Moon Rocks

Many scientists have viewed the rocks brought back from the Apollo Missions and have conclusively decided that these rocks are totally unique to the moon and do not have terrestrial qualities. These rocks are conclusive evidence of moon landings.

I would like to see an FE'r explain how this is possible if NASA did not send men to the moon.

It's pretty obvious those rocks are from the Earth. If I bring you a rock and I say it comes from Mars, are you gonna believe me?

Are you a geologist? Have you studied these moon rocks for yourself? I wouldn't know one rock from another, but I am of the belief that agreement from many geologists who 'know their stuff' is good enough for me.

Any other takers?

So, the rock must come from the Moon because geologists said so. I guess God exists because theists said so.

What the geologists are saying is based on hard evidence. Theists have no such evidence of god.

Let's see the hard evidence, then.

The problem is, i have not seen it.

As i said before, i am basing the fact on many other geologists who have viewed the rocks.

If i cannot believe that these geologists exist, i might as well start to doubt anything that science has ever taught me.

The problem is, i have not seen it.

There you go.

As i said before, i am basing the fact on many other geologists who have viewed the rocks.

What makes you think that the geologists are absolutely right?

If i cannot believe that these geologists exist, i might as well start to doubt anything that science has ever taught me.

When did I said these geologists don't exist?

Just because i have not seen something does not mean it does not exist.

I have never seen the Eiffel Tower but am sufficiently satisfied of its existence because of other peoples accounts.

The geologists have all been to university and are qualified to examine rocks and whatever else geologists examine. Why should i not believe they are correct? I am trusting them just as i would trust an airline pilot to be able to fly an aircraft safely.

My apologies, you never did say that the geologists don't exist.

Just because i have not seen something does not mean it does not exist.

I have never seen the Eiffel Tower but am sufficiently satisfied of its existence because of other peoples accounts.

When did I said things don't exist as long as they are not seen?

The geologists have all been to university and are qualified to examine rocks and whatever else geologists examine. Why should i not believe they are correct? I am trusting them just as i would trust an airline pilot to be able to fly an aircraft safely.

There is a term in science called uncertainty.

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 11:36:43 PM

Just because i have not seen something does not mean it does not exist.

I have never seen the Eiffel Tower but am sufficiently satisfied of its existence because of other peoples accounts.

When did I said things don't exist as long as they are not seen?

You implied it after i said i had not seen the rocks. Unless i misinterpreted you.

The geologists have all been to university and are qualified to examine rocks and whatever else geologists examine. Why should i not believe they are correct? I am trusting them just as i would trust an airline pilot to be able to fly an aircraft safely.

There is a term in science called uncertainty.
[/quote]

Would the level of uncertainty decrease as a result of a number of people (scientists) arriving at the same conclusion?

All the geologists could possibly prove conclusively is that the "moon rocks" are unlike any other type of rock they've examined.  This is not the same as proving that the rocks actually come from the moon.  In fact, they could just as easily be from meteors or some such thing, and who would know any better?  In fact, they could even be from earth; just because it's never been encountered doesn't mean it doesn't exist here.  Do you know how many new species of insect are being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest every day?  Me neither, but trust me, it's a LOT.

Also, do you think the expert geologists who you claim have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that these rocks are from the moon are brought these "mystery rocks" and asked to deduce where they come from?  "Why this formation of molecules or whatever that I've never seen before must be from the moon, right?"     Of course not, the rocks are brought by the scientists working with the conspiracy and the geologists are told ahead of time that they are moon rocks!  Can anybody say bias? 

All the geologists could possibly prove conclusively is that the "moon rocks" are unlike any other type of rock they've examined.  This is not the same as proving that the rocks actually come from the moon.  In fact, they could just as easily be from meteors or some such thing, and who would know any better?  In fact, they could even be from earth; just because it's never been encountered doesn't mean it doesn't exist here.  Do you know how many new species of insect are being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest every day?  Me neither, but trust me, it's a LOT.

That is true, however, by the same argument if so much new stuff is being discovered every day, then why hasn't someone unearthed (forgive the pun) a rock which is the same as the one the conspirators *planted* for the geologists to examine. Remember, the missions happened some time ago. Also, many samples have been taken, and they are all of the same composition. I presume that the samples are taken from different sites. They would have to be pretty lucky to get two samples from the same meteor.

[/quote]
Also, do you think the expert geologists who you claim have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that these rocks are from the moon are brought these "mystery rocks" and asked to deduce where they come from?  "Why this formation of molecules or whatever that I've never seen before must be from the moon, right?"     Of course not, the rocks are brought by the scientists working with the conspiracy and the geologists are told ahead of time that they are moon rocks!  Can anybody say bias? 
[/quote]
Of course, if the whole issue regresses back to the conspiracy, i can't argue it!

I presume that the samples are taken from different sites.

Why?  I would presume just the opposite.

Of course, if the whole issue regresses back to the conspiracy, i can't argue it!

Is it not NASA "bringing back" these "moon rocks"?  Of course the conspiracy is involved. 

Would the level of uncertainty decrease as a result of a number of people (scientists) arriving at the same conclusion?

The amount of people arriving at the same conclusion does not mean the uncertainty is changed. Let's say the answer is A: if 100,000 people arrived with B as the answer, the uncertainty level of the 100,000 people will still be the same.

This is clearly an argument about whether the moon landings were fake.  Forget the rocks.

BTW The arguments (especially the alleged photographic faking) I have ever seen by the conspiracy theorist do not stand up to even modest scrutiny.

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 11:49:19 PM

Would the level of uncertainty decrease as a result of a number of people (scientists) arriving at the same conclusion?

The amount of people arriving at the same conclusion does not mean the uncertainty is changed. Let's say the answer is A: if 100,000 people arrived with B as the answer, the uncertainty level of the 100,000 people will still be the same.

True.
To apply this practically, however, in a scientific community, the opinions of 100,000 would give significant weight to a particular theory.

BTW The arguments (especially the alleged photographic faking) I have ever seen by the conspiracy theorist do not stand up to even ignorant scrutiny.

Fixed.

To apply this practically, however, in a scientific community, the opinions of 100,000 would give significant weight to a particular theory.

That's only because people would invoke a fallacy.

Quote from: Jack- on November 20, 2007, 12:40:54 AM

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 11:49:19 PM

Would the level of uncertainty decrease as a result of a number of people (scientists) arriving at the same conclusion?

The amount of people arriving at the same conclusion does not mean the uncertainty is changed. Let's say the answer is A: if 100,000 people arrived with B as the answer, the uncertainty level of the 100,000 people will still be the same.

True.
To apply this practically, however, in a scientific community, the opinions of 100,000 would give significant weight to a particular theory.

In much the same way that the existence of witchcraft had significant weight back in the 1600s.

I can apply the same principle to this FE theory:

None of you have ever seen this Ice Wall, you only read about it in a book.

None of you have actually been up into outer space, just seen the "allegedly altered" pictures.

None of you have any connection with the government to give valid proof of an actual conspiracy. If you had any, you probably wouldn't be promoting this site.

I can apply the same principle to this FE theory:

None of you have ever seen this Ice Wall, you only read about it in a book.

None of you have actually been up into outer space, just seen the "allegedly altered" pictures.

None of you have any connection with the government to give valid proof of an actual conspiracy.

Congratulations, you get a gold star!

Quote from: Gigano on November 20, 2007, 01:01:47 PM

I can apply the same principle to this FE theory:

None of you have ever seen this Ice Wall, you only read about it in a book.

None of you have actually been up into outer space, just seen the "allegedly altered" pictures.

None of you have any connection with the government to give valid proof of an actual conspiracy.

Congratulations, you get a gold star!

Your useless sarcasm doesn't change the fact that according to your views in this thread the FE theory can be flawed, the same way you treat moon rocks to be fake.

The Moon rocks CAN be fake. They could also be legitimate.

The Moon rocks CAN be fake. They could also be legitimate.

So you haven't chosen a side, how can you even bother being in the whole debate.

Ever heard of probabilities?

Ever heard of probabilities?

A lot, I study them with mathematics.