Ten Biggest World Conspiracy Theories

King Mob · 30-04-2009 6:06pm

briktop wrote: »

faster than light IS possible , in fact you dont really "move" at all , you bend space until the point you are at and the point you want to be at
co exist -
I know you want to see proof , sorry dont have any - i can only pass on what ive learned in years of studying it .
and i do believe most of stands up to scrutiny to the openminded , who do not believe we are the masters of science.
I do however accept the statements recorded by the disclosure project under stephen greer and the exppolitick projects of the many ex air force , secret service , etc etc people who worked on this stuff
and are now sick of carrying the secrets - and are willing to testify in congress about what they have seen and done.
but alot of these ET'S apparently do not come from other stars , they actually come form other universes - parrallel ones.
universes that exist in the same place as ours but shifted into another dimension .
the reason earth is such a hot bed of activity ( over 50 difffering races visiting apparently ) , begins just before Roswell .
The explosion of the nuclear tests and the bombings of japan didnt just affect earth , they basically "exploded" in dimensions other than ours - parallel universes -.
The bombs had far reaching affects , affecting ET's in these PU'S - it was basically a big sign , to which thay had to repond and look at " what the fcuk are these nutjob apes up to "
and so began the visits of the modern day ET'S
The proliferation of higher power atom and later super massive hydrogen tests created shockwaves that rang around the universi ( for want of a better word ) .
it seems the forced crude manipulation of matter like this works on an interdimensional level .

roswell occured due to the ships that arrived in great numbers to check us out , not being able to cope with high power ground radar initially
some of the ships crashed and were recovered , along with some dead and some alive ET'S
apparently they fixed this , and stopped crashing , until we decided to start shooting them down instead- which has happend a few times.
and most of our greatest scientific achievements have been back engineered from crashed ET technology .

Yes faster than light travel might be possible but it's very hard and very expensive.

But as meglome said the rest is just nonsense and fiction if you're not gonna back it up.

Particularly that nuclear bomb sending shockwaves through parallel universes.
That's just silly.

Undergod · 30-04-2009 6:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

Particularly that nuclear bomb sending shockwaves through parallel universes.
That's just silly.

I think you and I can both think of a comic where that was part of the plot, am I right Mob?

...openminded , who do not believe we are the masters of science...roswell occured due to the ships that arrived in great numbers to check us out , not being able to cope with high power ground radar initially...

Hmmm. So they can detect nukes in other universes and travel across dimensions, but radio waves make them crash?

thecommander · 30-04-2009 6:49pm

Undergod wrote: »

Hmmm. So they can detect nukes in other universes and travel across dimensions, but radio waves make them crash?

Just like bacteria kill the advanced aliens in War of the Worlds.

bonkey · 30-04-2009 6:58pm

Kernel wrote: »

And NASA should not have taken part in the programme if the programme is to be held as a definitive answer to the conspiracy theories. Would you not agree?

The only sources of information regarding the composition of the particles on the surface of the moon are lunar landings - the very things that these conspiracy theories suggest did not occur.

This leads to a problem. If we don't involve those who have direct evidence and experience of the surface of hte moon, who can we involve? At absolute best we can involve a "completely neutral third party" who in turn have their information from the very people we don't want to involve.

If we cut out those who went to the moon, we have no way of answering the question. We also have no proper way of asking the question, which seems to have been overlooked.

I would agree that it is reasonable to be cautious about the information we take from the involvement of NASA, but that's not the same as saying they shouldn't be involved at all.

This is based on the fact that on normal dust or sand without the presence of moisture, perfect footprints with depth are impossible to imprint. Would you not agree?

To a point, yes. If, by "normal dust or sand" you are referring to particulate matter formed by standard processes of erosion (primarily wind- and water-driven), then I've no problem accepting that statement at all.

Regardless of how you define "normal" in your usage, though, we end up with two possibilities. We saw footprints, so either:

1) There was moisture.
or
2) The material on the surface of the moon does not have the same behavioral properties as "normal" dust or sand.

Now...without involving NASA, and working only with the evidence you've provided, I've already reached a problem. Those who claim that the footprints must have been faked can only have done so by ruling out option 2....but how can they do that without knowing the composition of "moondust"???

Perhaps they did so by expanding their definition of "normal" to mean "all"? So their claim would be that all dust and sand will exhibit these properties, ergo there must have been moisture.

For this type of claim, it doesn't matter who is involved. If anyone can supply any particulate matter for which this claim is false, the claim is falsified. If NASA went to the moon, then they are in the best possible position to know what type of material they need to duplicate. If they didn't go the moon, then so what.

If Mythbusters were investigating is that it is impossible for a footprint to have been left in particulate matter in the absence of moisture, then it doesn't matter one whit who supplied the particulate matter...this claim is clearly false.

Note - this doesn't mean that NASA went to the moon. It means the claim that the footprints could not have occurred is falsified. We're left back with our original two possibilities...

Either there was moisture or the particulate matter which forms the moon's surface exhibits different properties to whatever "normal" constitutes.

Of course, "normal" particulate matter (on earth) is formed by processes which don't occur on the moon. On the moon, there is no air- and water-flow, which are primary factors in erosion (both in themselves and as a driver of Brownian Motion). Similarly, on earth, our atmosphere protects us from micro-meteorite impacts which occur on the moon.

So given two more-or-less-completely different environments, surely we should ask ourselves why would we expect to find "normal" dust or sand on the moon, because unless we can answer that, it would seem that the very question we're supposed to be asking is based on a rather large assumption.

Undergod · 30-04-2009 7:05pm

thecommander wrote: »

Just like bacteria kill the advanced aliens in War of the Worlds.

Poor analogy - the invaders had advanced beyond the point of requiring immune systems or well-maintained bodies, allowing technology to replace several biological functions. These guys would have to be advanced to the point where they forgot about things like electromagnetic radiation...

King Mob · 30-04-2009 7:08pm

Undergod wrote: »

Poor analogy - the invaders had advanced beyond the point of requiring immune systems or well-maintained bodies, allowing technology to replace several biological functions. These guys would have to be advanced to the point where they forgot about things like electromagnetic radiation...

Which they would have to be able to detect to detect nuclear detonations.

King Mob · 30-04-2009 7:11pm

bonkey wrote: »

If Mythbusters were investigating is that it is impossible for a footprint to have been left in particulate matter in the absence of moisture, then it doesn't matter one whit who supplied the particulate matter...this claim is clearly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Vacuum_myths
That was exactly the myth they were testing.

So myth busted?

artvandulet · 30-04-2009 8:09pm

6th wrote: »

I have to say I found the Paul McCartney one interesting and am gonna go read more on it. Hadnt heard much about it before.

If you haven't hear of this one before there are lots of little clues.Not just Abbey Road. I'm convinced they did many of these intentionally.
This may be the best one...
Get a copy of Sgt. Peppers and a mirror.
Put the mirror horizontally across the middle of the cover. right across the bass drum - perpendicular to the album cover (hope that makes sense!)
Now have a look at the image thats created between the top half-the album cover, and the bottom half-the mirror image...its pretty cool.

thecommander · 30-04-2009 8:13pm

artvandulet wrote: »

Now have a look at the image thats created between the top half-the album cover, and the bottom half-the mirror image...its pretty cool.

Spill...

espinolman · 30-04-2009 8:28pm

You know about the conspiracy theory where they have been cloning humans' since the late 1920's and then encyclograph them or something , world leaders do be replaced every now and then with a clone , i think George W Bush is a clone !
And the one where the pyramid on the dollar bill is actually the stargate to mars , to the human/alien mars base ,seriously !

artvandulet · 30-04-2009 9:08pm

thecommander wrote: »

Spill...

I just did it roughly with photoshop.
something like this, only a bit better as the image i used was skewed a bit.

Basically it shows: 1ONE1X HE^DIE
with the arrow pointing up to Paul.

The normal cover shows his grave. Look at the ground below everyone. It is a grave site. theres even a left handed bass on it!
Gotta be intentional, no?
BTW, i dont believe he's dead!:D

King Mob · 30-04-2009 9:14pm

artvandulet wrote: »

I just did it roughly with photoshop.
something like this, only a bit better as the image i used was skewed a bit.

Basically it shows: 1ONE1X HE^DIE
with the arrow pointing up to Paul.

The normal cover shows his grave. Look at the ground below everyone. It is a grave site. theres even a left handed bass on it!
Gotta be intentional, no?
BTW, i dont believe he's dead!:D

No it don't, it say 1one1 he (diamond shape) bie.

Undergod · 01-05-2009 10:18am

Diamond shape- arrowing pointing up and down to Paul.

Kernel · 01-05-2009 7:05pm

bonkey wrote: »

The only sources of information regarding the composition of the particles on the surface of the moon are lunar landings - the very things that these conspiracy theories suggest did not occur.

This leads to a problem. If we don't involve those who have direct evidence and experience of the surface of hte moon, who can we involve? At absolute best we can involve a "completely neutral third party" who in turn have their information from the very people we don't want to involve.

If we cut out those who went to the moon, we have no way of answering the question. We also have no proper way of asking the question, which seems to have been overlooked.

Actually, the Soviets collected lunar soil in 1970 via the Luna 16 probe and subsequent unmanned missions.

bonkey wrote: »

I would agree that it is reasonable to be cautious about the information we take from the involvement of NASA, but that's not the same as saying they shouldn't be involved at all.

Not only cautious, but in my opinion the fact that the agency contributed so much to the programme makes the entire exercise worthless with regard to it's purpose of debunking the conspiracy theories.

bonkey wrote: »

To a point, yes. If, by "normal dust or sand" you are referring to particulate matter formed by standard processes of erosion (primarily wind- and water-driven), then I've no problem accepting that statement at all.

Regardless of how you define "normal" in your usage, though, we end up with two possibilities. We saw footprints, so either:

1) There was moisture.
or
2) The material on the surface of the moon does not have the same behavioral properties as "normal" dust or sand.

Now...without involving NASA, and working only with the evidence you've provided, I've already reached a problem. Those who claim that the footprints must have been faked can only have done so by ruling out option 2....but how can they do that without knowing the composition of "moondust"???

A valid point. However, King Mob has already pointed out the physical characteristics of samples of lunar soil/moondust, which I am assuming would have been verified by the Soviets, so from this could we not extrapolate that the soil should have the properties of 'normal' terrestrial fine sand or dust? (albeit, this would not be 100% definite - my point that we can only be 100% definite beyond a shadow of a doubt if we have the actual moondust remains)

bonkey wrote: »

Perhaps they did so by expanding their definition of "normal" to mean "all"? So their claim would be that all dust and sand will exhibit these properties, ergo there must have been moisture.

For this type of claim, it doesn't matter who is involved. If anyone can supply any particulate matter for which this claim is false, the claim is falsified. If NASA went to the moon, then they are in the best possible position to know what type of material they need to duplicate. If they didn't go the moon, then so what.

If Mythbusters were investigating is that it is impossible for a footprint to have been left in particulate matter in the absence of moisture, then it doesn't matter one whit who supplied the particulate matter...this claim is clearly false.

I think you are wrong in this assumption. It entirely matters who supplies the test substance - which is at the core of the 'experiment'. Since NASA supplied the substance, how are we to know that the substance was devoid of moisture? You see the problems with their involvement in the 'experiment'?

bonkey wrote: »

Note - this doesn't mean that NASA went to the moon. It means the claim that the footprints could not have occurred is falsified. We're left back with our original two possibilities...

Mythbusters set out to prove this claim, and they did a terrible job of it. And yet, so called logical skeptics here praise and laud it as if it is infallible and irrefutable evidence. I think this displays serious double standards.

bonkey wrote: »

Either there was moisture or the particulate matter which forms the moon's surface exhibits different properties to whatever "normal" constitutes.

Of course, "normal" particulate matter (on earth) is formed by processes which don't occur on the moon. On the moon, there is no air- and water-flow, which are primary factors in erosion (both in themselves and as a driver of Brownian Motion). Similarly, on earth, our atmosphere protects us from micro-meteorite impacts which occur on the moon.

So given two more-or-less-completely different environments, surely we should ask ourselves why would we expect to find "normal" dust or sand on the moon, because unless we can answer that, it would seem that the very question we're supposed to be asking is based on a rather large assumption.

Well, why would we expect to find norma; dust or sand on the moon? Fair enough the 'climate' of the moon is completely different, however, we understand what these conditions are (ie. vacuum, lack of moisture etc.) and we have to use these known parameters and what is known to us scientifically in order to attempt to hypothesise in this case. I, however, understand the word hypothesise, and would not present the counter-belief as 100% truth either - but then again, my point here is only that there are two sides to the coin and that this mythbusters entertainment should not be held as gospel evidence. As I've always said, I'm on the fence on the issue, but I hope those who scoff and guffaw at those with different beliefs may pause and reflect on these points.

Kernel · 01-05-2009 7:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

And type 2 to type 3 civilisations would be ridiculously far advanced and could take thousand of years to develop if at all.

Thousands of years is the blink of an eye, cosmically speaking. There are far older solar systems and planets than earth out there.

King Mob wrote: »

And still traveling between star would be a huge investment of resources, even with fast than light propulsion.
And even FTL has it's problems. At lightspeed it'll still take you 4 years to get to the nearest star. And current models for theoretical warp drive still require you to travel at sublight speed to lay out the warped space ahead of time.

So aliens traveling to Earth is pretty unlikely.

Again, strictly speaking science tells us that FTL is *not* possible. But bending space time is thought to be possible (even in relativity when Einstein theorised that strong gravitational forces affect space time), and if such a bending were to occur then essentially distance is irrelevent. Point A and point B become the same place. Instantaneous travel. Yes it requires a huge amount of energy, but our understanding of science or energy is far from complete. We don't even know what dark matter is, yet it's supposedly the most powerful material in the universe, and makes up a large percentage of it. Zero point energy likewise. Dr. Kaku is correct in his beliefs that we are an insignificant level 0 civilisation which still burns plant matter for energy. Who knows how a type 2 or 3 civilisation generates energy.

Your argument would remind me of an old argument that humans will never fly because God didn't give them wings.

King Mob · 01-05-2009 7:27pm

Kernel wrote: »

Actually, the Soviets collected lunar soil in 1970 via the Luna 16 probe and subsequent unmanned missions.

The vast majority of lunar samples have been independently examined by geologists around the world.
I posted a paper about the lunar soil that directly discusses the cohesiveness of it.

Kernel wrote: »

Not only cautious, but in my opinion the fact that the agency contributed so much to the programme makes the entire exercise worthless with regard to it's purpose of debunking the conspiracy theories.

Not really, it showed that it's possible to produce a clear footprint in dust if the structure is correct.

Kernel wrote: »

A valid point. However, King Mob has already pointed out the physical characteristics of samples of lunar soil/moondust, which I am assuming would have been verified by the Soviets, so from this could we not extrapolate that the soil should have the properties of 'normal' terrestrial fine sand or dust? (albeit, this would not be 100% definite - my point that we can only be 100% definite beyond a shadow of a doubt if we have the actual moondust remains)

Again I posted a paper discussing the lunar soil. Did you read it?

Kernel wrote: »

I think you are wrong in this assumption. It entirely matters who supplies the test substance - which is at the core of the 'experiment'. Since NASA supplied the substance, how are we to know that the substance was devoid of moisture? You see the problems with their involvement in the 'experiment'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw
Looks pretty dry to me.
So are you saying that the lunar soil does not behave like this?

Kernel wrote: »

Mythbusters set out to prove this claim, and they did a terrible job of it. And yet, so called logical skeptics here praise and laud it as if it is infallible and irrefutable evidence. I think this displays serious double standards.

It wasn't meant to be proof of anything.
The test was to show it was possible to leave a well defined footprint in the absence of moisture, due to the structure of the particles of dust.
Do you believe the explaintion the mythbuster give is no possible?

Kernel wrote: »

Well, why would we expect to find norma; dust or sand on the moon? Fair enough the 'climate' of the moon is completely different, however, we understand what these conditions are (ie. vacuum, lack of moisture etc.) and we have to use these known parameters and what is known to us scientifically in order to attempt to hypothesise in this case.

Again I posted a paper discussing this.

Do you believe that this paper is not accurate?

Kernel wrote: »

I, however, understand the word hypothesise, and would not present the counter-belief as 100% truth either - but then again, my point here is only that there are two sides to the coin and that this mythbusters entertainment should not be held as gospel evidence. As I've always said, I'm on the fence on the issue, but I hope those who scoff and guffaw at those with different beliefs may pause and reflect on these points.

No one said it was gospel proof. They did show that some claims of impossiblity do not stand up to scrutiny.

And for someone who is on the fence you seem to think alot of people are in on this conspiracy.

meglome · 01-05-2009 7:31pm

The problem here is kernel you're still using different standards for proof. The US Government, NASA, Mythbusters have to prove it three ways from Sunday but the CT'ers just have to say it isn't so and that seems perfectly acceptable. So I'm taking the best evidence I can find and using that to make a judgement. Let the CT'ers make similar filmed experiments and then we have something to actually compare, but I think they'll have the same findings as Mythbusters and they wouldn't want that.

I'll tell you what, explain one thing to me and I'll lend what you're saying more credence. In all the footage of the Moon landing the dust falls straight back to earth showing there is no air friction i.e. they are in a vacuum. How did they do this if they weren't on the moon?

King Mob · 01-05-2009 7:41pm

Kernel wrote: »

Thousands of years is the blink of an eye, cosmically speaking. There are far older solar systems and planets than earth out there.

Yes and they're hundreds of light years away.

Kernel wrote: »

Again, strictly speaking science tells us that FTL is *not* possible. But bending space time is thought to be possible (even in relativity when Einstein theorised that strong gravitational forces affect space time), and if such a bending were to occur then essentially distance is irrelevent. Point A and point B become the same place. Instantaneous travel. Yes it requires a huge amount of energy, but our understanding of science or energy is far from complete.

And bending space like that requires the production of a paritle that might not actually exist. Traveling faster than light is not an easy or cheap matter. And that even before you start running into causality.

Kernel wrote: »

We don't even know what dark matter is, yet it's supposedly the most powerful material in the universe, and makes up a large percentage of it.

And what to you mean by most powerful? The only thing I've heard about dark matter is that it's there but we've no idea what it is.

Kernel wrote: »

Zero point energy likewise.

Again Zero point energy isn't really all it's cracked up to be. And have nothing to do with FTL.
There are much more efficient ways to get energy.

Kernel wrote: »

Dr. Kaku is correct in his beliefs that we are an insignificant level 0 civilisation which still burns plant matter for energy. Who knows how a type 2 or 3 civilisation generates energy.

Well no, but by definition we know there net energy output.
Type II puts out about 4 × 10^26 W, about the entire output of a star.
Type III puts out about 4 × 10^37 W, about the entire output of a galaxy.

And again this is assuming a huge amount about them.

It's very unlikey that any other races would know we're even here, let alone visit us.

jonbravo · 02-05-2009 3:30am

briktop wrote: »

faster than light IS possible , in fact you dont really "move" at all , you bend space until the point you are at and the point you want to be at
co exist -
I know you want to see proof , sorry dont have any - i can only pass on what ive learned in years of studying it .
and i do believe most of stands up to scrutiny to the openminded , who do not believe we are the masters of science.
I do however accept the statements recorded by the disclosure project under stephen greer and the exppolitick projects of the many ex air force , secret service , etc etc people who worked on this stuff
and are now sick of carrying the secrets - and are willing to testify in congress about what they have seen and done.
but alot of these ET'S apparently do not come from other stars , they actually come form other universes - parrallel ones.
universes that exist in the same place as ours but shifted into another dimension .
the reason earth is such a hot bed of activity ( over 50 difffering races visiting apparently ) , begins just before Roswell .
The explosion of the nuclear tests and the bombings of japan didnt just affect earth , they basically "exploded" in dimensions other than ours - parallel universes -.
The bombs had far reaching affects , affecting ET's in these PU'S - it was basically a big sign , to which thay had to repond and look at " what the fcuk are these nutjob apes up to "
and so began the visits of the modern day ET'S
The proliferation of higher power atom and later super massive hydrogen tests created shockwaves that rang around the universi ( for want of a better word ) .
it seems the forced crude manipulation of matter like this works on an interdimensional level .

roswell occured due to the ships that arrived in great numbers to check us out , not being able to cope with high power ground radar initially
some of the ships crashed and were recovered , along with some dead and some alive ET'S
apparently they fixed this , and stopped crashing , until we decided to start shooting them down instead- which has happend a few times.
and most of our greatest scientific achievements have been back engineered from crashed ET technology .

there is notting faster then light.

jonbravo · 02-05-2009 3:44am

bonkey wrote: »

The only sources of information regarding the composition of the particles on the surface of the moon are lunar landings - the very things that these conspiracy theories suggest did not occur.

This leads to a problem. If we don't involve those who have direct evidence and experience of the surface of hte moon, who can we involve? At absolute best we can involve a "completely neutral third party" who in turn have their information from the very people we don't want to involve.

If we cut out those who went to the moon, we have no way of answering the question. We also have no proper way of asking the question, which seems to have been overlooked.

I would agree that it is reasonable to be cautious about the information we take from the involvement of NASA, but that's not the same as saying they shouldn't be involved at all.

To a point, yes. If, by "normal dust or sand" you are referring to particulate matter formed by standard processes of erosion (primarily wind- and water-driven), then I've no problem accepting that statement at all.

Regardless of how you define "normal" in your usage, though, we end up with two possibilities. We saw footprints, so either:

1) There was moisture.
or
2) The material on the surface of the moon does not have the same behavioral properties as "normal" dust or sand.

Now...without involving NASA, and working only with the evidence you've provided, I've already reached a problem. Those who claim that the footprints must have been faked can only have done so by ruling out option 2....but how can they do that without knowing the composition of "moondust"???

Perhaps they did so by expanding their definition of "normal" to mean "all"? So their claim would be that all dust and sand will exhibit these properties, ergo there must have been moisture.

For this type of claim, it doesn't matter who is involved. If anyone can supply any particulate matter for which this claim is false, the claim is falsified. If NASA went to the moon, then they are in the best possible position to know what type of material they need to duplicate. If they didn't go the moon, then so what.

If Mythbusters were investigating is that it is impossible for a footprint to have been left in particulate matter in the absence of moisture, then it doesn't matter one whit who supplied the particulate matter...this claim is clearly false.

Note - this doesn't mean that NASA went to the moon. It means the claim that the footprints could not have occurred is falsified. We're left back with our original two possibilities...

Either there was moisture or the particulate matter which forms the moon's surface exhibits different properties to whatever "normal" constitutes.

Of course, "normal" particulate matter (on earth) is formed by processes which don't occur on the moon. On the moon, there is no air- and water-flow, which are primary factors in erosion (both in themselves and as a driver of Brownian Motion). Similarly, on earth, our atmosphere protects us from micro-meteorite impacts which occur on the moon.

So given two more-or-less-completely different environments, surely we should ask ourselves why would we expect to find "normal" dust or sand on the moon, because unless we can answer that, it would seem that the very question we're supposed to be asking is based on a rather large assumption.

your nearly there bonkey normal matter on the moon/earth, earth is meant to be the same mix as the moon , footprints who care's. did earth not forum with the moon, thats news to me and the science world.

Undergod · 02-05-2009 9:40am

jonbravo wrote: »

there is notting faster then light.

There are a few things, but none of them can be used as far as we can see to do anything useful.

King Mob · 02-05-2009 9:49am

jonbravo wrote: »

your nearly there bonkey normal matter on the moon/earth, earth is meant to be the same mix as the moon , footprints who care's. did earth not forum with the moon, thats news to me and the science world.

The composition is kinda the same, but the structure of the soil is different.
On earth it would be subject to weathering for wind and rain and such making the particles more rounded. On the moon however no such weathering takes place leaving them angular and jagged. Thus making the lunar soil more cohesive.

bonkey · 02-05-2009 10:45am

Kernel wrote: »

Actually, the Soviets collected lunar soil in 1970 via the Luna 16 probe and subsequent unmanned missions.

Indeed...missions which landed on the moon and are thus included in the sources I mentioned.

If you feel the Russians can be trusted, then you should go and seek out information about the lunar soil samples they brought back. I can tell you now what you'll find, though. You'll find that it has properties exactly like NASA claim it should.

Not only cautious, but in my opinion the fact that the agency contributed so much to the programme makes the entire exercise worthless with regard to it's purpose of debunking the conspiracy theories.

I've already explained why this logic is false. The claim that Mythbusters set out to deal with is that it is impossible to leave footprints in particulate matter, in the absence of moisture. The conclusion that one can draw from the Mythbusters program is that this claim is false. They showed that it is possible as long as the particulate matter has the right properties.

The question of whether or not the lunar soil has these properties is not one addressed by the program, so it doesn't matter one whit who was involved with what.

A valid point. However, King Mob has already pointed out the physical characteristics of samples of lunar soil/moondust, which I am assuming would have been verified by the Soviets, so from this could we not extrapolate that the soil should have the properties of 'normal' terrestrial fine sand or dust?

Quite the opposite. We can verify that the Soviet and NASA samples have similar properties. We can verify that those properties are not the same as "normal" terrestrial sand or dust.

We can additionally verify that those properties are consistent with the forces known to create particulate matter on the moon (as distinct to those which create particulate matter on the earth).

For some properties (such as physical shape and particle size) we can find similar substances on earth (portland cement has, for example, a comparable particle size and shape) and verify that they exhibit similar behaviour (e.g. portland cement will hold an impression even in the absence of moisture).

I think you are wrong in this assumption. It entirely matters who supplies the test substance - which is at the core of the 'experiment'. Since NASA supplied the substance, how are we to know that the substance was devoid of moisture? You see the problems with their involvement in the 'experiment'?

I don't see the problem at all. Regardless of who supplies the material, it would be irresponsible for anyone conducting the test to assume that there is no moisture. There are well-established techniques for testing moisture content, as well as for removing it. Ironically, one of the best established methods for removing moisture-content is....to use a vacuum!

Mythbusters set out to prove this claim, and they did a terrible job of it.

Mysthbusters set out to disprove a claim. The claim was that it is impossible to leave a footprint in a vacuum. They showed that this is not the case - that it is dependant on the material being imprinted.

Now, if someone wants to argue that lunar soil cannot hold an imprint....I'm the first to agree that Mythbusters didn't deal with that at all. I would, however, point you back at where I came into this discussion, asking how we can make that claim in the first place.

And yet, so called logical skeptics here praise and laud it as if it is infallible and irrefutable evidence.

Mythbusters may be pop science, but the very nature of the program shows that they understand that it is impossible to offer "infallible and irrefutable evidence" of anything other than that a claim is false.

They set out to falsify a claim. They falsified the claim. One can certainly say that it is not impossible that footprints were left on the moon, in the absence of moisture. Thus, one can say that the footprints on the moon are not necessarily falsification of hte moon-landing claims.

It doesn't prove that man went to the moon. It doesn't even prove that you can leave footprints on teh moon. It proves only that it is not impossible for this to have occurred.

Well, why would we expect to find norma; dust or sand on the moon? Fair enough the 'climate' of the moon is completely different, however, we understand what these conditions are (ie. vacuum, lack of moisture etc.) and we have to use these known parameters and what is known to us scientifically in order to attempt to hypothesise in this case.

As far as I am aware, those who did hypothesize on the subject - before anyone got their hands on any lunar soil - predicted more-or-less exactly what was found.

We have samples. We understand the processes. There is no mystery.

It is not normal dust or sand, where "normal" is defined in terms of what we find on earth.

this mythbusters entertainment should not be held as gospel evidence.

Allow me to again stress, that even by the name of the show it is clear that they set out to falsify claims. Unless you wish to argue that the rigged the experiment, then they falsified the claim that moisture is required.

They have shown that the claim about footprints does not constitute evidence of a faked landing.

Nostradamus · 03-05-2009 11:48pm

End of the world in 2012

That's a new one to me.

Holsten · 04-05-2009 3:12am

Only thing on that list that I'd give a second look would be Roswell.

Something deffo happened in that field, after reading a good bit about it, all the eyewitness accounts, etc... strange goings on in New Mexico in 1947.

bonkey · 04-05-2009 7:52am

bonkey wrote: »

Ironically, one of the best established methods for removing moisture-content is....to use a vacuum!

Just to expand on this slightly...

The reason we can state that there is no moisture on the moon in the first place is because the moon has no atmosphere. In the absence of atmosphere, any water content (which was not frozen as ice) would have evaporated off.

Now, Kernel may wish to offer other ways in which NASA could have cheated. Maybe they added something other than water, for example, which would allow footprints to be imprinted. This seems reasonable. Its more than reasonable, until you think the implications through. Such a "cheat" would show that moisture is not necessary in order to imprint footprints...that there are ways in which you can have particulate matter capable of receiving an imprint in the absence of moisture.

In other words...such a cheat would in-and-of-itself falsify the claim that Mythbusters were attempting to falsify! It would show that in the absence of moisture, it is not impossible to leave footprints....it just requires that other factors be present.

Diogenes · 04-05-2009 9:00am

Nostradamus wrote: »

That's a new one to me.

Best username and statement juxtaposition ever.

indough · 06-05-2009 4:07am

Diogenes wrote: »

Best username and statement juxtaposition ever.

yeah i thought it was pretty funny myself

Ten Biggest World Conspiracy Theories

Comments