Proof: Moon Landing Fake

>> show the calculations or rot in your dumb misery


LOL

the tone of this communication has just fallen through rock bottom..

Once your argument is blown, insults show the proof.

You show your proof OK..... I don't care to be stood over

*gone*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right! When you call a kid's hand on something he can't do he simply becomes "*gone*."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(What a dummy!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

URI - screw you guys, I'm going home

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

* Avatar smears URI into the ground like a smoked cigaret.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well Mr Light, you confuse me first you say

And then you say

Rather a contradiction, but whatever. I admit that i cant find information on thw whole copper bracelet thing, and im sorry my argument was so attacking. But then again i cant find evidence, actual 'hard' evidence for the existence of ghosts, but we all know about them, and some of us have seen them, so i suppose i cant 'prove' them to you, i can merely say ive had an 'experince' of them, wether you belive me or not is another matter. With the copper bracelet thing, i think people who wear them wear them because their bodies are naturally low in copper, therefore the skin obsorbes the copper, thats why when you wear a copper bracelet for a prolonged period of time, you get this kind of green 'stain' to your skin.

I can admit when im wrong, and i was wrong with this, obviously people are 'labeled' because of their beliefs. With the whole experince thing, i know this that is why i join sci, to learn from more experinced people than myself, i will do so. :m:

 

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you.

Also, don't mean to blow your theory but finding anyone with a copper deficiency is very, very rare. And that's exactly why in the study I mentioned to you that they found a mild form of copper poisoning (that's what toxicity means).

While it's true that I don't believe in ghosts and know a couple of hundred people that don't either, I also know four that - like yourself - believe in them. I don't doubt that you're being honest about it and that you actually saw something. I just don't think it was a ghost.

I'll also give you the full credit you deserve for wanting to learn!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Congratulations. That puts you ahead of several people here who just seem to ramble on and on about nonsense and never seem to learn anything.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the desire to learn. I happen to be 60+, retired, taught in college for several years, worked for a first-class R&D company and still learn three or four new things every single day. And I have no intention of stopping.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No need for an apology, i was being thick headed!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well thankyou for believing me, may i ask what it is you do think it was, if not a ghost? Im really quite interested in the subject as it facinates me, i belive it was a ghost i saw because i live in an old 'ramshackle' farm house, on top of a hill, in the middle on nowhere, in Wales.The house has a lot of history, and dates back 276 years, so when i see 'things' in the house im quite happy to believe that it is spiritual activity. I would be arrogant to assume that the only explanation was ghosts, but i sort of want to believe that it is in a weird kind of way, know what i mean?

Also thanks for giving me a chance to explain myself, and except my explanation,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

 

I honestly can't say, John. I once thought I saw something when I was much younger but it never happened again. Perhaps I was just dreaming, I really don't know. All I can say about your instance and mine is that we both believe we saw something.

Not that it really means anything but I happen to be of Welsh decent (father's side).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I want to thank you for being so honest as to say something that most people who believe in such things usually will not admit - that you "sort of want to believe." And yes, I know what you mean. For far too many people it's that "want" (our member Duendy has that problem very badly) that blinds them to any other possibility. Someone like yourself who is willing to accept that it may have been caused by something else is much, much smarter than the type I just mentioned.

You're always welcome to explain why you think what you do. And yes, I accept what you've said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is my first post and I seem to resurect a dead thread with it. Heh, maybe in the process I'll spare everyone another round of musical Did-They-Land-On-The-Moon-Or-Not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I want to share - in a few words (I hope!) - an experience of mine with...anyone who might read this, that might help shed some light on how someone can come to see ghosts.

A few weeks back I drove a friend to a deserted cottage house in the middle of the forest, a few feet next to a small river. The night was nearly pitch black, no stars or moon, sky covered with clouds, and only some faint glow from the faraway lights of the city allowed our eyes to adapt enough so we wouldn't fall down when coming out of the car.

It still took many minutes for us to see anything, and even then the ground was distinguishable only through the slightly more reflective dead leaves on it. Spookiest place I ever was in: no wind, invisible noisy river, mixed with the impression of walking on a transparent material sprinkled with dead leaves and covering a black abyss freaked us out. And the trees and outdoor stove, oh yes! More about those below.

An object in the middle of the grass was to me a total unknow: blacker than the near-black grass around it, it seemed to oscillate between coming closer and going farther away from me. When I turned around it to try and determine its shape and thus what it was I was spooked out by finding it had no solid shape: angles in its structure kept appearing following an unpredictable pattern. More about that in a second.

Other spooky thing was staring in the forest's edge for any length of time: dark shapes that appeared to be made of solid darkness kept appearing for minutes at a time and changing shape continuously and rapidly.

The dark shape on the grass, after some exploration, revealed itself to be a massive stove of very irregular shape, why turning around it reaveled a continuously changing outline. The shapes in the trees were, I can only assume, patterns generated by my brain to account for differences in the shades of black I saw in the hollows of the forest, and since those hollows were irregular and poorly defined due to the darkness, so were the patterns.

In the end I can say my rational mind freaked out a bit because it was fun to do so, I was with a friend after all, and because my senses - specifically my sight - was pushed to the very limit of its resolution.

So here's the point of this post: 5-10% of people* who had been put in my situation that night, friend or no friend along, would have concluded that the shapes were spirits or other-worldly entities of some sort.

Does this post help understand how someone would come to believe he saw ghosts or is it just a really long post?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most rational people, like me, never put themselves in spooky, sense-deprived environments during their adult lives. Wild campers are maybe the only ones who do that.

* Those with no extensive life-long scientific training or its equivalent, i.e. long-time readers of the sciences, people who've studied in a scientific field, most photographers and journalists, etc...

 

Penn that was a extremely good post! "my senses - specifically my sight - was pushed to the very limit of its resolution." Does any remember when there were a whole string of photos with so called "UFO's" in them. And with the advanced camera technology of today these pictures are almost non existant. I would beleive in ghosts if there was more than visual evidence pointing to their existance because the eyes cannot be trusted in low light conditions.

 

soits now about ghosts...already? whathappened to the moon landing?? listen bring this to below parapsychology...theres a debate about ghosts and ting
just to say. fine....you had an experience in te woods where your perception was doing weird things........with YOUR experiencxes there you now seek to explain the whole phenomea of ghosts.....? dont THINK so. you are tring to explain away....generalize. come down to other forum and i'll explain why...

 

Those who are scientifically trained know and understand how limited such a claim, and the person making it, is. More than that, it reveals the person making such a claim is willing to believe often extremely complex and unlikely alternative concepts instead of ordinary events. Yes, a moon landing, a trip to mars, all are ordinary events in a sense. A shuttle crash is poignant, yes, and certainly crippling for NASA, but just as ordinary as any plane crash we have every few years; no need to claim death rays from outer space shut it down.

Our modern occidental society is built around, and functions around, some cornerstone concepts like reasoning, experimentation, demonstrability, repititivability (note that I might be listing the wrong words, as I don't know the exact ones in english), and after several hundred years of this our society is now mostly purged of supernaturalism, and our science has determined the supernatural is firmly outside the sphere of its influence, like religion, and that its concepts cannot be scientifically proven. Those of us that know what "scientifically proven to be unexistant" mean know the supernatural is material best reserved for certain forums, the inside of a church, or for a tradition-based oriental society.

I won't be joining you on that forum duendy, sorry.

 

So here's the point of this post: 5-10% of people* who had been put in my situation that night, friend or no friend along, would have concluded that the shapes were spirits or other-worldly entities of some sort.

* Those with no extensive life-long scientific training or its equivalent, i.e. long-time readers of the sciences, people who've studied in a scientific field, most photographers and journalists, etc...[/QUOTE]

First, welcome to sciforums, Pennarin.

Now, where did you get your statistics that 5-10% of people with no life-long scientific training WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED the shapes were spirits, etc?
I would think 90-95% of people, even with no life-long scientific training, would have thought to bring a light of some type along for a trip to a deserted house on a moonless night. Are you sure that wasn't a strawman in your eloquent post instead of a stove?

 

if it is too 'below' yu...dont say sorry, cause i wont accept!....
i will say this tho...te very term 'super-natrual' is aterm i dont like. and is not a word really familar wit Indigenous peoles neither. te idea of supernatural comes from mysticism, and the Church, and materialistic science. tey view Nature and matter energy as --with patrarchal religion as creted by a creator,and so in itself 'mechanical'....the mystics schools are mainly dualist. forexample Orphism which saw Nature as a trap of te 'divine spark', and sought to return to the 'spirit' and materialistic science beliefves matter/energy to be 'dead'--not sentient

your poistion apparently falls into the latter category. but mine is that all tose world views are flawed, precisly because they psychologically divide matter/energy from consciousness/spirit

 

LOL

First, thanks for the welcome!

Second, about that flashlight...heh, it ended up being that a city-folk like me didn't think first to look at the sky to see if it was clear. In the city everything is lighted, and you kinda assume its gonna be so everywhere else, even if just by the stars and moon. Stupid is all I can say!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Hey, stuff happens.)

Don't search for a statistical study, there ain't!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The 5-10% is what I imagine...what I feel in my bones - to quote a few dozen movies - is about right for that number.

Why would that number seem right to me?
Having never asked my friends if they believed in ghosts, and having never witnessed a group discussion on that subject from among the people I know, I get the impression either A) most people don't believe in ghosts, or B) they would believe in ghosts if they ever had the right experience to push them along that way, but never had said experience.
Like I said in my first post, the experience I related to you all was the first time in my life that I saw things I could not identify, and I'm 26 years old. I thus already have a good background of what I consider, and know to be, real, and ghosts are not in there. If I'd had that experience at 12, maybe I would have believed in an otherwordly explanation, but now I know enough to understand the nature of what I saw.

P.S. What does the strawman reference mean?

 

Sorry, my comment about a light wasn't an attempt to emphasize your oversight. I was
referring to assigning personal 'statistics' as if they were fact. That's why I stated 'I would think' regarding my guess of the 90-95% figure. IMHO, I would think 5-10% of
people in a situation as you described would imagine the undefined shapes as bears, angry bulls, or whatever animals might be appropriate for the given locality.

A 'strawman' is the construction of an example that can easily be shown false. You seemed to think a certain percentage of 'not highly educated people' would assume
the dark, fleeting shapes would be ghosts and goblins instead of more mundane fears of the unknown. I think many people would feel a certain anxiety in such a situation, but I would think very, very few would imagine ghosts, educated or illiterate.

 

Ah, thank you 2inquisitive for the clarification.

I thought I was more clear than that in my first post: the objects were not moving per say but rather were constantly changing shape, some had no depth, they made no noise, there was no wind to speak of, and they also had zero albedo.

The objects were as follow:
- One was composed of several parallelogrammes* linked together to form a black iron stove. As such it was an object of pure darkness that, when one moved slightly towards or around it, appeared to be constantly changing shape, sometimes appearing to come closer or farther away (or grow bigger or smaller, same thing).
- One was a patch of darkness several meters in width, static in place, whose edges kept flickering. That object was indeed no object, but rather a void delineated by trees and their leaves. At the distance i was from it, maybe 20 meters, simply breathing was enough to move your head sideways so as to cause leaves with more albedo to be revealed or hidden, effectively shrinking or enlarging the patch of darkness, creating a flickering edge.

My brain lashed on both those "objects" and kept telling me they were real, yet could not decide what their size or shape was.

Heh, nothing that looked like bears or bulls! Such objects would quickly have been identified as animals, or possibly a person.

When its really dark, like that night was, dark objects appear to have no depth, and that includes the ground and all its pumps and crevasses, making just walking a battle with your inner ear...

* I think this is a french word...I mean a box with irregular angles.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A parallelogram: A 4 sided shape in which all sides are parallel with another.

 

And how would you name a three-dimensional parallelogram?

 

Fairly simple really, just think about it. Except it would be called a parallelogon.

 

A parallelogon is a 2-D shape in which opposite sides are parellel; a parallelogram is a special case of a parallelogon. A parallelogram generalized to three dimensions is a parallelepiped, and to n-dimensions, a parallelotope.