It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Please explain why samples being contaminated is evidence of anything other than sloppy handling?
originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: DJW001
Please explain why samples being contaminated is evidence
thats exactly the point ..
it's not evidence...but one can equally argue they came from Moon ejected rocks on Earth...hence the contamination.
DJW I can't believe you still have problems understanding the concept of historical revisionism.
Historical revisionism involves either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism. This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism.
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).
History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time.
Here is the perfect example of your misunderstanding :
One fallacy that Moon Hoax proponents make is that "if a single detail is wrong or contradictory, the entire narrative must be false." This is a fallacy because documentation is subject to human error. Numbers get miscounted, locations get misidentified.
Mis-labeling your opponents and constructing a straw man out of thin air by trying to shoehorn all of your potential rivals into a one-size-fits-all is totally unacceptable.
Then you say that "documentation is subject to human error"; however, when it comes to Apollo documentation, don't you usually insist that NASA is to be accepted as a source of immutable truth?
They (Moon Hoax proponents) need to provide an equal volume of: list of 12 crazy things you want
What? That's not how historical revisionism works at all.
As an Apollo Reviewer I have no obligation whatsoever to meet your demands for an "equal volume" of what tends to amount to self-incriminating conspiracy paperwork. You would be asking for lots of papers from the Nixon era - an era of secrecy, bribery, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc.
And while I commend you for taking on the inglorious task of this thread and bringing with you the methodology of critical historical analysis - you should dive even further into the murky depths.
Did you know there is more than one kind of historical method?
There are 3 different methods according to Nietzsche: the monumental, the antiquarian and the critical.
The critical method is a revisionist method that the first two methods will not actually tolerate for long because it represents a threat - the first two often will try to obliterate the third method. This can be seen in every Apollo thread when anyone makes the sophomore mistake of lumping all "Apollo Hoax proponents" into a single category of opposition.... which is exactly what you have already done.
However, as an Apollo Reviewer (a critical method revisionist), these are only two prime examples why the monumental and antiquarian methods are not sufficient for Apollo, that Apollo deserves the critical treatment, and there is no escaping it... the Apollo narratives have serious problems.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Curious69
Yes thats kind of my point, besides those who would want to fool somebody to belive the moonlandings could also make up the composition of moon rock,
How would they know what Moon rock was made of? Remember, the Soviets brought back their own soil samples. The US and USSR exchanged samples and the results matched.
Lunar samples being exchanged.
There is documentary evidence that the US and USSR confirmed each other's claims. Where is the evidence that either one faked it?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Curious69
Actually, there is a massive propaganda campaign going on in Russia to deny the Moon landings ever happened. The Soviets admitted it was for real, Putin's Russia is being revisionist. (The bad kind.)
Once again you blame everything that is taking place in Russia on Putin, and you twist the perspective so that everyone can have a shot of your anti-russianism ... but what the Russians actually want to do is put an end to the endless debate (something that this thread will obviously not manage to do).
Yes this proves that there is a debate ... And you can either debate it or close the debate once for good. Isn't that what you'd like to see ?
originally posted by: Biigs
I dont think i'll ever be able to get off the fence on this one.
They would have needed to test the equipment out on a mock moon to make sure whatever they put up there would work, so theres an excuse for a lot of things in this respect.
But also, why would they lie about it to their own people and indeed the world? Just to test the waters for future "feats of science" to lie about?
“It was designed to solve a political problem, that’s really what it was about,” Launius said. “It was a Cold War competitive measure in response to a couple of major foreign policy setbacks in the spring in 1961.”
For starters, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space on April 12, 1961. Then, on top of this huge scientific and engineering accomplishment, that same month saw the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Cuban forces crushed a CIA-backed, paramilitary force of Cuban exiles.
Shock and Awe
In other words, Americans felt like their communist adversaries had them on the ropes. They needed to land the mother of all punches. If they couldn’t be the first in space, they could try to beat the Russians to the moon.
The launch of Sputnik 1 generated fear across the US - and a quiet realisation that the country had fallen technologically behind the Soviet Union.