Ten Biggest World Conspiracy Theories

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.

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.

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.