conceivable that thousands of people could keep that big of a secret for that long? Isreal could not conceal the fact that they have nuclear weapons. Nixon could not conceal Watergate. And there are so many more examples. Humans are not without fault and it would be virtually impossible for someone not to have spilled the beans by now. James

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

I found what I was looking for, the site, I dont think is very authorative, but here is a link http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_5816.shtml its a video clip. These two sites, if looked through say similar things... http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg http://www.disclosureproject.org/ Other things America seems good at covering things up... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1322432.stm A question was asked why would Russia not say anything if they knew... perhaps because they were part of it... who knows - I dont... They seemingly had their own cover ups... http://www.debunker.com/texts/soviet_coverup.html All this stuff is just the stuff of movies, hoaxes and conspiracy theories... My own thoughts are that I really dont know what to believe... the things they say show it didnt happened weighed up against those who say it did... If you get a group of intelligent people around a table and they have to answer those allegations, they can easily find reasons to explain them away. And we are not the only ones discussing this very thing... http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/12/04/us.moon/index.html http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20000703/cover.html I really do not know where the hoax ends and truth starts or truth ends and hoax starts. There is a saying "there is no smoke without fire..."

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

It is probably I misread... I am dyslexic unfortunately, and it happens. However, from the recording, I understood that the base was already there, and nothing to with Americans or anyone else putting it there... but it is VERY likely I just misuderstood what I heard. I shall try to find it... and put it up.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Shaun, I'd appreciate it if you could find those links to a supposed moon base. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the U.S. stopped going to the moon because we have a base there. How is it getting resupplied? How did the personnel get there? In the Cold War era, why wouldn't we want the world to know it was there? (That would have been one hell of a deterrent.) Why would we waste time and money on a space station when we had a moon base? I can't find any relevant Google hits, but maybe I'm not entering the proper search parameters.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Arthur Clark didn't actually write 2001 but sold off a book at the screenings of 2001 which as a script or story of 2001. The original book that inspired 2001 was a short story that was evolved into 2001. That was available at the original screenings of the film. God I've just given away my age haven't I? :_| Col ]:)

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

If I misunderstood, then it is my fault... but I am sure I saw a site (thought it was that one) that claims that the US govt was covering up a moon base on the moon and hence that is why they didnt return... I shall look and try to locate the information, I thought I had saved it. Forgive the error, I shall correct as soon as I am can locate the information.

Shellbot
Shellbot

Ok, in one of your posts you say: "One site was claiming that there were bases on the moon..." Then in another post you give is the web site: "This is the suposed moon base one http://www.clavius.org/" Now, please tell me nicely if I'm not understanding this, but i took a quick look on the site, and i see nothng about a "susposed moon base"? There is a blurb which says this: "Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred. This site is named after the Clavius Moon Base in Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, and visualized by Stanley Kubrick in the film of the same name. " Maybe i missed the info regarding the "moonbase"? If so, let me know and i'll go have a look right away. Otherwise (and yes, correct me if i am wrong) you can hardly make references to the site as "saying there are moon bases" when in fact they have simply named thier website after a fictional book.

neilb
neilb

is one of TR's most active members and, as such, is known to most of us. He's pretty well clued up on those things on which he posts (except climate change!) so surprising him with something was quite pleasant. His main area of expertise is US politics so catching him out in aerospace wasn't a huge victory but nonetheless welcome. Alas there was no stake for that bet and the next time that I crossed swords, the stake was a steak so I'm left owing a meal... :D The origin of his name is "Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer..."

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Who is Maxwell, please? And what significance does he hold? This is a valid question.

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

The links were put up because I said I would put them up. I have personally seen that there are many places to say it was a hoax (ones that mean nothing at all) and ones that support the landing. Also, I should of presented both sides of the story initially and I was wrong not to do that. So I just made up for it now. However, that said, the main link was about Clavius... and what other people think of this... I did not know about this till this discussion, so looking for proper replies on it.

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Thank you for the detailed reply... the first paragraph was great. Thanks for the mathematical calculations, I will be honest, they are really out of my scope, maths was never good for me. Again, thank you it is much appreciated.

neilb
neilb

that the USA could not send a man to the moon and bring him back within the next two years if they gave over every spare resource. Max checked with some buddies in aerospace and - reluctantly - agreed with me. The problem with the way that the US got to the Moon directly from Earth rather than Earth orbit was because it was politically motivated. The method, huge multi-stage rocket with bits thrown away at every stage until the astronauts splash down in a baked bean can was just so detrimental to the true exploration of space that it makes me - a real techno-junkie - want to cry. It was just too stupid to be a fake. Also, given that it was a political demonstration aimed directly at the Russians, there is NO WAY that they (the Russians) would have missed any chance to show it up as a fake. They had the technology to follow what happened, they had measurements of radiation and so on from their own manned and unmanned space flights but, above all, they had the motive to deny the US success. They didn't. Nuff said! Neil :D

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Yes, the moon landing occurred during the Nixon administration. It was the culmination of eight years of work by NASA, work started under the Kennedy administration and continued through the Johnson years. The landing occured six months into Nixon's reign, and his administration had nothing to do with it. Even the money for the 1969 landing was budgeted in 1968 under Johnson. There are a lot of cockamammie "theories" about why the moon landing didn't take place, but Nixon being a liar isn't one of them. Why hasn't anybody else done it? Because it's hideously expensive. Since we (the Western democracies) "won" the Cold War, there's no political need to prove we're superior to the Commies. Now if Saddam had a space program, we'd be growing petunias on Jupiter by now. Shaun, you posted a list of links above, and only the first one supports the moon landing as a fake. I'm not sure why you would post a bunch of links that oppose your position, but thanks for saving me the work. You did a much better job of it than I could have.

neilb
neilb

I had to go looking for this one as I needed to refresh my memory but the answer is fairly simple - it isn't powerful enough. It can't even see the remains of the Lunar Module, let alone the flag they left. It's also worth remembering that they'd be looking DOWN onto the edge of the flag. If we take a 20m square flag laid onto the surface of the Moon, and that's what we don't have, we can do some maths: Distance between Hubble telescope and the Moon is 350,000Km. The visual angle of the flag is 20/(3.5 x 10^8) * 180/π or 3.2 x 10^-6 degrees. That's around 12 milliarcseconds. The - now broken - telescope on Hubble has a best case pixel resolution scale of 46 milliarcseconds. We wouldn't even see the flag as a single pixel. If you ask NASA - who are obviously biased - they say this: The wavelength of green (ed: cheese?) visible light is around 550nm. The diameter of Hubble's mirror is 2.4m. Highest possible resolution = 1.4 x 550 x 10^-9 /2.4 = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians At a distance of 350,000km this works out as about 124 metres. Reckon that one's nailed. :D

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

I noticed how y ou like to try have the last word :D

neilb
neilb

Of course there are no hard feelings. Unless, of course, you reply to this post! :D

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

I looked at many sites, in truth, and to me the evidence is weak on both sides... they have the 841 pounds of moon rock in their favour though... One site was claiming that there were bases on the moon... I will try to get the site address, and put it here... I am busy with essays, and kinda wanted to some silly discussion, that is all, and I got too embroiled in it. So long as there are no hard feelings and all is well, its all good :D And I noticed that about the last word... :D

neilb
neilb

being a totally argumentative git. I absolutely agree with you about wiki but I based my response for a starting place for your researchers on the quality of your posted link. And that link was to an undergraduate essay rather than to one of the many extensive "Apollo hoax" sites or one of the more notorious Apollo conspiracy theorists. Had you done that, I'd not have directed you to wiki... Neil :D

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Neil, After doing research for ten years, I am almost sure you know that wiki is not the place to start :) And it was dumb discussion... Alls well ends well... :) Shaun

neilb
neilb

Nobody is in the slightest offended. However, if you want to start a discussion about the Moon landings hoax, you are going to have to accept that you're only going to get a discussion as such if there is some common ground. Given that to most people, myself certainly and I would guess Tony and Hal, it's a particular conspiracy theory that invites ridicule, I'm not surprised with the tone of anyones answer. Try and find a topic a little [b]more[/b] contentious - somewhere where we can get closer together but still disagree - and then you'll get a discussion. "The Moon Landings Didn't Happen" is something akin to the existence of elves. I watched the first landing as a child and I've seen it many times since and denial just strikes me as ludicrous. I don't feel the need to provide evidence to "prove" they got there or to the contrary. Given that the method used to get to the moon was totally detrimental to the whole exploration of space, was a political stunt and, as such, contained the seeds of its own downfall, it was too STUPID to fake. Read the wiki article for a basic rebuttal of the hoax theory and go from there. Neil :D

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Where did I say it was fact? I think I started with an opinion, then was told that it was fact that the landing had happened... and I asked for the evidence... and its not been forthcoming. I am not shouting, nor am I aggressive... if people cannot back up the evidence speak of then they should speak of it... I didnt say I had evidence, nor did I claim it was fact. Polite... I say Tony was impolite. Your a Clinical Biochemist, and did research, then you should appreciate my request. Perhaps I was aggressive, just that it was said that there is proof, and I Asked for some. I dont think that my initial request was unreasonable, do you? If I have offended anyone, I apologise, there was never an intention to offend.

neilb
neilb

As far as I read this, you're the one introduced the "fact" of the Moon landings hoax into a thread on science fiction when most people consider the hoax to be the fiction. Now you're the one getting hot under the collar. Tony said "As you know landing on earth is easier than landing on Mars." (It is). And then you start going off on some sort of evidential rant. I thought he was quite polite with you (for Tony) and gave you more attention than your point warranted. Anyway, to the key point in my post... You have "several law assignments due in". Does part of whatever course you're doing mandate aggressive requests for "proof" of something none of us care whether you believe in or not? Or are you just practising your debating skills? Neil :D

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

I am sure that I can get some proper evidence, but the simple fact is no counter evidence has been supplpied, they are all mouth and nothing has been forth coming to substantiate their claims... I am not going to do their job for them. And as for the reference - it is a university academic and not 6th form. I agree its a weak one, but I have mitigating circumstances, several law assignments due in... so I do understand on referencing... but like I said from the first post... suppy the evidence, or shut up shouting about it.

neilb
neilb

You could do well to heed your own advice! The "evidence" you posted was the sort of thing that could be gathered by a sixth-form student in half an hour. It seems to be some sort of student essay. Having read it through, all I can say is that you might have least quoted a few of the more authoritative authors on this subject even though they are as much conspiracy theorist nutters as you appear to be. Everything that those authors have written has been debunked so it wouldn't actually do your case any good, mind. :D

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Tony, the point is simple... You have not and obviously cannot back up what you have said... and you have not done it since I asked... yet, I have backed up what I have written. So, like I said, back up, or shut up! You have nothing of any value to write here on this subject. And in answer to the questions... it is still hearsay till evidence to show otherwise can be seen. Your word is not good enough. Go and learn how to reference.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

I didn't see Marconi make the first radio call, I didn't see the Wright brothers make their first flight. I didn't see England win the world cup. So I don't see your point. Nixon actually proves the point, how long did he get away with his deception for?

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

To attack the writer rather than what has been written shows a distinct lack of understanding or knowledge of your subject... and I have already posted some evidence to back my belief, and you have not yet done so... I think this in itself demonstrates that you are not able to...or you would do so. As for the conning everyone... Firstly you need to remember that was during Nixon's presidency, and he lied and conned everyone! So why not con the world too? His mindset was this way. It is easy to con the world to believe something, especially if there is no true way to validate it... and take note that the Astronauts themselves refuse to be interviewed on this subject... Why is that do you think? And really, I dont care if they landed there or not... I just said I dont believe it, and you claimed emphatically they had. Let me ask you, were you on the moon to see it? Highly doubtful, so therefore all you really have is hearsay evidence which is inadmissable. Now either back up what you write or shut up. I have put a authoratitive peper up to suggest that my stand point is valid, and you have not done so...

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

such a fallacy, when doing it would be easier. Where is the evidence that they didn't do it? Come on post some links to the foundation of your beliefs, I need a good laugh. Yes I did attack you, that's because according to everything I know, you are spouting bollocks. One of the best pieces of evidence for them actually doing is that the USSR stopped trying. Do you honestly think the americans could have conned them? Why do you want to believe they did not? I know why I want to believe they did, if they were taking volunteers for a mission to Mars, I'd be shooting people to get to the head of the queue.

dawgit
dawgit

They left a lot of junk laying around up there. Get a good telescope and look at it. (They didn't hide it, and I've been able to get my hyper-trans space trash truck tuned up to get up there and pick it up yet :p )

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

You've read the book called [b]The Jesus Factor[/b] and totally believe it right? There are way too many holes in the arguments put forward in that bit of fiction to make it believable but it was an interesting read. :p Col

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Firstly I asked IF they did... then why has no one else landed there... tell me do you think that there is only one country in the world? And its America? The question again, is, quite simply, why has NO ONE else (other than America) landed on the moon? As for evidence, you still didnt show the evidence in support of your statements - in other words back it up from authoratitive sources! You didnt therefore your statements are hollow without basis. In my initial post, if you care to look, I wrote I BELIEVE - I didnt say it did or didnt happen. I think I also wrote, and I quote "That does not mean they have not had space flights or anything like that...as they have". Further, I said that since there are tremendous obstacles to overcome in landing on Mars (with todays technology that was not available when they landed on the moon), how did they manage to land on the moon? They have, as yet, not had a successful mars landing, and given todays technology...and the knowledge of the landing on the moon, why not on mars yet? This has yet to be answered... But like most people, you focus rather on criticising the author rather than backing up what you say in a form that can be validated. Freely available... show me the evidence, because I dont think you can... However, here is an authorititive supporting my belief... http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/buxton/Did%20Man%20Land%20On%20The%20Moon.pdf WE didnt land on the moon at all, the Americans claim they did... but still there is no genuine evidence of it. And as for outer space - I think not. You just didnt read... please read again with understanding as my question is not yet answered.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Got my planets arse about face. :D The reason why we did land on the moon is very very simple, the conspiracy to create and maintain an illusion for this length of time, would have cost more than doing it for real. We could have had bases on Pluto by now, had we been prepared to take the risks and the initial investment on. At the moment there isn't enough desire to get off the planet. The shuttle itself for instance , a lot was learnt making it, but aside from being a gee whiz gadget, it's a complete and utter failure for it's designed purpose. All that government money funded to a a few top manufacturers, who just happen to sponsor a senator or two and be very active in defence. Re-use of solid fuel boosters, it cost more to do that and then refurbish them and make them safish, than it would to build new ones! It's not been about getting humanity out of it's single basket, but national pride and making shed loads of money. The evidence was you, you talk like you're from outer space. I will admit you aren't in my possession, your post is though, I'll keep it for when I need a chuckle to cheer me up.

dawgit
dawgit

By geeks with pocket-protectors. It was truely the revenge of the geeks. (kool too.) I wish I could find my slide rule now. hummmm. ?:| -d

dawgit
dawgit

Surfing down the Gravity waves to travel through space. Space Surfing. ;\ now that sounds like fun.!. :p -d

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Was freely known and available. Any Planet with an Atmosphere is hard to land on and the thicker that the Atmosphere is the more technically challenging the landing is hence the destruction of a Space Shuttle recently when its Heat Shields had been compromised. The moon on the other hand has a very thin Atmosphere so it doesn't require the heavy protection that is required by Earth Landings though with each subsequent Moon Landing that did increase the density of the Atmosphere by 50% when they finished their landings, but that has since bleed off because of the small gravitational force emitted by the moon so it should now be a simple matter to visit there again though why you would need to is beyond me. Of course if you are one of those people who brought land up there you may have a need to go there and inspect your property but I can not see the need for anyone else returning there as they have yet to find the Monolith on Earth. Till they manage that any further trips to the moon may endanger the scientific progress that we as Mankind need to undergo. :D But perhaps it would be a good idea to return to the Moon to see what contamination we did there all those years ago but there should be nothing else that makes it a necessary project right at this point in time. Col

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

You are in possession...? I see... does that then mean its not freely available, and therefore its not able to be validated? If so, then the evidence is not substantiated and thus irrelevant :))

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

As you know landing on earth is easier than landing on Mars. What planet do you hail from by the way. It's not that one called Proxmire is it?

Shaun.G
Shaun.G

Did they actually land on the moon? If so, why has no one else landed there since? There are great difficulties to land on Mars in present times... how on erth did they do it back then? I believe they never did land there and there is evidence to support it... so sci fi is just all fantasy, even realy space travel is just fantasy... its not really possible. That does not mean they have not had space flights or anything like that...as they have... but nothing that goes past the moon... something even close to Star Trek.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

e = mc squared. Outer space does not feature in the equation. The apparent velocity of light does change through gravity but only when relativistic effects are taken into account. All that happens there though is you are not travelling in a straight line from a to b. The larger the gravitation, the bigger deviation.

dawgit
dawgit

I must have been traveling a long time then, through rather large Gravity fields, to become as Deviated as I am. :D -d