Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
My posts are completely relevant
You have not addressed the question yet in a single post. You only gave a opinion based on an assumption, being that the assumption is valid or
invalid is not the issue, it cannot be the basis of an answer.
The answer to your speculative question will always be "no" until some agency can demonstrate the ability.
The Americans demonstrated Apollo in 1969 followed by ..................................... nobody.
This is Ad Hoc fallacy, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence,
the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an
If that was hard to follow, our Jupiter friend used the assumption that B is not Valid thus proved A is impossible. But there was no Evidence of why A
should be Invalid which is the premise used to infer B proves A Invalid. This sidesteps the Issue of if A IS POSSIBLE, B is not evidence or a basis
for a stand of a debate. Very hard for him to remove B from A isn't it? Because nothing other than B was presented to argue anything about A. A being
if it is possible, B being the propensity of using a valid or invalid Opinion about the Apollo missions.
If, according to your bizarre thread stipulations, we are not allowed to reference Apollo (or to treat Apollo as if it never existed) then my
reasoning is even more clear and logical. To go to the Moon one must demonstrate the ability.
Repeat that 3 times to yourself, and see if it makes sense.
"Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" Yes, for satellites and remote controlled automatic landers using 1969 technology.
Now you're a historian.
Tell me history man, what is so different with the technology to launch heavy lifts today than then? The science began in 1926. (This reminds me of
when someone asks me how long it took me to paint a particular picture, where they totally miss the point that it took me my whole life).
What we have here is number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive argument; they're known as fallacies. In everyday English, we
refer to many kinds of mistaken beliefs as fallacies; but in logic, the term has a more specific meaning: a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an
argument unsound or invalid.
(Note that you can criticize more than just the soundness of an argument. Arguments are almost always presented with some specific purpose in
mind–and the intent of the argument may also be worthy of criticism.)
Arguments which contain fallacies are fallacious. They often appear valid and convincing, all I have read so far about Jupiter's reveals logic
Thanks for wasting our time.
I'm going to now loosen my vanallen belt and relax.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)