Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:37 am

oscar;1136463 wrote: He is correct. There was a documentary as i watched it also. I can't remember the exact in's and out's as it was some years ago now but i know of it. It went into why the flag was flying when there is no wind on the moon etc etc

( It went into why the flag was flying when there is no wind on the moon etc etc )

That Was One Of The Point They Made In The Moive , Showing That The First Moon Landing A Fake / Hoax ? Speaking Of Mind Control . This Only Goes To Show How It Easzyyyyyyyy Fool People .

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:38 am

Daniyal;1136487 wrote: ( It went into why the flag was flying when there is no wind on the moon etc etc )

That Was One Of The Point They Made In The Moive , Showing That The First Moon Landing A Fake / Hoax ? Speaking Of Mind Control . This Only Goes To Show How It Easzyyyyyyyy Fool People .

Wasn't there another issue they raised Danny about the shadows being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:43 am

Galbally;1136292 wrote: Wow, thats really, really hard to read. Well done.

So your basing your argument, that someone, somewhere made a documentary claiming that the Moon Landing was faked, and thats it?

All the actual material evidence that exists and I have outlined, you can just dismiss it, but the "documentary" is bible. Do you have a source for this documentary or movie or whatever. Why am I even bothering with this, urgh.

I think you should revisit the last sentence you wrote there, apply it the other way around and think about it. Geez. What's the point.

Reading Some Of Your Post One Can See You Been Drink To Much Green Beer . By - Bill :wah::wah:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:48 am

Daniyal;1136505 wrote: Reading Some Of Your Post One Can See You Been Drink To Much Green Beer . By - Bill :wah::wah:

I know, I've been on it all day after trying to answer this post. I got it off the Roswell Aliens, they shot Elvis you know. :yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:49 am

Galbally;1136512 wrote: I know, I've been on it all day after trying to answer this post. I got it off the Roswell Aliens, they shot Elvis you know. :yh_rotfl

Why do you mock a chap who has a different view point to yours?

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:50 am

oscar;1136492 wrote: Wasn't there another issue they raised Danny about the shadows being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Yessss

I'm At Work Now , But I'll See If I Can Find My Notes At Home . Grow People Knowing-ly Living / Backing Of Lie's . Well Like They Say If I Can Get You To Believe Something , I Can Get You To Do About Just Anything ..

( Not Talking About You Oscar )

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:52 am

Daniyal;1136515 wrote: Yessss

I'm At Work Now , But I'll See If I Can Find My Notes At Home . Grow People Knowing-ly Living / Backing Of Lie's . Well Like They Say If I Can Get You To Believe Something , I Can Get You To Do About Just Anything ..

( Not Talking About You Oscar )

I know Danny..... We Understand each other.

Nefer Muhl Yawum :-6

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:54 am

Themis;1136517 wrote: I don't think this type of response is necessary, I find you incredibly ignorant and very rude.. if you ignore someone who's actually been to the god dam Moon in a subject about the Moon then you must just want to oil yourself in your own spot juice.. please don't let me interrupt you but stop posting just to disrupt this discussion and grow up.

I'd be interested in anything you can find Themis :-6

'Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind' (Mick jagger)

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:58 am

oscar;1136513 wrote: Why do you mock a chap who has a different view point to yours?

I am mocking conspiracy theories, not Danyial. He's cool.

We are just having a bit of banter, he did accuse me of being a green beer swilling rationalist leprechaun, and hey, that's cool with me, I am.

Why is everyone so bloody thin-skinned today?

Is it something to do with planet alignment or something??

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:59 am

oscar;1136513 wrote: Why do you mock a chap who has a different view point to yours?

It No Big Thing Its To Be Expect When One Back In The Coner And Have No Real Knowldge Of What They Speak .

Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.

I Was Told By A Elder Never Clam To Know Something When You Don't , But Ego Is Something . :wah: A Few Here Haven't Learn Yet I Never Speak On Thing I Know Not , And I'm Man Enought To Say I Don't Know When I Don't Know . :wah::wah: But Hey They're Good For Laugh :wah:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:00 am

oscar;1136523 wrote: I'd be interested in anything you can find Themis :-6

'Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind' (Mick jagger)

Yeah, good old Mick.

He also said....

"Hey you, get off of my cloud". :yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:05 am

Galbally;1136533 wrote: Yeah, good old Mick.

He also said....

"Hey you, get off of my cloud". :yh_rotfl

He also said:

IF YOU MEET ME HAVE SOME CURTESY

HAVE SOME SYMPATHY AND SOME TASTE

USE ALL YOUR WELL-LEARNED POLITESSE

OR I'LL LAY YOUR SOUL TO WASTE

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:06 am

Daniyal;1136530 wrote: It No Big Thing Its To Be Expect When One Back In The Coner And Have No Real Knowldge Of What They Speak .

Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.

I Was Told By A Elder Never Clam To Know Something When You Don't , But Ego Is Something . :wah: A Few Here Haven't Learn Yet I Never Speak On Thing I Know Not , And I'm Man Enought To Say I Don't Know When I Don't Know . :wah::wah: But Hey They're Good For Laugh :wah:

In response, I would respectfully suggest that knowledge of any particular event or phenomenon is best based on the study of all the available physical evidence, and not metaphysical or emotional flights of fancy.

It's called the scientific method.

You should try it, it works.

Its interesting that I (and spot) have been directly called idiots, fools, and ignorant, in trying to give rational explanations why there was a moon landing, and making light-hearted fun of the concept of conspiracy theories, and yet I am being accused of insulting people, when I haven't actually insulted anyone.

I have just made general points. It seems that being rational about these sorts of issues isn't very popular, well so be it.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:10 am

oscar;1136541 wrote: He also said:

IF YOU MEET ME HAVE SOME CURTESY

HAVE SOME SYMPATHY AND SOME TASTE

USE ALL YOUR WELL-LEARNED POLITESSE

OR I'LL LAY YOUR SOUL TO WASTE

That quote is actually.

"IF YOU MEET ME HAVE SOME COURTESY

HAVE SOME SYMPATHY, AND SOME TASTE

USE ALL YOUR WELL-LEARNED POLITICS

OR I'LL LAY YOUR SOUL TO WASTE"

He also said.

WELL I TOLD YOU ONCE

AND I TOLD YOU TWICE

I WISH YOU"D ALL

TAKE MY ADVICE

Are we going to spend the evening quoting Rolling Stones songs by the way? Just so I can get my album out?

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:11 am

I think there's about 6 pages of it here http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/consp ... -hoax.html

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:13 am

Galbally;1136555 wrote: That quote is actually.

"IF YOU MEET ME HAVE SOME COURTESY

HAVE SOME SYMPATHY, AND SOME TASTE

USE ALL YOUR WELL-LEARNED POLITICS

OR I'LL LAY YOUR SOUL TO WASTE"

He also said.

WELL I TOLD YOU ONCE

AND I TOLD YOU TWICE

I WISH YOU"D ALL

TAKE MY ADVICE

Are we going to spend the evening quoting Rolling Stones songs by the way? Just so I can get my album out?

I beg to differ...... check the official lyrics on the net of 'Sympathy for the Devil'

It was actually,

I TOLD YOU ONCE

AND I TOLD YOU TWICE

BUT YOU NEVER LISTEN TO MY ADVICE

NOW THIS COULD BE THE LAST TIME

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:14 am

Themis;1136517 wrote: I don't think this type of response is necessary, I find you incredibly ignorant and very rude.. if you ignore someone who's actually been to the god dam Moon in a subject about the Moon then you must just want to oil yourself in your own spot juice.. please don't let me interrupt you but stop posting just to disrupt this discussion and grow up.

Here we are - Bad TV on the Science Channel: The Apollo 11 “UFO” | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

If you can get hold of issue 33 of Skeptical Enquirer you'll find an interview with Buzz Aldrin in which he claims he was taken out of context on the program and that he asked them to amend the broadcast but they refused.

What astounds me is that one isolated fragment of your mind challenges whether Apollo 11 went to the moon at all while another is parroting UFO proof from the very same flight, but only on the basis that it really took place.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:14 am

oscar;1136560 wrote: I beg to differ...... check the official lyrics on the net.

Is that the official Rolling Stones (We aren't Rock and Rolling Whores no more) Website is it?

Eh eh?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:18 am

oscar;1136560 wrote: I beg to differ...... check the official lyrics on the net of 'Sympathy for the Devil'

It was actually,

I TOLD YOU ONCE

AND I TOLD YOU TWICE

BUT YOU NEVER LISTEN TO MY ADVICE

NOW THIS COULD BE THE LAST TIME

Well I "feel" that this Website (if that's its real name) you refer to has actually been "altered" by Mossad and the CIA as it gives answers to "questions" that are so shocking that we can't even be seen discussing them, but they don't want you to know that.

The truth is out there.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:19 am

galbally;1136564 wrote: is that the official rolling stones (we aren't rock and rolling whores no more) website is it?

Eh eh? :d
you can use many many sites to check the official wording

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:25 am

Galbally;1136544 wrote: In response, I would respectfully suggest that knowledge of any particular event or phenomenon is best based on the study of all the available physical evidence, and not metaphysical or emotional flights of fancy.

It's called the scientific method.

You should try it, it works.

Its interesting that I (and spot) have been directly called idiots, fools, and ignorant, in trying to give rational explanations why there was a moon landing, and making light-hearted fun of the concept of conspiracy theories, and yet I am being accused of insulting people, when I haven't actually insulted anyone.

I have just made general points. It seems that being rational about these sorts of issues isn't very popular, well so be it.

The thing of it g, is that it seems to be just fine with folks to label other folks as believing irrational, illogical, idiotic ideas. But to the folks that do happen to wonder or even believe, those very labels may as well have been applied to them.

It's like telling someone that their belief in god or their religion is stupid, moronic or unjustified. It's what they happen to accept based on the inputs of their experience.

At the same time, I think it's valid to question others beliefs.

I guess it's all in presentation. That's why I generally answer Nomad.. logic need not apply..:p

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:25 am

Galbally;1136566 wrote: Well I "feel" that this Website (if that's its real name) you refer to has actually been "altered" by Mossad and the CIA as it gives answers to "questions" that are so shocking that we can't even be seen discussing them, but they don't want you to know that.

The truth is out there.

Please allow me to introduce myself

Im a man of wealth and taste

Ive been around for a long, long year

Stole many a mans soul and faith

And I was round when jesus christ

Had his moment of doubt and pain

Made damn sure that pilate

Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

But whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game

I stuck around st. petersburg

When I saw it was a time for a change

Killed the czar and his ministers

Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank

Held a generals rank

When the blitzkrieg raged

And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah

Ah, whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched with glee

While your kings and queens

Fought for ten decades

For the gods they made

I shouted out,

Who killed the kennedys?

When after all

It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself

Im a man of wealth and taste

And I laid traps for troubadours

Who get killed before they reached bombay

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

But whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

But whats confusing you

Is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

As heads is tails

Just call me lucifer

cause Im in need of some restraint

So if you meet me

Have some courtesy

Have some sympathy, and some taste

Use all your well-learned politesse

Or Ill lay your soul to waste, um yeah

Pleased to meet you

Or you can take my word that i myself asked 'Ronnie Wood' what the line was. If you don't believe that, I'll post a pic of my back-stage pass on here.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:30 am

oscar;1136568 wrote: you can use many many sites to check the official wording

Cool.

So you accept that going to the official websites is the correct way to find out what the actual lyrics of Rolling Stones songs are.

But you refuse to accept that perhaps the official NASA explanation that in fact they did, in fact, just go to the moon in 1969, makes perfect sense, and tallies with all the information and evidence?

So trusting Mick Jagger (to make sure the right lyrics are on there as its an official site) is a reliable to check song lyrics; but accepting the North American Space Administration version of events, (and every other scientific organization on Earth) on the facts of the Moon landing and that it was a real event, is not?

Eh?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:31 am

flopstock;1136593 wrote: The thing of it g, is that it seems to be just fine with folks to label other folks as believing irrational, illogical, idiotic ideas. But to the folks that do happen to wonder or even believe, those very labels may as well have been applied to them.

It's like telling someone that their belief in god or their religion is stupid, moronic or unjustified. It's what they happen to accept based on the inputs of their experience.

At the same time, I think it's valid to question others beliefs.

I guess it's all in presentation. That's why I generally answer Nomad.. logic need not apply..:p

I understand that, but these are not actually religious beliefs I am questioning here,

are they?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:32 am

oscar;1136595 wrote: Please allow me to introduce myself

Im a man of wealth and taste

Ive been around for a long, long year

Stole many a mans soul and faith

And I was round when jesus christ

Had his moment of doubt and pain

Made damn sure that pilate

Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

But whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game

I stuck around st. petersburg

When I saw it was a time for a change

Killed the czar and his ministers

Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank

Held a generals rank

When the blitzkrieg raged

And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah

Ah, whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched with glee

While your kings and queens

Fought for ten decades

For the gods they made

I shouted out,

Who killed the kennedys?

When after all

It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself

Im a man of wealth and taste

And I laid traps for troubadours

Who get killed before they reached bombay

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

But whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

But whats confusing you

Is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

As heads is tails

Just call me lucifer

cause Im in need of some restraint

So if you meet me

Have some courtesy

Have some sympathy, and some taste

Use all your well-learned politesse

Or Ill lay your soul to waste, um yeah

Pleased to meet you

Or you can take my word that i myself asked 'Ronnie Wood' what the line was. If you don't believe that, I'll post a pic of my back-stage pass on here.

You know if you sing that song backwards, it actually sounds different, more "backwards" sounding in fact. worked that out myself you know. :wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:37 am

Galbally;1136603 wrote: Cool.

So you accept that going to the official websites is the correct way to find out what the actual lyrics of Rolling Stones songs are.

But you refuse to accept that perhaps the official NASA explanation that in fact they did, in fact, just go to the moon in 1969, makes perfect sense, and tallies with all the information and evidence?

So trusting Mick Jagger to make sure the right lyrics are on there is a reliable to check song lyrics; but accepting the North American Space Administration version of events, (and every other scientific organization on Earth) on the facts of the Moon landing was real is not?

Eh?

No actually. I said YOU could check out the many many sites quoting the correct lyrics. I added that I'd take 'Ronnie Woods' word for it and if you disbelieved that, I'd post my back-stage pass of the night i asked him, on here :p

You are not reading my posts are you?

If you were, you'd see that i said 'I had an open mind' and hoped certain posters would come on to discuss the theory. I have not said at any point that i believe it was a hoax or i dis-believe it was a hoax. I wanted to see what others thought and everyone's opinion weather it agree's with yours or not...... is valid in my open mind.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:46 am

oscar;1136625 wrote: No actually. I said YOU could check out the many many sites quoting the correct lyrics. I added that I'd take 'Ronnie Woods' word for it and if you disbelieved that, I'd post my back-stage pass of the night i asked him, on here :p

You are not reading my posts are you?

If you were, you'd see that i said 'I had an open mind' and hoped certain posters would come on to discuss the theory. I have not said at any point that i believe it was a hoax or i dis-believe it was a hoax. I wanted to see what others thought and everyone's opinion weather it agree's with yours or not...... is valid in my open mind.

An open mind is a very good thing, also, I always accept other people have opinions, and everyone is entitled to their opinion; but that doesn't mean an opinion has any validity in terms of being accurate or remotely correct on a strictly rationalist or empirical basis.

Also, of course people's emotional "truths" are valid for them, I respect people in general; but these "truths" they feel inside should normally be a matter for themselves when trying to come to as an unbiased a position as possible, especially on questions of this nature.

This is one of the main problems why people find it hard to be completely rational, about anything, we all have an emotional pre-disposition to "see" things a certain way, that's something you have to identify and honestly try to combat when dealing with anything like this.

We all may "feel" certain ideas appeal to on an emotional or "intuitive" sense; however, once we have to discuss the shared material reality we live in, thats a different matter.

I am a scientist after all, and when it comes to scientific issues I tend to get robust, as that's how I have been trained to deal with scientific questions, or questions amenable to rational explanation, and also because if I don't don't argue for the rationalist position, who will?

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:47 am

Galbally;1136544 wrote: In response, I would respectfully suggest that knowledge of any particular event or phenomenon is best based on the study of all the available physical evidence, and not metaphysical or emotional flights of fancy.

It's called the scientific method.

You should try it, it works.

Its interesting that I (and spot) have been directly called idiots, fools, and ignorant, in trying to give rational explanations why there was a moon landing, and making light-hearted fun of the concept of conspiracy theories, and yet I am being accused of insulting people, when I haven't actually insulted anyone.

I have just made general points. It seems that being rational about these sorts of issues isn't very popular, well so be it.

Overstand Something If You Can Ok . Personally I Can Less What You Believe Keyword Believe . And As Far As Spot , Have Not Been Able To Disprove Anything I Have Posted . Nothing . With All His Trick's / Words Games . And That's Because You And Him Are Lock Into I'm Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong . You Better Wakeup To The Real World . Your Little Pop-shot / Insult Dosen't Impress Me . It An Old Saying Never Step In The Ring If You Can't Get Down , Meaning If You Can Hold Up Your Hands Keep Your Mouth Shut . Food For Though -- Stop Going To Your Favor Website Etc That Feed You Ego . And Step Into The Real World . Because Your Being Left Behind ..

Daniyal · Post by **Daniyal** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:50 am

oscar;1136595 wrote: Please allow me to introduce myself

Im a man of wealth and taste

Ive been around for a long, long year

Stole many a mans soul and faith

And I was round when jesus christ

Had his moment of doubt and pain

Made damn sure that pilate

Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

But whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game

I stuck around st. petersburg

When I saw it was a time for a change

Killed the czar and his ministers

Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank

Held a generals rank

When the blitzkrieg raged

And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah

Ah, whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched with glee

While your kings and queens

Fought for ten decades

For the gods they made

I shouted out,

Who killed the kennedys?

When after all

It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself

Im a man of wealth and taste

And I laid traps for troubadours

Who get killed before they reached bombay

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

But whats puzzling you

Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

But whats confusing you

Is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

As heads is tails

Just call me lucifer

cause Im in need of some restraint

So if you meet me

Have some courtesy

Have some sympathy, and some taste

Use all your well-learned politesse

Or Ill lay your soul to waste, um yeah

Pleased to meet you

Or you can take my word that i myself asked 'Ronnie Wood' what the line was. If you don't believe that, I'll post a pic of my back-stage pass on here.

:wah::wah::wah: Where Did You Get That Frommmmmmmmmm:wah:

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:53 am

Galbally;1136605 wrote: I understand that, but these are not actually religious beliefs I am questioning here,

are they?

Why am I sitting here with that Tea in China question running through my head?:-2

:wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:57 am

flopstock;1136647 wrote: Why am I sitting here with that Tea in China question running through my head?:-2

:wah:

There is a world of difference galbally between 'Religious faith' and an open mind in that something may be other than it was originally believed.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:08 pm

oscar;1136650 wrote: There is a world of difference galbally between 'Religious faith' and an open mind in that something may be other than it was originally believed.

I just think we tend to scoff at stuff that we find incredible. It's a lot easier to find others thoughts and logic to be irrational.... but ya know... what if?:D

I've loving this thread btw.. it has a tune I can dance to:guitarist

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:11 pm

Daniyal;1136639 wrote: Overstand Something If You Can Ok . Personally I Can Less What You Believe Keyword Believe . And As Far As Spot , Have Not Been Able To Disprove Anything I Have Posted . Nothing . With All His Trick's / Words Games . And That's Because You And Him Are Lock Into I'm Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong . You Better Wakeup To The Real World . Your Little Pop-shot / Insult Dosen't Impress Me . It An Old Saying Never Step In The Ring If You Can't Get Down , Meaning If You Can Hold Up Your Hands Keep Your Mouth Shut . Food For Though -- Stop Going To Your Favor Website Etc That Feed You Ego . And Step Into The Real World . Because Your Being Left Behind ..

Science is not a belief, I don't believe in science, I accept that all the evidence available suggests that the universe works on rational lines. Thats not a belief, its an intellectual position. If you believe in something, you are emotionally invested in it, and then your objectivity is gone, and you don't actually have an open mind.

Of course no one can be completely rational, we are not computers, we are human beings, and we all have emotional biases and preconceptions about everything. However, if your being honest with yourself, you admit this, and try to stand back and look at things in the cold light of day, not indulge yourself by putting faith in things simply because they are emotionally appealing to you.

So science is not based on any one set of beliefs at all, in fact the opposite. However, it is based on an intrinstic assumption.

That working assumption is that we can accept the reality of what we see with our eyes and touch, or investigate using instruments, and that essentially the material reality outside of myself is real, and its not just something going in my head.

That is really an assumption, and all science is based on it, all good scientists admit it, but are comfortable with it, as its the only way for concious entities such as ourselves to come to any common ground on what they are experiencing individually, and science is all about working out "how" things work, as opposed to "why" thats a question for philosophers, and clerics.

As assumptions go, its very useful; but it could be wrong, I might be imagining all of this. People realized that a long time ago. Its an unanswerable question, so most people just park it, and get on with working out what they can using impiricism, logic, and evidence.

In terms of whether supernatural, or metaphysical concepts are real, if the evidence ever starts to suggest otherwise, I will adopt the a new working hypothesis about how things are.

I try not to have huge emotional attachment to that one way or the other, (or I wouldn't be very good at my job), but until then I am content to accept the evidence I see now, and the explanations that cleverer people than myself have built up for reality, based on that evidence.

You see, science is the absence of unquestioning belief, in anything whatsoever. Its simply a working hypothesis, based on the evidence available at any one time, (dealt with using the system of logic that mathematics is based on, and the assumption that physical reality is a useful common ground for discussing shared experiences of reality).

I think Descartes was the person who best summed that up first as a general method for looking at the world, which became known as the scientific method, its been a very, very sucessful technique for describing nature so far.

You'll find that the greatest scientists tended to be people who were unafraid to go where the evidence pointed, no matter how counter-intuitive that was or how against all current orthodoxies of the time it was. Einstein didn't "believe" in relativity, he did however, accept that the results of previous experiments pointed to some pretty mind-bending conclusions, which predicted certain outcomes of future experiments, which were conducted, and he was shown to be correct. That is what science is all about. Developing hypothesis, using them to make predictions, and then testing them, in the real world.

However, in terms of beliefs, I do believe there is a god, and that's not based on any quantifiable evidence, because its a question that is not amenable to evidence-based rational debates, its truly is a question of belief or disbelief.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:11 pm

flopstock;1136672 wrote: I just think we tend to scoff at stuff that we find incredible. It's a lot easier to find others thoughts and logic to be irrational.... but ya know... what if?:D

I've loving this thread btw.. it has a tune I can dance to:guitarist

Yeah..... Get Down :guitarist:guitarist:guitarist:guitarist:guitarist

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:14 pm

Galbally;1136677 wrote: Science is not a belief, I don't believe in science, I accept that all the evidence available suggests that the universe works on rational lines. Thats not a belief, its an intellectual position.

It is based on an intrinstic assumption however, that assumption is that we can accept the reality of what we see with our eyes and touch, or investigate using instruments, and that essentially the material reality outside of myself is real, and its not just something going in my head.

That is an assumption, and all science is based on it, as its the only way for concious entities such as ourselves to come to any common ground on what they are experiencing individually.

As assumptions go, its very useful; but it could be wrong, I might be imagining all of this. People realized that a long time ago. Its an unanswerable question, so most people just park it, and get on with working out what they can using impiricism, logic, and evidence.

In terms of whether supernatural, or metaphysical concepts are real, if the evidence ever starts to suggest otherwise, I will adopt the a new working hypothesis about how things are.

I try not to have huge emotional attachment to that one way or the other, (or I wouldn't be very good at my job), but until then I am content to accept the evidence I see now, and the explanations that cleverer people than myself have built up for reality, based on that evidence.

You see, science is the absence of unquestioning belief, in anything whatsoever. Its simply a working hypothesis, based on the evidence available at any one time, (dealt with using the system of logic that mathematics is based on, and the assumption that physical reality is a useful common ground for discussing shared experiences of reality).

I think Descartes was the person who best summed that up first as a general method for looking at the world, which became known as the scientific method, its been a very, very sucessful technique for describing nature so far.

However, in terms of beliefs, I do believe there is a god, and that's not based on any quantifiable evidence, because its a question that is not amenable to evidence-based rational debates, its truly is a question of belief or disbelief.

So..... Deny the existence of parellel universe's then smart arsse :p

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:44 pm

oscar;1136683 wrote: So..... Deny the existence of parellel universe's then smart arsse :p

I certainly won't deny it as an absolute position, the "many world's" hypotheis is a reputable scientific idea, based on interpretation of the results of Young's double slit experiment, first postulated by the late Richard Feynman (sic).

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that parallel universes actually exist, its just one possible way of interpreting the data from decades of results from quantum mechanical experiments, but there are other interpretations that are equally as valid based on current results.

How was that for a smart arse answer, hot buns?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:54 pm

Galbally;1136774 wrote: I certainly won't deny it as an absolute position, the "many world's" hypotheis is a reputable scientific idea, based on interpretation of the results of Young's double slit experiment, first postulated by the late Richard Feynman (sic).

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that parallel universes actually exist, its just one possible way of interpreting the data from decades of results from quantum mechanical experiments, but there are other interpretations that are equally as valid based on current results.

How was that for a smart arse answer, hot buns?

You fell into my trap Irish person: :wah:

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:10 pm

This thread is the full and perfect indisputable scientific proof that parallel universes do exist. It is also the full and perfect indisputable scientific proof that it is still worth coming into Forum Garden, for relaxation and entertainment, before launching oneself into the coffeed up real world to skid on the thin ice of the new day. QED

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:22 pm

oscar;1136789 wrote: You fell into my trap Irish person: :wah:

No, again, you think I am wedded to one particular viewpoint or another, I am not, you don't get it.

Its the data that matters, not the hypothesis, the best hypotheis, is the one that best matches the data. When 2 or more hypothesis have an equally valid claim to be able to interpret data in a manner consistent with the system of logic and mathematics we use, then they are equally valid.

One only defeats the other, when it is either able to be more "inclusive" in explaining a wider number of measurable phenomena, it's predictions of future results turn out to be more accurate than its rival, or when some internal inconsistency is found within its competitor.

Its interesting is it not, that the criticism of science tends to be based on either the idea that scientists are inflexible and wedded to some dogma and having closed minds, or totally conversely that they keep changing their minds all the time, or applying conditionalities to their answers, and not giving people the absolute answers to things, which they seem to crave so much.

These are mutually exclusive criticisms if you think about it, and explains why science is actually so poorly understood as a discipline. Most people tend to mix up science with the reductive, mechanistic philosophies of the empiricists of the 18th century, or even existentialism.

When in fact science has no philosophy, its simply a set of procedures that can be used to come to working hypothesis about nature. That's why it is so powerful as an analytical tool, as it allows us to disregard as many of our human preconceptions as possible when dealing with the study of nature.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:23 pm

AussiePam;1136802 wrote: This thread is the full and perfect indisputable scientific proof that parallel universes do exist. It is also the full and perfect indisputable scientific proof that it is still worth coming into Forum Garden, for relaxation and entertainment, before launching oneself into the coffeed up real world to skid on the thin ice of the new day. QED

Aw. How nice of you to say.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:23 pm

Galbally;1136774 wrote: I certainly won't deny it as an absolute position, the "many world's" hypotheis is a reputable scientific idea, based on interpretation of the results of Young's double slit experiment, first postulated by the late Richard Feynman (sic).

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that parallel universes actually exist, its just one possible way of interpreting the data from decades of results from quantum mechanical experiments, but there are other interpretations that are equally as valid based on current results.

How was that for a smart arse answer, hot buns?

The Apollo Hoax

Answer that then you smug eegit :p:p:p

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:26 pm

AussiePam;1136802 wrote: This thread is the full and perfect indisputable scientific proof that parallel universes do exist. It is also the full and perfect indisputable scientific proof that it is still worth coming into Forum Garden, for relaxation and entertainment, before launching oneself into the coffeed up real world to skid on the thin ice of the new day. QED

:yh_ttth:yh_ttth:yh_ttth:yh_ttth:yh_ttth

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:33 pm

oscar;1136826 wrote: The Apollo Hoax

Answer that then you smug eegit :p:p:p

Brilliant, demented, but brilliantly demented. :yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:37 pm

Galbally;1136833 wrote: Brilliant, demented, but brilliantly demented. :yh_rotfl

Just throwing up lines of debate Irish one...... of course, you don't have none of those shananagans what with being a scientist do you? Are you still trying to make gas out of old bits of wool, glue and cheese? :sneaky::sneaky:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:30 pm

oscar;1136836 wrote: Just throwing up lines of debate Irish one...... of course, you don't have none of those shananagans what with being a scientist do you? Are you still trying to make gas out of old bits of wool, glue and cheese? :sneaky::sneaky:

No. I am working on making the horse/cat entity at the moment, its a work in progress.

Meeeow, neeggegeehhhee. :yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:32 pm

Galbally;1136893 wrote: No. I am working on making the horse/cat entity at the moment, its a work in progress.

Meeeow, neeggegeehhhee. :yh_rotfl

That would be a 'cathorsetrophy'

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:36 pm

oscar;1136902 wrote: That would be a 'cathorsetrophy'

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotflgood one!

Just so you two know, you are giving me the best of Mondays at work:-4

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:57 pm

flopstock;1136906 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotflgood one!

Just so you two know, you are giving me the best of Mondays at work:-4

Glad to help

That Irish potatoe munching Leprechaun is no match for me...... I'm British you know :wah:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:58 pm

oscar;1136902 wrote: That would be a 'cathorsetrophy'

Hold on, thats quite witty.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:59 pm

oscar;1136922 wrote: Glad to help

That Irish potatoe munching Leprechaun is no match for me...... I'm British you know :wah:

Quite. :rolleyes: