The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Quote:

---

The jacket's motion is fully consistant with the action of an object in zero-G.

---

Look very carefully at the way the corner of this shuttle astronaut's jacket floats when she's still.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

Now look at the corner of Collins' jacket when he's not jogging in place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
(00:54 time mark)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A...e-gem-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)
(one of these links should be working)

It falls to a hanging position. It behaves exactly the way it would in gravity.

In this video at the 00:14 time mark a man starts to run on a treadmill on earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

Look at the corners of his jacket. This is gravity and Collins is in gravity.

Go into some detail and explain why the corner of Collins' jacket is in zero-G if you're so sure. Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

Look very carefully at the way the corner of this shuttle astronaut's jacket floats when she's still.It falls to a hanging position. It behaves exactly the way it would in gravity.

---

No, it doesn't. It behaves exactly the way it would in zero-G.

No matter how much you obviously wish it were otherwise, it is perfectly consistant with the behavior of objects in space.

It is plausible that they were in space and took that footage.













HA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

bla bla bla jacket proves it was a fake, dur dee dur

---

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/pict...pictureid=1458

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

I haz da yootubes about a jacket

---

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/pict...pictureid=1455

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

look at ma videeoze about jackets

---

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/pict...pictureid=1298

(RandomGuy's post #1627)

Quote:

---

Look very carefully at the way the corner of this shuttle astronaut's jacket floats when she's still.It falls to a hanging position. It behaves exactly the way it would in gravity.
--------------
No, it doesn't. It behaves exactly the way it would in zero-G.

No matter how much you obviously wish it were otherwise, it is perfectly consistant with the behavior of objects in space.

---

Anyone who reads my post can see that you misquoted me. You are acting like a cornered shill now.

Stop playing games and explain why Collins' jacket corner falls to a hanging position when he's still and the corner of the shuttle astronaut's jacket floats when she's still.

Let's sum up the thread, now that we are 63 pages into this exercise in stubbornness.

Cosmored has some videos with anomolies he doesn't understand.

He then has made dozens of assertions, based on the theory that the things he doesn't understand in the videos he posts actually mean that those videos and photographs are faked, because the entire Apollo program, and all subsequent space programs are all hoaxes.

To support this theory he has nothing but provably false logic and hand-waving.

He has provided no evidence outside these videos.

He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks are fake.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks, if not fake, how they were brought back, if not by the Apollo missions.
He has no evidence showing how the videos or photos were faked.
He has no first-hand testimony of any one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would have to be involved in creating the hoax and covering it up.

Everytime that he is asked about any hard evidence of this massive undertaking, he simply retreats to long ago debunked minutae of things he doesn't understand.
Mouse, for his part has joined the "I don't understand the video" bandwagon.

Both have allowed themselves to be lied to, because of a desperate desire to BELIEVE in the fantastic conspiracy theory in which hundreds of thousands of people all worked to hoax and/or cover up. I say this because some of what they have presented as "evidence" of fakery has been quite literally manufactured by hoax believers themselves, and provably so, as has been seen here, if you care to plumb the depths of the swamp of the last 60 pages.

Let's sum up Cosmored's performance in this "debate"

The following posts are where I ask for any direct evidence of various claims made by Cosmored, and no such evidence was supplied or where I directly pointed out the logical flaws (all ad hominem) in Cosmored's arguments:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=232

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=234

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=249

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=279

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=422

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=466

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=548

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=550

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=565

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=565

(one of my favorites, where Cosmored proves he is a sophist, as he claims I am):

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=603

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=627

Here is where Cosmored admits that he doesn't tend to watch things that rebut his own points:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=549

Here is one where I break down one of Cosmored's claims to find the underlying assumptions that essentially require modern physics to be wrong for ol' Cosmo to be right. This got a big round of ignore too:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=626

Here is where Cosmored applies different standards of evidence to people he agrees with than to anybody else (another reason he got banned from the other websites by the way)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=634

Here is one that Cosmored has yet to speak to with something other than internet videos:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=635

I will not watch any further videos posted by Cosmored since he will not do the same for me. That is simply fair. If Cosmored wishes to post quick executive summaries of his videos, I will be happy to address them.

Lastly:

What we have here is a rather standard pattern of "argument" by Cosmored.

1) Dismiss sources using the logical "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

2) Make claims, but fail to provide direct proof of those assertions when repeatedly asked.

Both of which would get you laughed out of any debating hall.

Rules of debate:
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech..._is_debate.htm

Quote:

---

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

---

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/co...EBATERULES.htm

Quote:

---

Do not use ad hominem arguments.

---

Word.

One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the least complicated of two or more possible explanations for an observation. Needless to say, most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule.

In practice, Occam's Razor is used to cut away elements of theories which cannot be observed. For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot be observed even though his equations produce the same results as Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be correct given the current set of observations.

Conspiracy theories generally entail the opposite of Occam's Razor. That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon.

Both NASA and the conspiracists offer explanations which fit the observable phenomena. But some Apollo conspiracy theories require us to believe in things like NASA death squads and top-secret soundstages in remote locations. There is no direct evidence for either of those. The possibility that these things -- if they existed -- might explain the conspiracists' observations is not proof that those things exist.

On a grander scale, conspiracists often have an elaborate explanation for one photograph or statement and another completely different but equally elaborate explanation for the next photo and so on. Soon these piecemeal propositions start contradicting each other. And you get different explanations depending on which conspiracist you ask.

It's not suspicious that different conspiracists have different ideas. That's how investigation works. But it is a big deal when one conspiracist's theory, taken as a whole, propounds into a looming mass of unfounded speculation. Instead of the typical process of looking at all the possibilities and deciding which of them best makes sense, conspiracists generally follow a line of reasoning which first demands that the conspiracy exist. They then follow whatever tortured path of conjecture is necessary to arrive at that conclusion.

The resulting line of reasoning may appear airtight. The reader can follow the argument from first principles to conclusion. But the reader often fails to ask whether that line of reasoning really is the only possible one, and whether the conspiracist's argument requires the reader to believe in extraneous propositions for which there is no evidence.

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/occam.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conspiracy theory says

NASA apologists say there's no physical evidence for a conspiracy theory. There's plenty of evidence, such as the photo and video anomalies.
This reveals a fundamental flaw in the conspiracist understanding of the nature of hypothesis and proof.

---

A hypothesis is a statement whose truthfulness is not known, but which -- if it were true -- would explain some set of observations. The proof of that hypothesis would be some other observation (not the one being explained) which would would be seen if and only if that particular hypothesis were true, and not, say, some other hypothesis which also explains the first observations.

If you think this sounds a lot like the scientific method, you're right. The scientific method uses a carefully chosen experiment to test which of several hypotheses is the right one. The experiment tries to see by-products or effects that could only be caused by the hypothesis the scientists are testing.

But the problem comes when conspiracists want to test a hypothesis. You can't use the initial observation as proof of your hypothesis. This is a fallacy -- an example of erroneous thinking -- which logicians call a "circular argument". The notion of a circular argument can be best summed up in the following fanciful dialogue:

Sir Bedevere: Why are you trying to burn that woman?
Villagers: Because she is a witch!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: Well, we wouldn't be trying to burn her if she weren't.

Let's say, for example, that I observed my car windshield was wet. I might hypothesize that it has recently rained. But how would I prove that? If I were like the villagers in the exchange above, I would consider it already proved: The wet windshield proves it rained. But the wet windshield was the observation I was trying to explain. To know whether or not it rained I would need to look for other signs of recent rain. For example, I could look at the sky and see if it's cloudy. Or I could see if the distant surroundings were also wet. Or I could ask somebody who may have witnessed the rain.

I have to do that because there are lots of other hypotheses. Perhaps some sort of moisture has leached out of the glass. Perhaps a nearby sprinkler doused the car. I have to find some way of choosing one hypothesis over the other. I can't just cite the wet windshield as evidence. I have to find evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the windshield itself, but has to do with the process I hypothesize.

With the circular argument I can put each of these hypotheses into a syllogism and say,

[*]My windshield is wet, therefore it has rained. [*]My windshield is wet, therefore moisture has leached out of the glass. [*]My windshield is wet, therefore a sprinkler has sprayed my car.

All three of these seem reasonable, but they all can't be correct. I can be absurd and hypothesize that my windshield is wet because space aliens controlled by G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on me and put that moisture there to absorb my brainwave patterns. The resulting "proof" would be
[*]My windshield is wet, therefore G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on my brainwave patterns using alien technology.

Yes, that's supposed to sound absurd. It's supposed to show that a pattern of reasoning which can produce such absurd conclusions isn't a valid pattern of reasoning. Circular arguments are "tautological" meaning that they're always true. They're true not because they arrive at a good conclusion, they're true because they're structured to be true no matter what conclusion or premise is involved. That's why they aren't useful for proving anything.
Let's do an example that involves Apollo data.

Conspiracists observe that in certain Apollo photographs the "fiducials" or crosshairs seem to pass behind objects in the photo. They hypothesize that the photos were produced in a laboratory by cut and paste techniques. This hypothesis, if true, would explain the observation. If a photo lab technician pasted an object into a photo already containing fiducials, he might obscure a fiducial by overlaying his addition on top of it.

But how to go about proving it? Unfortunately most conspiracists simply use the circular argument. When asked to provide evidence that a photo lab pasted up the Apollo photos, they point back to the missing fiducials and say, "See? The fiducials are missing, therefore they were created in the lab."

But reasonable people are not convinced by the tautological argument, nor should they be. When we say there is no evidence for such hypotheses, we mean that there is no evidence which undeniably and unquestionably shows that a photo lab produced the photographs. The conspiracists need to provide secondary, unambiguous evidence that could only be explained by their hypothesis. For example, they could try to find increased activity at government-funded photo labs. They could try to document the purchase of equipment and supplies by NASA that would only be useful to a photo lab that was falsifying pictures instead of just developing them. They could even try to find some of the people who participated in this alleged falsification of photos.

The absence of the fiducial doesn't prove the existence of a previously unknown photo lab any more than the villagers' desire to burn a woman proves she's a witch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conspiracy retards

NASA had to produce an ostensibly viable lunar landing program or else risk losing $30 billion in U.S. taxpayer money.

---

In fact almost all that money went to the contractors who built the equipment. NASA itself doesn't build spaceships. It hires companies to build spaceships for it.

But this division of labor presents a problem for conspiracy theorists. We start with the premise that NASA wanted the public to believe it actually succeeded in landing astronauts on the moon. This is common to all conspiracy theories. Also common to nearly all theories is the assertion that no such landing took place.

The most foolproof way of convincing somebody that you did something is to actually do it. Nothing is more convincing than the truth. So if NASA had to falsify the landings, that implies that (for whatever reasons) it was impossible to actually do it. So all conspiracy theories asserting that no lunar landing took place must argue that falsifying the lunar landing was easier than actually accomplishing it.

But how to deal with those pesky contractors? I see three basic scenarios: the Huge Conspiracy Scenario, the Absolute Minimum Scenario, and the Need-To-Know Scenario.

Quote:

---

Let's sum up the thread, now that we are 63 pages into this exercise in stubbornness.

Cosmored has some videos with anomolies he doesn't understand.

He then has made dozens of assertions, based on the theory that the things he doesn't understand in the videos he posts actually mean that those videos and photographs are faked, because the entire Apollo program, and all subsequent space programs are all hoaxes.

To support this theory he has nothing but provably false logic and hand-waving.

He has provided no evidence outside these videos.

He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks are fake.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks, if not fake, how they were brought back, if not by the Apollo missions.
He has no evidence showing how the videos or photos were faked.
He has no first-hand testimony of any one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would have to be involved in creating the hoax and covering it up.

Everytime that he is asked about any hard evidence of this massive undertaking, he simply retreats to long ago debunked minutae of things he doesn't understand.
Mouse, for his part has joined the "I don't understand the video" bandwagon.

Both have allowed themselves to be lied to, because of a desperate desire to BELIEVE in the fantastic conspiracy theory in which hundreds of thousands of people all worked to hoax and/or cover up. I say this because some of what they have presented as "evidence" of fakery has been quite literally manufactured by hoax believers themselves, and provably so, as has been seen here, if you care to plumb the depths of the swamp of the last 60 pages.

---

This is how government shills lose debates; admitting defeat is simply unthinkable so they play the Black Knight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ

Please stop ducking the issue in post #1626.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1626

I say I've proven they were faking being halfway to the moon with this evidence. This is a debate so please explain why I'm wrong if you're not a shill and you sincerely think I'm wrong.

THE HUGE CONSPIRACY SCENARIO

This variant presumes that relatively many people knew about the conspiracy, be they NASA employees or employees of the prime contractors. The advantage of this scenario to the conspiracy theory is that no actual spaceworthy hardware, aside from a rocket that went up and a command module that came down, need have been constructed. If the conspiracist contends that technological limitations prevented an actual lunar landing, this is the scenario of choice.

In short, you bring the contractor in on the scam, pay him a whole lot of money and say, "Just pretend to make some hardware, we don't care if it actually works." The well-paid contractor accepts payment for services not rendered and agrees to keep silent on the matter. It makes a public announcement to say it's been awarded a major government contract to build space hardware. (You have to do that in order to keep your stockholders happy.) And then it calls a private meeting for its employees and says, "Everybody is getting a huge bonus. I know you heard us say we're making space hardware, but that's not really what's happening. If you go along with it, you'll all be set for life."

This assumes everyone can be bought. For those employees who aren't coin-operated, threats would be in order. Employees get called into their managers' offices one-by-one and are confronted by stern-faced NASA employees who spell out what will happen to the employee and his family if he should ever tell what happened.

There are several obvious problems with this scenario.

The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.

Disgruntled employees. Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.
No evidence of reward. The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are scattered across the country now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive.

No evidence of threat. Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work. See the discussion of Occam's Razor to understand why we must then dismiss theories than involve death threats.

No posthumous revelations. Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.

No Boy Scouts. Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.

Clearly the idea of keeping half a million or so people quiet for thirty years and counting is a very tall order.

THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SCENARIO (mouse's favorite)

At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.

This has two advantages. First, it is well known that the probability of keeping a secret diminishes rapidly as the number of people who know the secret increases even slightly. So by keeping this number to an absolute minimum you'll reduce the number of people who can spill the beans. Second, the NASA employees and contractors will go to their graves staunchly asserting that NASA did what it said it did.

The big disadvantage is that the contractors now believe they must actually build the space hardware. Grumman must actually believe it is building a lunar lander, North American must actually build a command module, Boeing and others must actually believe they are building a moon-capable rocket. Integration teams from all these companies must make the products work together. Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work.

These engineers are not dummies. The whole reason NASA hires them to build its spaceships is because they have the expertise to do it. And so when NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar lander, it knows that Grumman engineers are going to go out and discover for themselves just what problems are involved in landing on the moon, and then proceed to solve them. If NASA executives are bent on fooling everyone then they couldn't care less if Grumman succeeds. But Grumman would care. And the NASA quality control people would care. If Grumman falls short, Grumman will know it, and so will the NASA employees who inspect the work.

In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO

By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics in considering only the two improbable extremes, so we proceed to the middle of the road. Having shown that one extreme produces an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and the other produces no conspiracy at all, we examine a scenario in which only the people who really need to know are let in.

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos.

It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware.

In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.

I have now constructed your theory for you Cosmored.

You can't pull the magician's trick of distracting us with clips of jackets, when we know the holes in your theory are big enough to launch a Saturn rocket through.

:cry let's all be schmitties and make 64 pages of schmittiness!

This is a debate and I asked you to address an issue. Here's the post with the issue. Please stop ducking it.

(post #1626)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1626

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

In the first video in post #1621 they deliberately increased the speed too much. If the slow-motion was 67%, an increase of 245% is way too fast. Of course it's going to look too fast.
In this video at the 30:40 time mark the Apollo 11 footage is shown at double speed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0982587487066#

The theory is that the Apollo 11 footage was shown at a 50% slow-motion without wires to simulate lunar gravity. When the footage is played at double speed, the movements look exactly like movements on earth.

---

You ignorant fool.

The video explains stuff your retarded head can't understand......physics.

The relative motion of the dust being kicked up relates to Lunar Gravity.

To make the relative motion the same as Earth gravity, it has to be speeded up 2.45 times.

This is the equation

d = at^2/2 (^ = to the power of in notation)
distance = acceleration to gravity x time squared divided by 2

You take the distance travelled against time on the Moon and work out that relative motion is 2.45 times.

In 1 second on Earth, an object falls 4.9 metres.

a=9.8 t=1 That is 9.8 x (1 x 1) / 2 = 4.9 metres

In 2.45 seconds on the Moon an object falls 4.9 metres.

a=1.62 t=2.45 That 1.62 x (2.45 x 2.45) / 2 = 4.9 metres


Now for this stupid cretin Cosmorod who wouldn't know gravity if it fucking head butted him!!

Using algebra we can work out gravity.....

a = 2d/t^2

So Cosmosplattfuck, let's put your figure in. Time on Earth according to you is 67% of 2.45 and that becomes 1.63 seconds.

Distance of 4.9m time is now 1.63 seconds.
That is 9.8 / 1.63x1.63.

This gives a gravitational acceleration of 3.69m per s^2

Gravity on Earth is 9.8m per s^2

Cosmofuck gravity on Earth is not even half of what it should be.

At David Percy figure of 50% Time is 1.22 seconds, that gives a gravitational acceleration of 6.6m per s^2


The question is, does cosmored the spammer understand this. The simple answer is no.

There is no answer to this. It is like a nail in the hoax coffin.

Dust falling on the Moon with lunar gravity, when sped up to give Earth freefall speeds, makes the astronauts move way too fast for normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

This is a debate and I asked you to address an issue. Here's the post with the issue. Please stop ducking it.

(post #1626)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1626

---

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?

...the Holmesian Maxim supplies language to predispose the reader to accept a conclusion he might otherwise reject as absurd. The astute conspiracist author realizes that his controversial proposition will encounter skepticism. By introducing his attempt at indirect proof with the Holmesian Maxim, the author imparts a degree of intellectual comfort to the reader who can then accept the proposition against his better judgment. The reader believes himself to have remained rational if he accepts a preposterous conclusion that nevertheless must be true by the process of elimination.

While conspiracists can easily create indirect inductive proofs that seem rigorous even when applied to baseless propositions, they seldom acknowledge the ease with which such indirect proofs can be refuted. The two impassable obstacles in an indirect inductive proof -- assurance of completeness and strength of elimination -- give predictable rise to the two basic methods of refutation.

Any plausible competing hypothesis that the author does not consider in his indirect proof, is sufficient refutation of the proof. It does not matter whether the competitor's proponent is able to prove the competing hypothesis in the specific case. It matters only whether the author is able to disprove it in the specific case. The author has the burden of proof to "eliminate the impossible". The critic's burden of proof is for mere plausibility -- that it is "not impossible". So saith the Holmesian Maxim.

Since each competitor must be conclusively eliminated, the strength of each eliminative proof must be aggressively tested. As noted above, the eliminations are, by nature, difficult proofs to construct to sufficient rigor. And the lack of empirical evidence may eliminate the testability altogether, in which case impossibility may not be assumed. But very often the simplism of a putative elimination is its own undoing; it may serve only to suggest that a hypothesis is improbable, not that it is truly impossible. And as stated above, this reduces the argument to an evaluation of relative probability among improbable hypotheses.

To compare one hypothesis to another on the basis of its relative probability is the process of direct inductive proof. One must examine the merits of the desired hypothesis, not the conspicuous lack of merit in all its competitors. And because an indirect inductive proof invariably reduces, upon scrutiny, to a direct proof, the smart proponent adopts a direct proof strategy at the outset. And knowing that a purely conjectural hypothesis cannot prevail according to a direct proof, the smart proponent avoids advancing a conjectural hypothesis altogether. And this leaves the Holmesian Maxim safely where it belongs -- away from the inductive case

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

I imagine that ol' Cosmo is attempting to use the sophist trick of trying to apply the Holmsian maxim to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athur Conan Doyle by way of his most famous creation

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

---

Quote:

---

This is a debate and I asked you to address an issue. Here's the post with the issue. Please stop ducking it.

(post #1626)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1626
----------------------------
Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?

---

This is an expample of tap dancing by a cornered shill.

Stop playing games and answer the question I asked you. The question is in this link to post #1626.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1626

Quote:

---

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

This is an expample of tap dancing by a cornered shill.

Stop playing games and answer the question I asked you. The question is in this link to post #1626.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1626

---

I asked you long before 1626. I asked you repeatedly. I asked MONTHS ago.

Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?

Answer this you cretin...............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmored

In the first video in post #1621 they deliberately increased the speed too much. If the slow-motion was 67%, an increase of 245% is way too fast. Of course it's going to look too fast.
In this video at the 30:40 time mark the Apollo 11 footage is shown at double speed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

The theory is that the Apollo 11 footage was shown at a 50% slow-motion without wires to simulate lunar gravity. When the footage is played at double speed, the movements look exactly like movements on earth.

---

You ignorant fool.

The video explains stuff your retarded head can't understand......physics.

The relative motion of the dust being kicked up relates to Lunar Gravity.

To make the relative motion the same as Earth gravity, it has to be speeded up 2.45 times.

This is the equation

d = at^2/2 (^ = to the power of in notation)
distance = acceleration to gravity x time squared divided by 2

You take the distance travelled against time on the Moon and work out that relative motion is 2.45 times.

In 1 second on Earth, an object falls 4.9 metres.

a=9.8 t=1 That is 9.8 x (1 x 1) / 2 = 4.9 metres

In 2.45 seconds on the Moon an object falls 4.9 metres.

a=1.62 t=2.45 That 1.62 x (2.45 x 2.45) / 2 = 4.9 metres


Now for this stupid cretin Cosmorod who wouldn't know gravity if it fucking head butted him!!

Using algebra we can work out gravity.....

a = 2d/t^2

So Cosmosplattfuck, let's put your figure in. Time on Earth according to you is 67% of 2.45 and that becomes 1.63 seconds.

Distance of 4.9m time is now 1.63 seconds.
That is 9.8 / 1.63x1.63.

This gives a gravitational acceleration of 3.69m per s^2

Gravity on Earth is 9.8m per s^2

Cosmofuck gravity on Earth is not even half of what it should be.

At David Percy figure of 50% Time is 1.22 seconds, that gives a gravitational acceleration of 6.6m per s^2


The question is, does cosmored the spammer understand this. The simple answer is no.

There is no answer to this. It is like a nail in the hoax coffin.

Dust falling on the Moon with lunar gravity, when sped up to give Earth freefall speeds, makes the astronauts move way too fast for normal.