That NASA look

By Phil Plait | July 26, 2010 12:00 pm

Yes, I know I just linked to a David Mitchell video the other day, but this one is so good I figured why not.

Ha! That’s from the UK show "That Mitchell and Webb Look", which is a great satirical show. There are about a gazillionty billion reasons the Moon Hoax folks are wrong, but M&W have boiled it down to its very essence. Well done!

Tip o’ the spacesuit visor to TheShickle.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Humor, NASA

Comments (121)

  1. Fake the video of the Moon landing, on the Moon. Brilliant!

  2. Shawn

    Hilarious and exactly to the point :)

  3. Hehehe…keep the successful Mars mission a secret.

  4. Austen

    Brilliant isn’t it! I’m glad you found this!

  5. Brilliant.
    Sharing this with other folks in the office right now…

  6. Rob G.

    Too funny. Love the way she says, “We went in that massive rock you saw.” Like it’s so painfully obvious we went to the moon based on that one “small” fact alone.

  7. I’ve been searching through YouTube for other videos from this show. There’s a great homeopathic video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

  8. Just slightly embarrassed that it never occurred to me–when being asked by people if I think the moon landing was faked–to simply ask, “If we faked the moon landing, where did those astronaut guys go when we blasted them off in that like rilly rilly big rocket?”

    Does anybody know what the fake moon landing wackos say about the Saturn V?

    Pretty big prop…and such CONVINCING exhaust!

  9. Georg

    I watched this sketch four times meanwhile.
    It got better every time.
    Georg

  10. What I love about this is the typically understated Brit way it’s done. Thanks.

  11. The most important point is that the Soviets would’ve known. They would’ve had the best evidence. And they wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to show to the world that the Americans were lying.

    But they kept quiet. Or maybe the US bribed the Soviets too? :D :D

  12. jiblonghorn

    I knew it! NASA is secretly run by Brits!

  13. Digitalastro

    @ #7 Gogblog – The conspiracy theorists state that the rocket was launched empty and only orbited the Earth.

    @ #10 blakut – The theory is that the Soviets *were* bribed with shipments of American wheat to alleviate their famine.

    *I* didn’t make these up. This is what the “theorists” think.

  14. Digitalastro — Morbo the Annihillator does resemble Leonid Brezhnev a little.

  15. Just heard the news…. Phil Plait goes Hollywood! Good luck with it. Promise you’ll do lots of take-no-prisoners investigative stories on anti-vaxxers and other public health menaces.
    http://www.mediabistro.com/webnewser/connected/bad_astronomy_blogger_makes_the_jump_to_television_168604.asp

  16. ChazInMT

    I always figured the fake moon landing footage was actually shot on the moon, but, until now, I was afraid to say so lest you take me for a fool.

  17. Lorena

    the’re hilarious! I specially love their video on homeopathy, floral remedies and all those other alternative remedies! It’s on youtube XD

  18. 9. Tribeca Mike Says:
    July 26th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
    What I love about this is the typically understated Brit way it’s done. Thanks.

    Ah but you see, your ‘understatement’ is our ‘statement’. It’s only understated from your perspective. Now, you should see us when we understate. Cool.
    Bob(Big)

  19. EdF

    That was great, thanks! I find it funny that in the YouTube comments, some said it was real because Mythbusters proved it. Maybe we need mythbusters to do an episode on climate change, then people might believe.

  20. This is the Homeopathy one – another understated debunking…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

    Off for a homepathic lager.

  21. BigBob — Gotcha (though about that accent…)

    MarkHood — That’s funny!

  22. Tniemi

    (@ #14 Digitalastro)

    Oh my. So the Soviets knew? They were just silenced with bribery!

    If that is so… then to who did NASA fake the moon landing for? For the average Texas Joe just for heck for it?

    Mind truly boggles with these people…

  23. John Berryman

    This blog is titled “Bad Astronomy” yet there seems to be little astronomy here – just moon hoaxes, scifi and comic book conventions, and a large dose of self-promotion by the blog’s editor. Meanwhile, there’s a big controversy about Kepler discoveries all across the web news sites – but this blog seems to be oblivious to that.

  24. You may enjoy this bit o’ Brit humour…

    British Brothers – Star Wars Edition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Egbysb3re8

  25. @John Berryman

    Kepler discovered the orbits of the planets were elliptical 400 years ago. Hardly controversial and probably too late to blog about now.

  26. Hello Phil,

    I see you are all too quick to gloat about about our little encounter at TAM8. I’ve already released the video footage of that event and I’m curious to see how quick you are to enlighten your fans on the three questions you dodged. So here are those three questions I flew from Australia to ask you, only to be refused by you.

    1. How can you allege that the idea NASA and the government would murder their own astronauts is a “loathsome accusation”, when the CIA’s General William H. Craig came up with the false flag proposal “OPERATION: DIRTY TRICK”, which proposed blaming John Glenn’s possible death aboard Friendship 7 on Cuba and use that death to justify an invasion?
    http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/TruthHunter/cubaops01-1.jpg
    http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/TruthHunter/cubaops02-1.jpg
    http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/TruthHunter/cubaops03-1.jpg
    http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/TruthHunter/cubaops04-1.jpg

    2. On three separate occasions that I have seen (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/15/uk-tabloids-compete-for-fish-wrappery/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/27/moon-hoax-originator-has-died/ http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JpOxuMXkLGo#HM-hkjFOd-U ) you allege that Bill Kaysing claimed “all space travel is impossible”. How can you allege that he said that when Kaysing explicitly states, in the exact same interview YOU refer to: “I will concede that certain unmanned vehicles might have made it to the moon. The Russians are supposed to have sent some unmanned vehicles to the moon. And possibly our Surveyor did land on the moon.”?
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html

    3. In your book you claim that there were no major solar flares during those missions. How can you make that claim when NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major Flares explicitly logs thirty major x-ray flares spread out over eight of the nine alleged moon flights?
    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/FLARES_INDEX/McMath/CFI55_80.TXT

    Here are the links to this video. I suggest you take this opportunity to address the things you have dodged all this time.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TH4BfIwBXs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSL0NpUEBU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZyzK1WS1ME
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI_2TLEVKiI

    Jarrah White

  27. John

    @ John Berryman

    Yes the title is “Bad” Astronomy and initially was introduced to help expose all the misinformation spread about astronomical issues including the Moon hoax.

    However if you just want astronimical blogs then you only have to select Astronomy from the Post Categories dropdown menu at the side of the page.

    @ Shane

    I think the Kepler controversy referred to is the decision from the Kepler planet hunting mission to withhold some of the data collected from the general astronomical community for a further 6 months.

  28. John Berryman

    @shane – read the news once in a while, you might learn something.

  29. Grand Lunar

    Hey, that’s probably what they did! They faked the footage of the fake landing on the moon!
    No wonder the Mythbusters were fooled! :D

    Anyway, thanks for this, Phil.

  30. Brian

    Re #27: Ah, an actual moonhoaxer. Excellent. Please tell us:

    What do you think about the theory that the government shot the fake moon landing footage on the moon in order to save on costs?

  31. @ Brian

    Meh, I’m more interested in what Jarrah thinks of Kepler data being withheld for 6 months to allow time to fake it… on the moon.

  32. Messier Tidy Upper

    Classic! :-)

    Of course, not only would they have to pay the caterers for the filming but *also* the three astronauts as well! Plus get *all* the astronauts – and there were well over twenty of them incl. the non-Moon walkers as well – (& engineers and designers and administrators etc ..) to go along with it and make sure these test pilots were also great actors who never slipped up and put in the most consistently convincing acting performance of all time. ;-)

    Can anyone really believe in *that* many people lying *that* well for *that* long without once slipping up somewhere and giving the secret away? :roll:

    Far more easy to believe we actually landed on the Moon – and much cheaper to do so too. :-)

  33. @Jarrah White

    So you flew all the way to America to ask Phil three complete non-sequiturs that fail to make any discernable point?

    1) Is a cherry-pick about some single comment and a non-sequitur
    2) Is a possibly mis-represented quote which even if true has absolutely zero impact of any evidence based argument.
    3) Is something that I have no expertise and will not apriori dismiss. I’m confident however that if Phil wished to (and does not quite understandably choose to ignore you) he could explain what appears to be yet another cherry-pick and truth-mangling by a hoaxer.

  34. Messier Tidy Upper

    If you really *have* to believe in a Conspiracy “Theory” – and, naturally, you don’t – to explain why we haven’t been back to the Moon* then why not at least choose a slightly more reasonable and less downright ridiculous one than the “faked in a movie studio” one such as the idea used by British comedian Ben Elton in his Stark novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(novel) ) where :

    The Stark conspiracy is a cabal of the world’s richest and most influential men, who have long been aware that the planet’s entire ecosystem is approaching total collapse. For decades they have been launching unmanned spacecraft loaded with supplies into orbit around the Earth and the Moon. Seeking to save their own lives and leave everyone else to suffer from ‘total toxic overload’, they secretly create a fleet of spacecraft with the intention of founding a colony on the Moon. … [Snip!] … They buy the Moon from the United States government, along with the hardware to reach it. Six vessels are designed to travel to the Moon, three of which will carry humans. There is room for 250 humans on the craft. The vessels are named ‘Star Arks’, referencing the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark. The Star Arks contain human and animal embryos in suspended animation, as well as resources needed for life support. The Star Arks are prepared under the cover story that the consortium is building a desert hotel and retreat.

    That one at least is vaguely plausible & a fair bit less easy to refute than the Moon Hoax silliness. ;-)

    Heck, the idea that Obama is really an evil, lizard-like alien from Zeta Reticuli( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_Reticuli ) is a bit more convincing and harder to refute than the Moon hoax one! :roll:

    —————-

    * Let’s face it we wouldn’t have all this Moon hoax conspiracy nonsense if we *had* gone back there & had a Lunar colony today as we could have done with more visionary leadership and political will. :-( )

  35. Tony Sidaway

    It’s good to see Mitchell and Webb back for another series this summer. From the show I saw (which included the “fake moon landing” sketch) the writing is as witty as ever. I’m a little perplexed by the notion that their humor is understated, though. Typically Mitchell will hammer home the point in the last line, but by then most of the audience has already seen it. You could achieve understatement in several ways but blurting out a punch-line isn’t one of them. My point isn’t to deny their wit and skill–the sketch works perfectly. It’s just not understated.

  36. Levi in NY

    @ Jarrah White: Did you actually watch the video Phil just posted? The biggest problem with the moon hoax conspiracy theory is the simple fact that actually going to the Moon would have been much cheaper and easier than faking it.

  37. Tony Sidaway

    Jarrah White makes the same error the global warming conspiracy theorists make. Just as errors discovered global warming documentaries, older papers on paleoclimatological reconstructions, and the like do not overturn the vast weight of independent evidence for global warming, errors made by Phil Plait do not mean that humans did not travel in a rocket ship, land on the moon, walk around, plant flags and geophysical equipment, and then return safely home.

    Mr. White, concentrate on the weight of the evidence and draw appropriate conclusions, then having demonstrated your mastery of basic reasoning, get back to us on those minor niggles.

  38. DLC

    Um, 27: please, if you’re going to fake documents at least do it right.
    Get a couple FIOA requests in for real DOD documents so that you can at least get the format right. Oh, and could you please not cut your own top secret stamp out of a potato ?
    it looks so cheesy.
    Mmmmmm… Cheesy Potatos. . . . /homersimpson.

    PS : I’ll give you a hint. Before computerization the operational code names were selected at random from large volumes, such as the OED or Shakespeare. they were deliberately made so as not to be connectible to or reminiscent of the operation.

  39. Messier Tidy Upper

    D’oh – my link for Stark novel at #35 isn’t working. Try this one instead :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(novel)

    It was also turned into a mini-series on ABC (Australian) TV too which has a wiki-page here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_(TV_miniseries)

    While on with links, on checking up, I’ve found that the “Zeta Reticulans” aren’t – as I’d thought they were – the “Reptilians” beloved of the weirder realms of Conspiracy “Theory” bulldust but are “actually” the “Greys.” :roll:

    This link – an article from the Guardian newspaper gives an entertaining insight of sorts into their world and the sort of “planet” they – or their inventors – are from : ;-)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/17/features.weekend

    The Moon Hoaxers occupy the same sort of “planetary” territory too methinks! ;-)

  40. IVAN3MAN_AT_ LARGE

    Deleted by author.

  41. @ Jarrah White You claim the moon landings were faked.

    How can you claim that, when it is clear that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and met with Aliens/Nazis there?

  42. Messier Tidy Upper

    @27. Jarrah White Says:

    Hello Phil,

    Er .. just so you know this is a blog comments section Jarrah not a letter or email. You’re NOT just talking to Phil and you may want to bear this in mind – unless you want to have a header saying something like :

    Open letter to ___

    Or whatever I guess. :roll:

    … So here are those three questions I flew from Australia to ask you, only to be refused by you.

    1. How can you allege that the idea NASA and the government would murder their own astronauts is a “loathsome accusation”, when the CIA’s General William H. Craig came up with the false flag proposal “OPERATION: DIRTY TRICK”, which proposed blaming John Glenn’s possible death aboard Friendship 7 on Cuba and use that death to justify an invasion?

    I can’t speak for Phil but since you are, de facto, asking everyone here, my opinion is that the idea of NASA murdering its astronauts indeed qualifies as a “loathsome accusation” by its intrinsic nature.

    It would be an utterly loathsome – in fact treasonous and criminal homicide if it was true. Being a false allegation it is if anything even worse because it is an unsupported slander directed at people working to do the exact opposite – keep the astronauts alive – quite heroically at times eg. NASA’s finest hour with Apollo13.

    I’m not sure why you are objecting to calling a loathsome accusation “a loathsome accusation” when it *is*, in fact, a loathsome accusation. :-P

    If you are claiming this accusation is truly the case then you are making an extremely serious charge – and one that must be (& in reality, would have been) investigated thoroughly by the appropriate authorities.

    If you have any actual EVIDENCE whatsoever to back such a claim – Provide it. If not, please have the basic decency to NOT insult good people in the worst possible way because of your personal ideology. :-(

    The case you mention with John Glenn is news for me and I doubt it was actually true but if even if it was its hypothetically using a possible *accidental* death* rather than involving the government actively murdering its own astronauts and this *possibility* NEVER actually happened – nor I suspect was it ever likely to have done so.

  43. davem

    @27: Those jpg documents are priceless. Only a fool could think that they’re genuine, or that they’re not the ramblings of an idiot. They’re obviously a joke, yet you can’t see it.

  44. @John Berryman (#24), you mean data that was released back in JUNE?

  45. Messier Tidy Upper

    @27. Jarrah White : {continuing from #42.]

    2. On three separate occasions that I have seen … [SNIP] you allege that Bill Kaysing claimed “all space travel is impossible”. How can you allege that he said that when Kaysing explicitly states, in the exact same interview YOU refer to: “I will concede that certain unmanned vehicles might have made it to the moon. The Russians are supposed to have sent some unmanned vehicles to the moon. And possibly our Surveyor did land on the moon.”?

    Okay here’s what Bill Kaysing says in the linked interview you posted :

    Do you believe that rockets ever made orbit; did Surveyor or Pioneer actually happen?

    Possibly. Possibly not. I’m not absolutely certain about that. I will concede that certain unmanned vehicles might have made it to the moon. The Russians are supposed to have sent some unmanned vehicles to the moon. And possibly our Surveyor did land on the moon. But units with people in them, never.

    Yeesh. :roll:

    There were a lot more than just the Surveyors there was also the Ranger program and the Lunakhods and a number of others eg. the Clementine probe, Japan’s Kaguya, China’s Chang’e-1 spaceprobe and America’s Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter to namer just afew recent ones.

    Might have have made it to the Moon?” Try did – and returned photos and samples that conclusively prove it. Where do you think the images of the Lunar Farside came from?

    But wait there’s more :

    How ’bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin – were they actually in space?

    I doubt it.

    [BTW. Way to weasel out of giving a straight forward honest answer there -"doubt" not "didn't." Hmm.. - Ed.]

    So the Soviet Union faked that Yuri Gargarin was in space, and that dog that died, Laika, really didn’t die?

    Mmm…I don’t think he was up there. See, there was a fellow by the name of Lloyd Mallin in the early ’70s who wrote a very detailed book saying that all – well, nearly all – possibly all of the Soviet space exploits were faked, and he proved it with photographs and technical data and so forth. I still have a copy of that book.

    So .. Every cosmonaut & every astronaut – and even the dogs and chimps never actually flew! Riii-iiight! :roll:

    How big does a conspiracy have to be before it becomes impossible? How many people all up do you think were involved in the “hoax” – actually how many nations? It wasn’t just the USA, its not just that the Soviets would’ve known & also been faking – what about tracking stations in Australia (Candberra) and Spain (Madrid) and all the ham radio folks with sufficent gear to listen in etc … What about the guest cosmonautsand astronauts and even space tourists like Iranian-Amercian Anousheh Ansari &, oh yeah, what’s Kaysings position on the Burt Rutan Spaceship One flights – real or fake? :roll:

    Then again, why stop at space exploration? Let’s see what he has to say about World War II :

    So the Americans bribed the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor?

    Yes, and Roosevelt not only knew about the attack, he helped arrange it, and he suppressed the information about the Japanese attacks from Kimmel and Short, the naval and army commanders at Pearl Harbor. This was one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated by the U.S. government to get us involved in a deadly war. There’s no question that it was all set up.

    WHAT .. THE …CENSORED!!?

    Are you for real? Congrats if its a Poe, please tell me your joking!

    If not please provide us with some specific, credible evidnece for your absurd farrago of nonsense. I’ve answered your questions – now can youanswer some of mine:

    1. How big was the supposed conspiracy and exactly who was in on it?

    2. How can it be that no astronaut (or, for that matter, cosmonaut, taikonaut or space tourist) has ever slipped up and inadvertabtly let the cat out of the bag on NOT actually into space as they said they did?

    3. How did the Moon rocks pass inspection by all expert geologists and why have they been so convincing to international scientists who have examinined them?

  46. Messier Tidy Upper

    PS. Oh wait, all but one geologist apparently :

    I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, “There’s no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth.”

    The name of that geologist and his institition would be? The giveaway signs of moon-rock fakery would be?

    The reason to believe Kaysing isn’t pulling that line from his wild if rather nutty imagination would be???

    ******************************************************************

    PS. I suppose Japan was bribed into organising kamikaze plane attacks and the Tokyo firebombing and the A-bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki too? The Moon landing was fake, WWII was faked and a set up that we bribed our enemies into & I’m sure you think the Sept. 11th 2001 terrorist attacks were faked too. :roll:

    Is there *anything* at all in history you happen to accept really happened? :roll:

  47. @ all people against Jarrah White

    Why bother debating Jarrah anyway, it’s not like you haven’t done it a billion times with these people… it’s like trying to convince rocks. Mockery is all they deserve.

    Are there any studies done about a correlation between education level, mental health status, degree of belief in conspiracy theories?

  48. Mike Mullen

    Jarrah acts like his questions are brand new and yet they are all old news and only of them bears directly on the subject of the moon landings. The solar flares issue has been discussed repeatedly, Jarrah just doesn’t like the answers.
    If Phil cut Jarrah off at TAM8 I wouldn’t blame him, a conversation with Jarrah on the moon hoax is probably about as much fun as a trip to the dentist.

  49. Matt

    JW,
    1. Murdering someone and taking political advantage of their death is not the same thing. I can’t believe the difference has to be explained to you!

    2. Aside from your cherry-picked quote, it is obvious to any intelligent person Phil was refering to Kaysing’s claim that man has not travelled in space, not that space travel as a whole is impossbile.

    3. What is your premise? That all “major” flares are 100% fatal to crews in space? Show us your math then. Take all that data and do the calculations for the dose from each flare each mission should have received.

  50. Jason

    @42 davem
    Of course they are genuine, only a person who was involved in the conspiracy would belittle and insult their existence. Since you are a member of the conspiracy nothing you say can be believed!

  51. Messier Tidy Upper

    @47. blakut Says:

    @ all people against Jarrah White
    Why bother debating Jarrah anyway, it’s not like you haven’t done it a billion times with these people… it’s like trying to convince rocks. Mockery is all they deserve.

    Would you believe for the sheer fun and intellectual excercise of it? ;-)

    Seriously though, there are a few good reasons why I (as one of these people) am doing this.

    Firstly, nobody is ever entirely a lost cause. I don’t hold out very much hope of convincing Jarrah that he’s wrong in his MH belief but, well, you never know. It is at least possible, we’ll change his mind on this issue.

    I say this from personal experience – for a long time here I argued (esp. under my old names of ‘StevoR’ and ‘Plutonium being from Pluto’) against Human-caused Global Warming and, eventually, despite some very full on and furious debates against it, I had to concede and accept the scientific consensus that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. That’s at least one person and one case of these sort of seemingly impossible debates eventually being resolved – of such arguing working. Nor am I alone. I think I recall reading a number of people’s accounts of coming here as believers in various “bad science” items and coming away wiser for the experience.

    Secondly, the principle that such arguments *are* out there and *do* need to be tackled. Even if Jarrah isn’t convinced (or convincing!) debating this and getting these points rebutted could be a worthwhile excercise for others who encounter the Moon Hoax topic. People may wonder about some things raised by Jarrah and this gives them answers or another side of things for them to consider. If we didn’t answer such people then they’d claim and perhaps gain more widespread approval for their views.

    Silence traditionally indicates consent or guilt or lack of having an answer. I’m not prepared to be silent and not speak up when I feel strongly about an issue like this. I want a casual viewer who may look at Jarrett’s post and wonder “is that true” or “hey, I never thought of that!” to have an immediate counter, rebutting or explaining the situation. Arguments like this online can be interesting or useful to the bystanders and lurkers – sometimes more than the main participants or so I suspect.

    Finally, hey, its my time and my pleasure. If I wanted to do something else then I’d do something else. This is what I like and choose to do. Why *shouldn’t* I argue the case here if I want to? ;-)

    I’ve heard that you’re not supposed to feed the trolls and I try to avoid doing so. I try to do that and I always try (hopefully successfully) to follow the BA’s simple rules (don’t be a jerk, don’t swear) and entertain, enlighten and help folks out a bit. To share and express my opinions and see what others (esp. the BA natch) think too.

    Isn’t that what this blog is for?

    @49.Matt : Great post! I wish could be so concise. :-)

  52. Messier Tidy Upper

    Bad Astronomer, this :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/27/moon-hoax-originator-has-died/

    was an awesome post from you. Incredibly full of grace and magnaminity towards a man who had and pushed such a very bad idea.

    Thankyou for that & thanks again for this blog. I’d love to see a “Best of the Bad Astronomy Blog” book collecting some of your best posts published one day and, if it is, I hope that one is included. :-)

    I don’t recall reading it originally but saw it via Jarrah’s (#27′s) link so that’s at least one good thing to come from the bad thing that is the Moon Hoax – and Jarrah’s comment here. ;-)

  53. Charly

    Thank you Messier Tidy Upper for post #52! Yes, you need to refute these crazy accusations. I am one of those “lurkers” who look to those experts here to help me refute the woo-woos when I encounter them. I frequently share these discussions with my children so that they can have a better understanding of how information they read can be absolute hogwash and that they need to be discriminatory on what they believe – look at the source, listen to the agruments, search for the truth. It is easy to fall prey to the woo if you are young, inexperienced, and are without the facts and have no guidance. So, please continue to debate – not everyone has the time or inclination to look through old posts for older debates. So, keep repeating – you always have new people in the audience.

  54. Messier Tidy Upper

    With me, repetition is hardly a problem! Wordiness OTOH .. ;-)

    My pleasure – delighted to hear its been helpful and enjoyable for you. :-)

  55. pheldespat

    Perhaps the “keep the successful Mars mission a secret” was a reference to Alternative 3 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_3 )

  56. Buzz Parsec

    MTU (haven’t read everything yet, so someone else may have already said this):
    Kaysing is clearly an agent of the alien reptilian conspiracy, whose job it is to distract all us true skeptics from investigating the real EVUL PLOTS they are engaged in.

  57. Buzz Parsec

    EdF@20 -

    I can picture an adjustable frame suspending a horizontal window above their parking lot. Two large panes of glass, sealed around the edges. The separation
    between the panes can be adjusted.

    Sit Adam (or Grant) on an exercise bicycle under it in with the hot California sun bearing down on him, while he pedals furiously. Try it with air and CO2 between the glass panes, with varying amounts of CO2 by setting the panes at 1, 2, 4 or 8 inches.

    The idea is to demonstrate the R-values of varying amounts of CO2 while maximizing the pain/misery/humiliation of Adam (or Grant).

    If there’s any chance of the (home-made) exercise bike coming off the stand and crashing, then give Tori a chance. Kari stands off to the side, taking measurements while sipping lemonade and fanning herself with a large fan like in the movie “Inherit the Wind.” Jamie has too much sense to get involved.

    I can’t figure out any way to work explosions into this, though.

  58. Buzz Parsec

    MTU -

    Re: AGW, next time a global warning thread rolls around, perhaps you could discuss what you found convincing? Or did you already do that in a comment to some post I missed recently (I’ve been intermittent here lately.) I hope this was a rational conclusion based on evidence, and not because the rest of us Global Warming Thugs beat you into it! ;-)

    But pursuing this further here would be off-topic. (Just like my Mythbusters post @ 58.)

  59. Bob_In_Wales

    Slightly off topic perhaps, but a question:

    I haven’t seem or heard much recently about “Pole Reversals” “Nancy Leider” “Planet X” etc. I remember reading a lot of arguments about this on the web a few years ago but it all seems to have disappeared. Does anybody know what happened to these people and all this business? Did they give up and go home when nothing happened? Recant? Move on to other conspiracies? Or have I just missed it all?

    I recall one individual posting that he had sold everything and headed for the hills, and other postings saying that believing in Leider and preparing for her catastrophy had broken marriages and families. What happened to these people? Did anybody have a go at her? Sue? Find excuses for her?

  60. Brian Too

    Where have I been and why haven’t I been aware of this Mitchell and Webb goodness? I spent like 3 hours last night watching clips of them! British comedy lives and grows*!

    * Like all good comedy, some of the sketches don’t really work or make you cringe. There’s more than enough good stuff to make watching worthwhile.

  61. Cairnos

    @60 Bob_In_Wales: After thier emanantly futile attempt to warn the world of the coming apocalypse that isbeing hidden from all the rest of you drones, we tracked them down and either abducted, threatened, brainwashed or killed these rebels (sometimes we did all four just to make sure). Then we updated the automated media filters to prevent another recurrence and automatically track anyone else who sought to penetrate the fiendish security with which we guard our plans.

    Ahem, sorry, I meant I guess they all just saw sense and quit posting, or went on long, unplanned, holidays in places with no phones or any other method of contacting the families they forgot to mention thier holiday plans to.

  62. Old Rockin' Dave

    Of course we bribed the Japanese to get us to enter World War II – Roosevelt said, “If you attack Pearl Harbor, we’ll give you a couple of atomic bombs.” We also offered to give them vast quantities of explosives and offered to solve their overpopulation problem for the next few decades. It all makes sense to me now.

  63. Jeeves

    What a coincidence. Mere days after Phil’s “don’t be a dick” speech at TAM8, in waltzes Jarrah White with a great big target painted on his forehead. I tell ya, it’s Phil in disguise, testing the faithful.

    Cue “Twilight Zone” theme…
    ;-)

  64. Messier Tidy Upper

    @59. Buzz Parsec Says: [July 27th, 2010 at 3:24 pm]

    MTU – Re: AGW, next time a global warning thread rolls around, perhaps you could discuss what you found convincing? Or did you already do that in a comment to some post I missed recently (I’ve been intermittent here lately.) I hope this was a rational conclusion based on evidence, and not because the rest of us Global Warming Thugs beat you into it! But pursuing this further here would be off-topic. (Just like my Mythbusters post @ 58.)

    Well it wasn’t just *one* thing or discussion but rather a whole *lot* of them over time taking out argument after argument and it was a long cumulative process I’ll say that much now. I’ve discussed this before here – so long ago that I’ve forgotten exactly which thread – but I’ll do so again maybe on the next AGW thread the BA posts here.

  65. #47 Messier:
    Of course, Kaysing and his ilk never give us the names of their solitary tame geologist or whatever, do they? Probably because they don’t exist! Have you ever read the lunatic ramblings of one Nathan Jones, on the Apollo conspiracy? ( My web site demolishes them one by one. ) He repeatedly claims that some “expert” said this or that, which supposedly supports his barmy ideas – but never once tells us who these “experts” are. Which means he was almost certainly making up both the experts and the quotes.

    #27 Mr. White:
    I’ll challenge you to answer one question for us… If, as you and Kaysing’s solitary ( and probably imaginary ) geologist believe, the Apollo samples were faked in a lab on Earth, then please explain how their isotopic composition, and the age derived from it, has proved to be entirely consistent with the currently favoured theory of the Moon’s formation – a theory which wasn’t formulated until 12 years after the Apollo missions ended!!!! ( The theory was not formulated from studies of the samples, but independently of them. )
    Well???

  66. I am linking to a blog entry on my site. Saying basically “moon hoax” is not scientifically necessary for geocentrism to be possible.

    However, I find last comment #66 (Neil Haggath) including a very silly answer to #27 (Mr. White).

    If, as you and Kaysing’s solitary ( and probably imaginary ) geologist believe, the Apollo samples were faked in a lab on Earth, then please explain how their isotopic composition, and the age derived from it, has proved to be entirely consistent with the currently favoured theory of the Moon’s formation – a theory which wasn’t formulated until 12 years after the Apollo missions ended!!!! ( The theory was not formulated from studies of the samples, but independently of them. )

    If one goes out of one’s way to fake a sample, why would one then not be able, both financially and morally to fake a coherence between a theory and that sample and fake the independence of the theory vis-à-vis the faked sample?

    “Why don’t they teach logic in these schools?” (character in CSL’s famous Lion, Witch and Wordrobe romance)

  67. Cairnos

    @66 Neil – Well obviously the theory was held secret by the illuminati for over twelve years just so that fools like you could then claim that the theory came after the proof, when in actual fact we made up the theory beforehand, manufactured rocks to fit it, pretended to do the whole travelling to the moon thing, presented our ‘moon rocks’ as proof and then fooled the world…for some as yet unspecified reason. But just you wait, soon (ish) we will (probably) specify why we have done all this in the year 20(mumble) or there abouts or my secret name isn’t Xemu (or perhaps it isn’t Xenu, I can never quite remember, Darn I’ll have to ask Tom again).

  68. #67 Hans-Georg Lundahl:
    What exactly is “silly” about my answer??? Let me spell it out in simple terms for you…
    Firstly, the now accepted theory of the Moon’s origin was formulated in 1984, by astronomers independent of NASA and the US Government, who had not studied the Apollo samples. The theory was formulated from other evidence, as part of the accepted theory of the origin of the Solar System.
    Secondly, the Apollo samples have been examined by tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, the vast majority of whom were, once again, independent of NASA and the US Government.
    And the composition of the samples turned out to be consistent with the theory, which was not thought of until 15 years after the first samples were obtained.
    So the simple answer is that it was not possible to fake the correlation between the theory and the samples – unless, of course, you believe that almost every astronomer and almost every geologist in the world was “in on it”.
    I’ll also mention something which I omitted from my last post; the composition of the Apollo samples was also – surprise surprise – entirely consistent with those returned ( in far smaller amounts ) by the Soviet Union’s automated Luna probes. I assume, therefore, that you believe the Russians to have been “in on it” as well as almost everyone else… I hardly even need mention the supreme stupidity of that notion; since it was at the height of the Cold War, and the “Race to the Moon” was exactly that, the Soviet Union would have jumped at any slightest opportunity to denigrate NASA’s achievements. What exactly would have been the point of the USA pretending to beat the USSR to the Moon, if the USSR had known that they were pretending????? DUH!!!!!
    What was that you said about logic?

  69. Nigel Depledge

    John Berryman (29) said:

    @shane – read the news once in a while, you might learn something.

    So, tell me: when did you have your sense of humour surgically removed?

  70. Nigel Depledge

    Jarrah White (27) said:

    3. In your book you claim that there were no major solar flares during those missions. How can you make that claim when NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major Flares explicitly logs thirty major x-ray flares spread out over eight of the nine alleged moon flights?

    Wait, Phil wrote a book?

    Now, I don’t have Phil’s book in front of me, but from what I recall, the claim wasn’t that there were no solar flares at all, but that there were no solar flares that headed towards the Earth.

    Seriously, though, even if Phil got this detail wrong, you’re missing the main point. The risk of encountering dangerous amounts of radiation during an eight-day mission to the moon is really not large at all. It’s a much smaller risk than the risk posed by, say, attempting to reach low-Earth orbit by sitting in a capsule poised at the top of a huge stack of explosive substances with a couple of nozzles at the bottom. And all but the most rabid HBs accept that achieving Earth orbit is possible.

  71. Denver Astronomer

    I’d like to announce that I faked the moon landings personally. It seemed like a really good idea at the time, and I thought no one would really buy into it. But once Walter Cronkite ran the initial story, he just wouldn’t back down. The ego on that man, really.

    Anyways, it just kinda spun out of control. I’m so very sorry for all the heartache and confusion it has caused everyone.

    My bad.

  72. To follow up Nigel’s post, #71:
    Firstly, as Nigel says, the risk from solar flares, while non-zero, was orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of being killed by a malfunction of the spacecraft – as very nearly happened on Apollo 13, and did happen on two Soviet Soyuz missions, not to mention the two shuttle disasters!
    Secondly, due to the political motive behind Apollo – you know, the Cold War, and the race against the Russians – NASA was prepared to accept a certain degree of risk, which wouldn’t be considered acceptable today. And the astronauts themselves were not exactly strangers to risk taking; most of them were military test pilots, and many had flown in combat in Korea or Vietnam. Even Neil Armstrong, who joined NASA as a civilian, had previously been a Navy pilot, and flew 78 combat missions in Korea. I suspect that they considered the risk from solar flares among the least of things to worry about.

  73. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Neil Haggath : Yes, exactly. I think we’ve got a lot more risk averse since the Cold War ended – perhaps too much so.

    I think some calculated risks and dangers are worth accepting if we are to do thigs that are really great. Astronuats -like mountaineers, motor racers, skydivers, etc .. – know what they’re getting into and consider the benefits far outweigh the risks. Minimise risk were we can, yes obviously but let the risks and dnagers paralyse us & stip us form doing much at all like they seem to these days? Yeck. I wish we wouldn’t. I’m not saying we should go crazy but let’s recall William Wallace’s speech in Braveheart :

    ” ..And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all your days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to ..”

    [Do amazing things! - Ed.]

    I personally would. I don’t have the skill but I do have the willingness to do so. Of all the ways of dying & death is inevitable – Alzheimers and dying a vegetable in anursing home after a long but boring life where I achieved less than I could’ve, took fewer risks and thus gained less than I could’ve and missed out on who knows what – is NOT one that appeals to me.

    #47 Messier: Of course, Kaysing and his ilk never give us the names of their solitary tame geologist or whatever, do they? Probably because they don’t exist!

    Yep. That’d be my bet too. :-)

    Have you ever read the lunatic ramblings of one Nathan Jones, on the Apollo conspiracy?

    The lunatic ramblings of Bill Kaysing were more than enough. My brain hurt after reading that & I’m not sure its ready for more pain and time wasted on *facepalm* stupidity yet. :-(

    Good post # 69 too – seconded by me. Great website of yours too Neil H. – Congratulations on your Griffith Observatory Star Award and I love that great Harlan Ellison quote – too true. :-)

  74. A word of thanks is due to Phil for highlighting the David Mitchell Soapbox, which I hadn’t encountered before. David Mitchell is always entertaining in print, and YouTube is full of his impromptu rants on various panel shows, and the idea of providing him a regular opportunity to pontificate amusingly on a subject of his choice has paid off magnificently.

  75. Nigel Depledge

    Messier Tidy Upper (33) said:

    the astronauts – and there were well over twenty of them incl. the non-Moon walkers as well…

    Yup. 24 men, of whom 12 walked on the moon. (Obviously, Apollos 8, 10 and 13 did not include a landing, but those men have indeed been to the vicinity of the moon). And three men went there twice – including Jim Lovell, who never got to walk on the moon after all.

  76. Well, Neil Haggath #69 – now there are parts you omitted from the comment I was answering.

    The logic that makes a fake theory look real bad is the logic based on “if fake, it was for moon competition during Cold War”.

    What if the motive was something else, something of concern to scientists all over the world?

    In that case, secret leaks between samples and from them to theorists are a bit more plausible.

    Like if the real issue was revindicating Galileo against St. Robert Bellarmine, “science” against “faith”.

    However, if that was the real issue, even a real moon landing does not prove geocentrism wrong, look here:

    http://o-x.fr/1po1

    Obviously I am taking the survival of the astronauts into account.

    As for pictures of earth taken from the moon, apart the emotional thing about frontiers being invisible from the moon, the point would be that earth was seen turning around its own axis.

    But if you go around a building in a helicopter, and film it, you will broadcast a building turning around its own axis. Similarly, if earth is stationary and non-turning, then moon will follow the heavens around earth each day, and a take of a turning earth would be a feasible optical illusion. Even without a fake.

  77. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg Lundahl (67) said:

    If one goes out of one’s way to fake a sample, why would one then not be able, both financially and morally to fake a coherence between a theory and that sample and fake the independence of the theory vis-à-vis the faked sample?

    One, of course, could. In principle.

    What happened in reality, however, as Neil Haggath points out, is that the scientists who came up with the impactor theory for the formation of the moon were completely independent of NASA.

    So, by extension, you must answer the following questions:
    1) “what’s in it for them?”
    2) “how would they know?”

    Preferably in a way that you can support with actual evidence, and certainly before you are able to make any further claims about the landings being hoaxed.

    “Why don’t they teach logic in these schools?” (character in CSL’s famous Lion, Witch and Wordrobe romance)

    Indeed.

    I daresay Jack (he hated the name Clive) Lewis would be turning in his grave to hear you describe his children’s story as a “romance”. By the 1930s, that word had a different meaning from the sense in which you seem to be using it.

  78. Hans-Georg answering Nigel Depledge

    Jack used the word Romance himself in describing works like House of the Wolfings. (Viking/Völkerwanderung, certainly neither porno nor shojo, I think you made the latter the meaning of the 1930′s for romance, but I think back then it was a secondary connotation, not primary meaning, c f Studies in Words, also by CSL, for distinction)

    I am not claiming THAT fake has been done, if you read my blogpost to which I linked, MY essential stake is Geocentrism, and I argue that even a true landing on the moon does not disprove that.

    However, since I am not saying fake has been made, but only that it was badly argued against it could have been made, I will argue:

    a) they COULD have been trying to prove Geocentrism wrong and moon landing genuine

    b) they COULD have known because what you describe as “in reality” rests only on hearsay from them (whoever they are), if they even as much as claimed that.

  79. Hans-Georg, still #Nigel
  80. Hans-Georg

    PS, though Jack may have hated the given name Clive, and I have no problem making guesses why, Jack Lewis is less precise than acronym CSL:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lewis

  81. Hans-Georg:
    You are clearly completely detached from reality, so there is no point in answering you any further.
    However, will you please desist from placing quotes from my web site in your own insane witterings ( the “article” to which you linked ).

    Phil – I apologise if this post is offensive, but this guy deserves it!

  82. Nigel Depledge

    @ Hans-Georg (79 et al.) -
    OK, I’ll stand corrected about the use of the word romance.

    Geocentrism is a load of rubbish, though.

    Geocentrism was disproved over 400 years ago, but for at least a century before that there were problems in trying to make a geocentric model that matched real observations. All observations indicate that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system (or, being ultra-picky, as near to the barycentre as makes no difference). These observations accord very well with everything we know about gravity. All observations indicate that our solar system orbits the centre of the Milky Way at a distance of about 25,000 – 30,000 light years (very roughly 9 kPc). Logic indicates that, if the universe is infinite, it has no centre, but that any observer will appear to be at the centre of a very large sphere (i.e. the observable universe, bounded by the surface at which distance in light-years equals the age of the universe in years).

    Geocentrism has nothing to do with the moon landings – why do you think it has any relevance?

  83. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg Lundahl (77) said:

    Well, Neil Haggath #69 – now there are parts you omitted from the comment I was answering.

    The logic that makes a fake theory look real bad is the logic based on “if fake, it was for moon competition during Cold War”.

    Er … it’s really not clear what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that the Soviets wouldn’t bother blowing the whole gaff if the US moon landings were faked? Or are you saying that the hoax is most convincing if you assume some other motive for it?

    Neither point is credible. (1) Krushchev seized every opportunity to make the USSR look superior to the US – there’s no reason he would have kept quiet if the moon landings were faked. (2) The hoax theories are not convincing for two simple reasons – not one has any evidence to support it, and there are tons of evidence that the Apollo missions were successful. It doesn’t matter what the motivatin behind the alleged hoax was, there is no credible argument that the landings were faked, because the evidence is there to say that the moon landings are real.

    What if the motive was something else, something of concern to scientists all over the world?

    In that case, secret leaks between samples and from them to theorists are a bit more plausible.

    Maybe so, but that’s just piling one unfounded allegation on top of another. Where’s your evidence for any of it?

    Like if the real issue was revindicating Galileo against St. Robert Bellarmine, “science” against “faith”.

    I don’t think so.

    However, if that was the real issue, even a real moon landing does not prove geocentrism wrong, look here:

    [url omitted]

    (1) You have presented no evidence that it (science v faith) was an issue.
    (2) Geocentrism is a non-issue. The Earth orbits the sun (more precisely, it orbits the barycentre of the solar system) – that is a fact.
    (3) If the objective of the mission were to prove heliocentrism, they didn’t need to spend billions of dollars on rocket technology.

    Obviously I am taking the survival of the astronauts into account.

    As for pictures of earth taken from the moon, apart the emotional thing about frontiers being invisible from the moon, the point would be that earth was seen turning around its own axis.

    So? You can deduce that fgrom the surface of the Earth without having to build a massive great big rocket.

    But if you go around a building in a helicopter, and film it, you will broadcast a building turning around its own axis.

    Not so. The background will also pan around, indicating that the building remains stationary relative to that background. Whereas, if you film the Earth turning about its axis, the background remains stationary (i.e. the moon, sun and planets remain in the same place – or, if you over-expose the film a lot, you will see the background of stars remaining stationary). But, again, you can deduce all this from the surface of the Earth without having to spend so much money or risk any lives.

    Similarly, if earth is stationary and non-turning, then moon will follow the heavens around earth each day, and a take of a turning earth would be a feasible optical illusion. Even without a fake.

    Not true. If the Earth were stationary, your film would include the background objects (sun, moon, planets etc.) turning at the same rate as the Earth.

    Never mind the fact that to take such a film from the distance of the moon would require an even larger rocket and many times as much fuel as were needed for the Apollo missions.

  84. Hans-Georg Loony:
    One further challenge to you, which has nothing to do with Moon landings.
    If the Earth is not rotating, then please tell us how you explain the Coriolis Effect.
    We’re waiting…

  85. Nigel Depledge

    Messier Tidy Upper (47) said:

    . . . WWII was faked . . .

    Yup. My grandfather was an air-raid warden in London, and he distinctly remembered never ever seeing any bomb damage, and never having entered someone’s house through the gaping hole left by an unexploded doodlebug (V-1) only to have the householder (who had not noticed the bomb) berate him for trespassing!

  86. However, will you please desist from placing quotes from my web site in your own insane witterings ( the “article” to which you linked ).

    Neil Haggath, if you mean it as a personal favour, you are not asking the right way. I presume you mean you have a right to your intellectuel property, I did not however supersede your rights, my quote being much less than your whole article from which it was taken, and me linking back to source.

    Not so. The background will also pan around, indicating that the building remains stationary relative to that background. Whereas, if you film the Earth turning about its axis, the background remains stationary (i.e. the moon, sun and planets remain in the same place – or, if you over-expose the film a lot, you will see the background of stars remaining stationary).

    Nigel Depledge:

    According to Geocentrism, the daily movement of Moon around earth is part of Heaven’s daily motion around earth.

    Which totally explains that point.

    Never mind the fact that to take such a film from the distance of the moon would require an even larger rocket and many times as much fuel as were needed for the Apollo missions.

    Ask George Lucas what he would have done, will you. If I had had to fake those pics, I would build a model fit to look like earth from moon distance, and that is a small one.

    BUT you miss the point: I am assuming those pictures WERE taken from the moon, though I do not find that fully proven. My article is about another matter where the GENUINE landings (if such) do not disprove geocentrism, i e the velocities involved.

    Problem about pictures is that they were broadcasted and everyone kind of “saw” earth turning around its own axis. Normally I am for believing one’s eyes – that is why I am Geocentric – but here it is very much a question about which point of view merits more credit – one broadcast once these last decades after spending billions of dollars, or the one we have each day, six billion pairs of eyes, moment after moment.

    Oh – back to Haggath – you do not improve your case by pretending the one arguing against you is or can be called “loony”, btw.

    Coriolus force is as easily explained by assuming what we see is true, i e visible universe circling earth, east to west.

    Sorry for keeping you waiting btw, but yesterday I had some troubles in getting sheet music scanned, I even changed town for the night.

    http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com/2010/08/brevis-melos.html

  87. Hans-Georg Lundahl (again, since last comment seems to have been eschewed)

    #86 Nigel Depledge:

    Right. Take another example. Problem is: WW-II REALLY involves too many experiences at close range to be fake.

    Apollo involves Neil A. + 2 if true, which as I said:

    http://o-x.fr/1po1 + above #77

    IS compatible with Geocentrism.

    #83 (which I overlooked) Saying Geocentrism is disproven is a large claim. But at least you are not saying Apollo landing proves it.

    However, the picture of earth turning, taken from Moon (if genuine, otherwise ask George Lucas how he would do such a shot) gives an impression of eye-witnessing a moving earth.

    Logic indicates that, if the universe is infinite, it has no centre, but that any observer will appear to be at the centre of a very large sphere

    And that other scenarios equally would have that optical effect, like a finite universe turning around observer. Which mean it is no proof against geocentrism.

    BUT: one generation or two or three has SEEN these pictures. And they forget what they see every day. Or think the more expensive take and the more ingenious explanation together must be closest to truth.

    You may think it likely or unlikely that a fake could have been motivated by the desire to produce such pictures and present them as something else than George Lucas. But thank you for NOT saying these pictures, even if genuine prove heliocentrism. That is another debate.

    #84

    “But if you go around a building in a helicopter, and film it, you will broadcast a building turning around its own axis.”

    Not so. The background will also pan around, indicating that the building remains stationary relative to that background. Whereas, if you film the Earth turning about its axis, the background remains stationary (i.e. the moon, sun and planets remain in the same place – or, if you over-expose the film a lot, you will see the background of stars remaining stationary). But, again, you can deduce all this from the surface of the Earth without having to spend so much money or risk any lives.

    “Similarly, if earth is stationary and non-turning, then moon will follow the heavens around earth each day, and a take of a turning earth would be a feasible optical illusion. Even without a fake.”

    Not true. If the Earth were stationary, your film would include the background objects (sun, moon, planets etc.) turning at the same rate as the Earth.

    This leaves out that according to geocentrism all of the heavens turn around earth, each day. Both moon and sun. Both stars and planets. Which means, these pictures do not disprove that.

    You may consider it unlikely that all turns and just earth stands still, that is not the point, the point remains: the pictures, taken from moon, if genuine, do not disprove earth standing still and all turning.

    #82 and #85 Neil Haggath:

    My quotation I judge to fall within right of quotation. If you think othewise, sue me. I have a guestbook on my profile.

    Coriolis effect has possibly an explanation in universe turning around earth. If it affects smaller and lower phenomena, that is. Which was the classical scholastic theory – Aristotle quoted in St Thomas Aquinas.

    As for your waiting, I am sorry, I had a few pages to scan which took my available internet attention yesterday:

    http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com/2010/08/brevis-melos.html

    I paid for that, and there was no open library where I could get internet for free after that.

  88. #87, #88 Hans-Georg:
    OK, I shall now ask you, personally, not to quote any more from my web site on your blog, as I don’t wish to have my name associated in any way with your beliefs. I hope that’s polite enough for you.

    “Apollo involves Neil A. + 2 if true…”
    So are you actually so ignorant as to think there was only one Apollo Moon landing???? FYI, there were seven landing missions, Apollo 11-17, six of which were successful. ( Surely even you must have heard of Apollo 13? ) There were also two other missions, Apollo 8 and 10, which flew to and orbited the Moon, but didn’t attempt landings. That’s nine crews, and a total of 24 astronauts ( Not 27, as three of them each flew on two of those missions ), who saw the Earth from the Moon.
    But even if you had said “Neil A. + 23″, your comment would still be ridiculous. Apollo did not just involve the astronauts; it also involved around 400000 people who worked to get them to the Moon. But before you say it, I do realise that you are referring to the number of people who have personally seen the view.
    So what about all the photos of the Earth returned from numerous unmanned space probes? Were they all faked as well?

    As for the Coriolis Effect – do you actually know what this is? Your reply suggests not. It has no possible explanation in terms of geocentrism, or in terms of anything other than the rotation of the Earth! I very much doubt if St. Thomas Aquinas knew anything about it.
    For anyone who doesn’t know, this is the Coriolis Effect. Suppose you have an artillery gun which can fire a shall for a distance of many kilometres, and you fire it at a target due north of its position ( in the northern hemisphere ). If you aim the gun exactly due north, then the shell will fall some distance to the east of its target. This is because, as the Earth rotates with a constant angularvelocity, the resultant linearvelocity of a point on its surface varies with latitude. ( If the eastward linear velocity at the Equator is v, then that at a latitude lambda is v cos lambda. ) So in my example, the target is moving eastwards at a slower rate than the gun.
    Conversely, if you fire the gun due south, the shell will land west of target. You need to aim slightly east or west of target to compensate. ( The opposite, of course, in the southern hemisphere. ) Every artillery and gunnery officer of every army and navy inthe world understands this.
    There is absolutely no way that this could happen, if the Earth is not rotating.

  89. Nigel Depledge

    @ Hans-Georg (87, 88) -

    Your reply, while not entirely coherent, misses the main points.

    I shall reiterate:
    Geocentrism was disproved over 400 years ago.
    What relevance does geocentrism have to the Apollo missions? (They did not set out to disprove geocentrism because no-one had taken geocentrism seriously for over 350 years.)

    Finally, if you postulate that every celestial object revolves around the Earth, then:
    A) by what mechanism are they kept synchronous?
    B) how do you account for proper motions of stars (i.e. stars change relative position across the sky)?
    C) how do you account for the real observations of objects in the solar system that do not fit any geocentric model that has ever been formulated (and yet these observations fit very precisely with a heliocentric model)?

    (BTW, as I think I mentioned earlier, I cannot access your website from work.

  90. Robert Carnegie

    By the way, does geocentrism have to mean also that the earth isn’t rotating? Because if you let the earth rotate on a cosmically fixed axis, then most of the rest of the argument is about how those lights in the sky move around. Which most people don’t care about much except for when to get up or go to bed, and maybe when to go sailing (tides).

  91. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    @ Neil Haggath (#89)

    But before you say it, I do realise that you are referring to the number of people who have personally seen the view.

    Thank you. Precisely. And my point is: it is certainly the less usual observation. Which does not mean it has to be faked, but it is neither the first I need to take into account.

    I did not know the thing about cannons, my only knowledge of Coriolis effect was whirls of water going down but whirling different ways N and S of Equator.

    I might return on this.

    As for quoting, I will add that you do not wish to have yoru name associated with my ridiculous beliefs. That way my readers will know, it is really, really not your fault. (DONE)

    @ Nigel Depledge:

    Galileo failed to prove Geocentrism wrong. He proved some minor geocentric theorems wrong, but he did not prove Geocentrism wrong.

    In France – and probably other Catholic countries too – Geocentrism was taken seriously at least up to Foucault’s pendulum, and got an extra surge from Morley and Mitchelson.

    The comedian Coluche made a joke involving statiistics of 25% Geocentrics in France, though the joke is a while ago, and I presulme he took older statistics for comic effect.

    I do not gratuitly postulate, I observe, that every celestial object follows more or less neatly the fixed stars’ daily (or 366 per annum) movement around earth.

    This observation would of course be cancelled by the fixed stars IF I knew them to be fixed, due to annual so called parallax, by your present colleagues (if you are an astronomer) not interpreted as their movement but as the parallactic optical illusion due to earth’s annual movement around sun.

    a) the synchronicity may have something to do with influence from sphere of fixed stars – sphere? – well, if parallax is their own movement they may all be very much closer than the famous four light years distance of “the closest”, proxima Centauri. Same influence as seen in Coriolis effect and in Winds of Passage and in Humboldt stream and the one Columbus followed, and the non-equatorial Gulf stream getting water back and so on.

    b) if you mean fixed stars and their both parallactically and proper movement classed movements, I opt for angels; dito for planets with their orbits around sun, except for sun itself and moon.

    c) the real observations of objects in the solar system that do not fit any geocentric model that has ever been formulated (and yet these observations fit very precisely with a heliocentric model)?

    Are you aware of Tychonian model?

    Are you aware that between Tycho Brahe’s model – Geocentric with perfect circles of sun and moon around earth, of other planets around sun – and Kepler’s model – Heliocentric with ellipses of any object “circling” any other, and only moon around earth, earth itself with other planets around sun, and very oblong ellpses for comets, there is one logic step between?

    Update Tycho Brahe with ellipses, that does account for comets having very oblong such, but does not need involve getting heliocentric. NOW at least it has been formulated, I think Robert Sungenis did that before me.

    #91 Robert Carnegie: Both versions exist, I support the one with earth not rotating.

  92. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    Here is Tycho for you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system

    Two quotes which I connect into one:

    The discovery of stellar aberration in the early 18th century by James Bradley convinced people that the Earth did in fact move around the Sun, after which Tycho’s system fell out of use among scientists. The theory of relativity in the early 20th century taught that motion is relative and that different frames of reference are valid, including non-inertial reference frames. In the modern era, some of the few who still subscribe to geocentrism use a modified Tychonic system with elliptical orbits.

    Tycho argued that if the Earth is moving, then we should be able to detect a change in our position relative to stars (the technical term is Parallax). But he was not able to detect that change in relative position, so he concluded that the Earth is not moving. In fact, our position relative to stars does change, but stars are so far away that the change in angles is so small that it cannot be observed by the naked eye. It was not until hundreds of years later that people built telescopes that were accurate enough to detect stellar parallax. Astronomers of Tycho’s time did not realize how far away stars were.

    Stellar aberration as observed does not per se prove Heliocentrism, it only removes one disproof for it.

  93. #92 Hans-Georg:
    The thing about water circulating in different directions in opposite hemispheres has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect. In fact, it isn’t even true; it’s a pure myth – one of the many which Dr. Plait debunks on his original Bad Astronomy site.
    The Coriolis Effect is entirely to do with the rotation of the Earth, and the variation of linear velocity with latitude. The example of artillery shells is its best known consequence.
    This effect can’t possibly be explained in terms of anything but the rotation of the Earth. End of.

  94. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg (92) said:

    Galileo failed to prove Geocentrism wrong. He proved some minor geocentric theorems wrong, but he did not prove Geocentrism wrong.

    No. He proved that the Earth was not the centre of all celestial motion (which was the dominant idea at the time). By proving the popular geocentric view to be wrong, he made it possible to question any geocentric model.

    In France – and probably other Catholic countries too – Geocentrism was taken seriously at least up to Foucault’s pendulum,

    OK, I can see that it took a long time for the Enlightenment to reach France. However, to all educated observers, geocentrism was not a serious contender after Galileo’s Dialogue. Just because most people were unaware of this, does not mean that geocentrism, in its simpler forms, had not been disproved.

    and got an extra surge from Morley and Mitchelson.

    Which seems to demonstrate that too many people, you included, do not understand what these chaps were doing.

    They tried to prove the existence of the ether by measuring the speed of light in perpendicular directions. What they ended up doing was demonstrating that there was no such substance – which posed a new question (if light is a wave, what is it a wave of?) and also opened the way for special relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. The orbital motion of the Earth about the sun was, by the time they were working, a demonstrated fact.

    The comedian Coluche made a joke involving statiistics of 25% Geocentrics in France, though the joke is a while ago, and I presulme he took older statistics for comic effect.

    What matters in these things is not the opinion of the uninformed, but the opnion of the educated, i.e. those who know what they are talking about. In matters of science, not all opinions are equal.

    I do not gratuitly postulate, I observe, that every celestial object follows more or less neatly the fixed stars’ daily (or 366 per annum) movement around earth.

    Well, this is rubbish.

    The moon moves differently from everything else (it moves roughly 12.5° against the background stars every 24 hours).

    The planets do not follow this – Venus and Mars in particular can be observed in slightly different locations from night to night. In fact, the phases of Venus and Mercury (and where they are in relation to the sun at different phases) prove that they revolve about the sun and not about the Earth.

    This observation would of course be cancelled by the fixed stars IF I knew them to be fixed, due to annual so called parallax, by your present colleagues (if you are an astronomer) not interpreted as their movement but as the parallactic optical illusion due to earth’s annual movement around sun.

    I was not referring to the annual oscillations caused by parallax. Parallax is a well-known phenomenon. In fact, it can be used to calculate the distances of the nearest stars.

    No, the stars’ proper motion is their movement (as observed from Earth) relative to one another year on year. The constellations are mere coincidences, and are not fixed. If you or I had a time machine and could travel back or forth in time by hundreds of thousands of years, we would not recognise the constellations because the stars would be in different positions relative to one another.

    a) the synchronicity may have something to do with influence from sphere of fixed stars – sphere? – well, if parallax is their own movement they may all be very much closer than the famous four light years distance of “the closest”, proxima Centauri.

    Rubbish. The apparent synchronicity of distant stars and galaxies is an illusion brought about by the rotation of the Earth. Your postulation of a fixed sphere does not explain it, given that (1) different stars move by different amounts as a result of parallax; (2) the stars display proper motion, i.e. they move relative to one another (as viewed from Earth) year on year; and (3) no substance could be both transparent and strong enough to support such rotation when we know that some observed galaxies are of the order of 10 billion light-years away.

    In fact, for such distant galaxies to rotate about the Earth, they would need to be travelling at speeds in excess of 2 billion light-years per hour (which is, as far as we can tell, impossible). Such objects would experience a centrifugal force of 1.24 x 1015 g, or, looking at the same thing the other way around, would require a centripetal acceleration of about 1016 m/s2. They would be torn apart.

    Even if those distant galaxies are only 1/1000 as far away as we think they are (and that is a contention I would severely doubt), the forces and speeds required by your model are impossibly large. Thus, your model implies that the speed of light is not a limit on how fast a physical object may travel, and your transparent spheres would need to be trillions of times stronger than any known substance. At least.

    Same influence as seen in Coriolis effect and in Winds of Passage and in Humboldt stream and the one Columbus followed, and the non-equatorial Gulf stream getting water back and so on.

    Eh? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

    b) if you mean fixed stars and their both parallactically and proper movement classed movements, I opt for angels; dito for planets with their orbits around sun, except for sun itself and moon.

    So, in order to deal with evidence that contradicts your model, you postulate – what, exactly? The word “angel” means different things to different people. Surely the rational choice would be to re-evaluate the entire model? Especially given the utter absence of any evidence that contradicts a heliocentric view of the solar system, and the absence of any evidence for the existence of such things as angels moving the planets around.

    Are you aware of Tychonian model?

    Are you aware that between Tycho Brahe’s model – Geocentric with perfect circles of sun and moon around earth, of other planets around sun . . .

    Yes! That does not fit to real observations (A – Earth-Sun distance changes over the year, proving the orbit to be elliptical; B – that model does not predict the behaviour of the planets that we observe).

    Finally, if you postulate that the stars, planets and galaxies move around Earth on transparent spheres of some kind, how do you account for (1) the fact that some galaxies are moving towards Earth, while most are moving away; (2) the fact that some stars within our galaxy are moving towards Earth, while others are moving away; (3) long-period comets, with orbits that cross the orbits of several planets; (4) Pluto, whose orbit crosses that of Neptune?

  95. #95 Nigel:
    I think you have just about covered it all there!
    Hans-Georg’s comment about “In France – and probably other Catholic countries too…” speaks volumes. Did you know that Copernicus’ book remained on the Catholic Church’s banned list until the late 19th Century? Or that the Church’s condemnation of Galileo for heresy wasn’t officially reversed until 1979, by Pope John Paul II!!!!! ( I assume that the latter was simply because the previous few popes never thought of it. )
    Today, of course, even such a stubborn and hard to budge body as the Catholic Church fully accepts the reality of post-Copernican/Galilean astronomy – as it does Big Bang cosmology and Darwinian evolution.

  96. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    # 95 Nigel Depledge:

    What about making a minimum effort of getting the point?

    Galileo failed to prove Geocentrism wrong. He proved some minor geocentric theorems wrong, but he did not prove Geocentrism wrong.

    No. He proved that the Earth was not the centre of all celestial motion (which was the dominant idea at the time).

    If by all celestial motion you mean every single motion as analysed against the rest, you are right. And that is not Geocentrism, but one theorem in Geocentrism of Ptolemaic or even more Aristotelic version.

    By proving the popular geocentric view to be wrong, he made it possible to question any geocentric model.

    Making it possible to question any model is one thing, disproving fundamental supposition as wrong is another.

    I do not gratuitly postulate, I observe, that every celestial object follows more or less neatly the fixed stars’ daily (or 366 per annum) movement around earth.

    Well, this is rubbish.

    The moon moves differently from everything else (it moves roughly 12.5° against the background stars every 24 hours).

    Guess why I said MORE OR LESS?

    Are you aware of Tychonian model?

    Are you aware that between Tycho Brahe’s model – Geocentric with perfect circles of sun and moon around earth, of other planets around sun . . .

    Yes! That does not fit to real observations (A – Earth-Sun distance changes over the year, proving the orbit to be elliptical; B – that model does not predict the behaviour of the planets that we observe).

    Oh thank you for only quoting as much as ur refutation can stomach!

    You missed the word between.

    Between that model and Keplers – Heliocentric with ellipses – it is perfectly sensible to formulate a middle opinion, i e Tychonian updated with ellipses. Which takes care of your point A. As for B, that is a question of making accurate observations, not only for getting the right model.

    #96 Neil Haggath:

    When I was about to convert to Catholicism I was around with French style anticlericals. The ones who proned Galileo as a kind of champion against the Church in France.

    If the ban was taken off, it was due to observation of stellar aberration, and that had not been observed in Galileo’s time.

    Pope Benedict XV (yes XV=fifteen, not XVI=sixteen) when celebrating Dante’s memory said his view might have been mistaken. Might have been, not was.

    #95 Nigel again:

    “Finally, if you postulate that the stars, planets and galaxies move around Earth on transparent spheres of some kind, how do you account for (1) the fact that some galaxies are moving towards Earth, while most are moving away; (2) the fact that some stars within our galaxy are moving towards Earth, while others are moving away; (3) long-period comets, with orbits that cross the orbits of several planets; (4) Pluto, whose orbit crosses that of Neptune?”

    Did I say I postulated chrystalline spheres above? No.

    BBL, sorry for a short post which did not answer – yet – all points.

  97. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    #95 in some further details:

    ego iam dixi: and [Geocentrism] got an extra surge from Morley and Mitchelson.

    Which seems to demonstrate that too many people, you included, do not understand what these chaps were doing.

    They tried to prove the existence of the ether by measuring the speed of light in perpendicular directions.

    What they tried to prove and what their experiment actually proves need not be the same thing.

    They may think their experiment disproves ether by assuming the rotation of earth as already proven. Others may think – not so.

    I was not referring to the annual oscillations caused by parallax. Parallax is a well-known phenomenon. In fact, it can be used to calculate the distances of the nearest stars.

    No, the stars’ proper motion is their movement (as observed from Earth) relative to one another year on year. The constellations are mere coincidences, and are not fixed. If you or I had a time machine and could travel back or forth in time by hundreds of thousands of years, we would not recognise the constellations because the stars would be in different positions relative to one another.

    Parallax, as has been said, was a proof sorely lacking to Galileo. That is why St Robert Bellarmine voted he had failed to prove Heliocentrism.

    If there had been a sphere of fixed stars at constant radius around the sun, when it was finally discovered, it would have been uniform over all stars it would have told us how far “the sphere of the fixed stars” was from sun and at same time proven it was earth moving. NOT SO.

    When Parallax was finally discovered, it was seen to be a pretty disunified phenomenon. This can be interpreted two ways: the heliocentric one, saying the different parallaxeis are due to different distances from sun, and where proxima Centauri is seen as by its parallaxis of less than one second of a circle (0.76 seconds, I believe I remember) “4 light years” from earth and any star having lesser parallaxis as further away. OR, if there be anything like a sphere of stars more or less constant and not very thick, THEN the parallaxeis would be a kind of proper movement, at any rate disproving the stars as fixed in a solid sphere, but compatible with them being closer to us, closer to spherical configuration.

    In fact, for such distant galaxies to rotate about the Earth, they would need to be travelling at speeds in excess of 2 billion light-years per hour (which is, as far as we can tell, impossible). Such objects would experience a centrifugal force of 1.24 x 1015 g, or, looking at the same thing the other way around, would require a centripetal acceleration of about 1016 m/s2. They would be torn apart.

    Well, if parallaxeis are misinterpreted, the parallactic measurements are not proven. And, as you say next paragraph, I do not consider light to have a finite speed fixed as a limit for any speed in universe. I consider that to be part of Heliocentric interpretation of Michelson Morley.

    YOU ASKED ME TO DEFINE ANGELS – WHY?

    What matters is that they are supposed to be alive, to serve God, and to dominate matter. If stars and planets are matter, they would qualify as under domination of angels. Which would explain the movements other than daily of “sphere of fixed stars” like moon 12.n° backward each day, sun making the year 365 days long rather than 366, and so on. AND if these “fixed stars” also were dominated by angels, the observed movements of stars, parallactic and otherwise.

    Especially given the utter absence of any evidence that contradicts a heliocentric view of the solar system, and the absence of any evidence for the existence of such things as angels moving the planets around.

    Our senses are not definite proof against heliocentrism, but presumptive prima facie evidence against it. Geocentrism involves evidence for a first mover for the daily motion of heavens, and for subordinate movers, alternatively subtility on part of first mover, for other motions, like moon, sun, other planets across the zodiak.

  98. Andy Fleming

    This thread is proof that the more one argues with so-called moon hoax believers and others who deny physical reality (flat earthers, creationists, geocentrists etc etc – the list is endless), the more entrenched and unreasonable their views become.

    This seems to be a quite natural psychological response – after all, often their whole belief system, and sometimes, in the case of religion their very raison d’etre is being threatened.

    It is highly unlikely that such individuals will ever be convinced by rational argument in heated debates such as this one which follows Phil’s excellent post and video.

    For their argument is not based on science or reality or on testable hypotheses, but on a self re-enforcing delusional and archaic belief system built up perhaps over a considerable period of time… indeed possibly a lifetime.

    Personally I no longer become involved in arguing with such people… their minds are closed to reality and they are not prepared to modify their world view in the light of compelling evidence. They are the antithesis of what science should be about i.e humbly revising or abandoning theories, or constructing new theories in the light of new evidence. Spend your limited energy and time explaining to open minded young people the fantastic achievement of Project Apollo, a gargantuan effort that required the USA to be placed almost on a single-minded war footing.

  99. #97 Hans-Georg:
    No, the aberration of starlight had not been observed in Galileo’s time. Nor had stellar annual parallaxes. The former was discovered by James Bradley in the 18th Century; I forget the exact year. The latter was first measured by F. W. Bessel in 1838. But even after the latter observation, it took a further 141 years for the Catholic Church to get around to officially exonerating Galileo. ( I did make the assumption that the previous 20th-Century popes simply never gave it a thought, as opposed to deliberately leaving the condemnation in place. )

  100. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg (97) said:

    Galileo failed to prove Geocentrism wrong. He proved some minor geocentric theorems wrong, but he did not prove Geocentrism wrong.

    No. He proved that the Earth was not the centre of all celestial motion (which was the dominant idea at the time).

    If by all celestial motion you mean every single motion as analysed against the rest, you are right. And that is not Geocentrism, but one theorem in Geocentrism of Ptolemaic or even more Aristotelic version.

    Actually, I think the dominant model at the time had all the planets moving about Earth in perfect circles, with epicylces upon those circular orbits to account for retrograde motion of the planets. And that was the one that Galileo proved wrong. This model had nothing orbiting anything but the Earth. Galileo proved it wrong by discovering objects that did not orbit the Earth.

    Now, I will grant you that you can make adjustments to that model to account for the new observations – but that’s all post hoc tweaking on a model that has a better alternative.

    When Kepler got his hands on Tycho’s data, he came up with the idea of elliptic, heliocentric orbits. At one fell swoop, he did away with the need for epicylces. The principle of parsimony requires that, unless we have reason to believe otherwise, the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support the further complication of an already complicated geocentric model, that model should be abandoned in favour of the one that is in better accord with reality and has only one inexplicable element (i.e. gravity, which was resolved later in the 17th century by Newton).

  101. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg (97) said:

    Making it possible to question any model is one thing, disproving fundamental supposition as wrong is another.

    And Galileo disproved the fundamental supposition that all celestial bodies revolved about the Earth.

    This obviously leads to the question “if there are some objects that do not revolve about the Earth, what else might not revolve about the Earth?” Geocentrism only survives by an unquestioning acceptance of the supposition that the stars, planets, sun and moon all revolve about the Earth.

  102. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg (97) said:

    Guess why I said MORE OR LESS?

    What, you mean you intended your statement to exclude the moon altogether (the moon makes one complete revolution every 29 days, approximately – that is, as viewed against the background stars)?

    What about the sun? That makes an apparent revolution every year? Did your comment exclude that as well?

    Did you also mean to ignore the facts that, as viewed from Earth against the background stars, the sun and the moon both have different axes of motion – one axis about which they revolve every 24 hours (the same as the background stars), and one about which each revolves in 29 days (the moon) or 1 year (the sun)? These latter are different from the direction in which the background stars apparently revolve every 24 hours.

    So, what exactly did you mean by your comment that

    . . . every celestial object follows more or less neatly the fixed stars’ daily (or 366 per annum) movement around earth.

    ?

  103. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg (97) said:

    Between that model and Keplers – Heliocentric with ellipses – it is perfectly sensible to formulate a middle opinion, i e Tychonian updated with ellipses. Which takes care of your point A. As for B, that is a question of making accurate observations, not only for getting the right model.

    OK, I obviously did not make it clear that I was addressing the Tychonian model only.

    However, your contention that the Tychonian model may be modified by changing circular orbits with epicycles into elliptical orbits is also rubbish.

    Tycho’s observations were the most accurate and precise that could be made at the time. It took several developments of astronomical technology before anyone made any more precise observations. And guess what? Tycho’s observations were found to be pretty damn good.

    So, the problem was not that of getting more accurate observations, it really was that of finding the correct model. Kepler’s heliocentric model with elliptical orbits did the job and was simpler than any geocentric model.

    Merely chaging the Tychonian circular orbits to ellipses does nothing to address the problem of the epicycles, because no geocentric model explains retrograde motion in any way at all (the epicycles are not an explanation, they are an ad hoc fix).

  104. Nigel Depledge

    Hans-Georg (97) said:

    Did I say I postulated chrystalline spheres above? No.

    Did I say you did? No.

    I said “transparent spheres of some kind”, which is exactly what you did postulate (albeit with an appended question mark) to support distant stars. I granted you the liberty of multiple spheres as opposed to a single sphere, because the concept of a single sphere is laughably easy to refute.

    However, the fact remains that, if you postulate that the distant stars revolve about the Earth, something must make them do this. And that something must account for the motions towards and away from the Earth that I have mentioned.

    OTOH, a heliocentric solar system bound by gravitation as described by Newton explained everything we observed except for the movements of Mercury, which were explained by Einstein’s general relativity.

    Add to this the fact that the existence of Neptune was predicted from the motions of the other planets, based on a heliocentric solar system bound together by gravitation, whereas the various geocentric models mentioned make no predictions at all.

    Add to this the fact that modern space science uses a heliocentric solar system bound by gravitation to send space vehicles to the outer planets with astonishingly high precision, whereas a geocentric model would tell us that they are going the wrong way, and all geocentric models fail.

    Add to this the fact that, if gravity is real, then all objects in the solar system must revolve about the most massive objects – or, more precisely, about the barycentre of the solar system (which is inside the sun, albeit not always at the centre).

    Do you believe that gravity is real and that we have equations to describe how objects interact through gravitation? And that these equations allow us to make accurate predictions to (typically) about 4 significant figures? And that, if gravity did not do what our equations tell us it does, such predictions would be wrong?

  105. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    Oooh Nigel, Your History of Astronomy #101 SUCKS:

    Actually, I think the dominant model at the time had all the planets moving about Earth in perfect circles, with epicylces upon those circular orbits to account for retrograde motion of the planets. And that was the one that Galileo proved wrong. This model had nothing orbiting anything but the Earth. Galileo proved it wrong by discovering objects that did not orbit the Earth.

    Now, I will grant you that you can make adjustments to that model to account for the new observations – but that’s all post hoc tweaking on a model that has a better alternative.

    When Kepler got his hands on Tycho’s data, he came up with the idea of elliptic, heliocentric orbits. At one fell swoop, he did away with the need for epicylces.

    A) You make it out that epicycles are not cycles with other centres than earth, they are, their centres are epicentres that orbit earth.

    B) You forget very neatly that Tycho’s system gave these epicycles REAL centres or one real centre, i e the sun, as opposed to earlier Ptolemaic system merely ideal one. Which means Tycho was NOT disprovern by Galileo.

    C) You also forget that Kepler took two steps away from Tycho when one – replacing circles with ellipses – was the only one needed.

    #102:

    Geocentrism only survives by an unquestioning acceptance of the supposition that the stars, planets, sun and moon all revolve about the Earth.

    Not at all. Tycho Brahe proves the contrary. He says Jupiter, Mars and Venus circle Sun that circles earth, and Galileo did not prove Jupiter around which a moon circled not to circle earth at least indirectly, as Tycho said.

    #103: the moon is the one planet – yes so called by pre-heliocentric systems – that LEAST follows the stars’ daily round of earth. As you say it lags behind it sufficiently to make a round of the stars in 29.5 days approx. That is exactly what I meant by more or less. Sun follows stars much more than moon, takes a full year to lag behind one turn of the circle: stars make 366 turns while sun makes 365 ones, approx. (I am not sure if it is 365.25 turns of sun that corresponds to 366 of stars or why there is this surplus leading to leap years, but it seems likely there are either 366 star turns to 365.2425 sun turns or 365 sun turns to somewhat less than 366 star turns).

    #100, Neil Haggath: Popes left Galileo as condemned because he did not have parallax to prove his position with, and yet wanted to interpret Bible (Book of Joshua) by an as yet at least unproven theory. Catholic heliocentrics often count heliocentrism as proven by – 1838, was it? – but not by Galileo’s time.

    #99 Andy Fleming: when did archaic and delusional ever coincide? If so, up to when? If our ancestors where delusional so long, how come we are not? And how many of us are not?

    What do you usually call minorities that consider themselves as the only ones not DELUSIONAL?

  106. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    #105, Nigel Depledge:

    However, the fact remains that, if you postulate that the distant stars revolve about the Earth, something must make them do this. And that something must account for the motions towards and away from the Earth that I have mentioned.

    A) I do not postulate. We all observe. You postulate this observation is an optic illusion.

    B) Motions toward and away from earth would not be observed directly as such, but rather EITHER concluded by triangulation, my answer would still be that “parallactic movements” (if so by varying sizes) can be accounted for by angels OR even less trustworthy concluded as concomitant with general theory of galaxies.

    OTOH, a heliocentric solar system bound by gravitation as described by Newton explained everything we observed except for the movements of Mercury, which were explained by Einstein’s general relativity.

    Thank you for admitting Heliocentrism as per Newton did not explain Mercury. I did not even know that.

    Add to this the fact that modern space science uses a heliocentric solar system bound by gravitation to send space vehicles to the outer planets with astonishingly high precision, whereas a geocentric model would tell us that they are going the wrong way, and all geocentric models fail.

    (my emphasis) Would they?

    Add to this the fact that, if gravity is real, then all objects in the solar system must revolve about the most massive objects – or, more precisely, about the barycentre of the solar system (which is inside the sun, albeit not always at the centre).

    Do you believe that gravity is real and that we have equations to describe how objects interact through gravitation? And that these equations allow us to make accurate predictions to (typically) about 4 significant figures? And that, if gravity did not do what our equations tell us it does, such predictions would be wrong?

    SO, IF gravity is real, what does that tell us about a football and earth? It remains glued to earth, right? SO LONG AS THERE ARE NO PLAYERS. I mentioned prime mover, a k a God, and angels, did I not?

    The masses of heavenly bodies have been calculated from their observed orbits by gravitation, and then gravitation and masses (calculated from orbits in the first place) are used to predict parts of their orbits. Roundabout, yes. Conclusive, no.

  107. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    I am enjoying a good debate. As much as some enjoy a game of football.

    Predictions and things fitting in with heliocentrism do look as arguments – very tempting – but are they conclusive?

    To me heliocentrism as at best a very big Not Proven.

  108. @ 59. Buzz Parsec :

    Your reply is now linked here – click on my name to find it.

    On the ‘New study clinches it : the Earth is warming up’ BA blog thread.

    #152. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
    August 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    [text there ..]

    I’ve also added a few links – in comments 188, 189 & 190 there – to just a handful of the very many comments that helped change my mind on this.

    Hope this is interesting / useful for you. :-)

  109. #106 Hans-Georg:
    The stars make 366.25 apparent revolutions in a year, while the Sun makes 365.25. This is very simple to explain, in the real Universe!
    A mean solar day, which we define as 24 hours, is the mean time which the Sun takes to apparently revolve around the Earth and return to the same position in the sky. This is not quite equal to the Earth’s rotation period.
    A sidereal day is the time which the stars take to apparently revolve around the Earth, due to the Earth’s rotation. This is, of course, equal to the Earth’s rotation period, which is 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds.
    The reason that a mean solar day is slightly longer than a sidereal day is very simple – because the Earth is orbiting the Sun! The actual direction of the Sun, with respect to the stars, changes by just less than one degree per day ( 360 degrees in a year ), so that after one rotation of the Earth, it doesn’t return to the same apparent position in the sky, but lags behind by that one degree. The difference is due to the superposition of the two apparent revolutions of the Sun, one daily and one annual; there is exactly one more sidereal day in a year than the number of mean solar days, i.e. 366.25 against 365.25.
    We have leap years, simply because the number of Earth rotations in its orbital period doesn’t happen to be a nice integer number. ( Your God likes to make things awkward for us, doesn’t he?! That was a joke; I don’t believe that any God exists. ) It’s actually slightly less than 365.25 days, which is why we remove three leap years every 400 years, to correct for that discrepancy.

  110. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    Neil, I am perfectly aware of that explanation. Thank you for correcting statistics (366.25 vs 365.25).

    I am also quite aware that the number of solar days in a year are 365.2425 in Gregorian calendar, which is exacter than Julian, but still not quite exact.

    Being aware of Heliocentric explanation does not logically oblige to be unaware of or to reject the Geocentric one: the Heaven of “fixed stars” (not as fixed as they used to be thought of, but still) circles westward 366.25 times a year, Sun has an independent movement eastward, very much lesser, lagging behind to make only 365.25 per year.

    I do think very seriously God and angels like to make things awkward for some over curious persons.

  111. #111 Hans-Georg:
    Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor???
    We have two possibilities here. Either, there is a very simple and logical explanation for the difference between solar and sidereal days ( I should have also said that it explains why we see different constellations in the night sky at different times of year ), or, in your view, your mythical God just made it that way for no apparent reason, or in order to play a big joke on us. And you honestly think yours is the simpler???!!!

    #107:
    “Thank you for admitting Heliocentrism as per Newton did not explain Mercury. I did not even know that.”
    I fail to see what your point is here. Nigel’s point was that while heliocentrism with Newtonian gravity doesn’t quite explain the orbit of Mercury, heliocentrism with Einsteinian gravity does, with very great precision. Newtonian mechanics provides a very close approximation to reality in most situations, where the effects of relativity are negligible – but in the case of Mercury, it’s close enough to the Sun for relativistic effects, due to the Sun’s powerful gravity, become significant.
    And if you imagine that Einstein’s General Relativity isn’t real, then I’ll point out that
    a. It has passed every rigorous test applied to it in the last 93 years, to better than one part in a billion precision.
    b. Its effects are now being observed on a daily basis, by something which is now part of our everyday world – namely the GPS system. When measuring the positions of GPS satellites, relativistic effects, such as gravitational frame dragging by the rotating Earth, are miniscule but measurable; they have to be accounted for, in order to achieve the fantastic precision of the system. I know this for a fact, as I once worked on the software for a system which utilised GPS; it involved a lot of horribly complex maths to take account of relativistic factors. So if the Earth wasn’t rotating, then all those correction factors would be wrong, and the system wouldn’t work.

  112. Hans-Georg:
    I’m about to call it a day on this, as I really have better things to do with my time – but I’ll leave you with one last question. You keep going on about what you “observe”, and so on, so I’ll ask you: Do you believe that atoms exist?
    The evidence of our eyes, and all our everyday experience, would appear to refute the idea that “solid” matter is in fact mostly empty space – yet that’s exactly what we now know to be the case. So do you accept that atoms exist, or do you deny it because you can’t see them? Or, for that matter, because there is no mention of them in the Bible? Because that would be exactly equivalent to your reasons for rejecting all the astronomy and physics of the last four centuries.
    And if you don’t accept that atoms and subatomic particles exist, then obviously, those guys at CERN are all wasting their time. And I would love to know your alternative explanation for where nuclear energy comes from. You can hardly deny that that exists; there was plenty of evidence in a couple of places called Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

  113. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    Bible includes history, and geocentrism is an economic explanation why stopping of Sun (book of Joshua) did not result in a very big jolt.

  114. #114 Hans-Georg:
    An even simpler explanation is that that story didn’t happen! The Bible is neither a history book, nor a scientific textbook, and 99% of Christians today don’t regard it as either. It’s a collection of ancient myths, written by people who didn’t have any of the knowledge we have today.
    Even in the 17th Century, some church leaders had come to accept that. The cardinal ( I forget his name ) who defended Galileo in his trial, against your St. Robert Bellardine, summed it up with a memorable saying: “The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.”
    Now I’m definitely calling time on this, as it looks as if no-one else is reading this thread any more, apart from you and me.

  115. Nigel Depledge

    @ Neil Haggath (115):
    Seconded.

  116. Hans-Georg Lundahl

    #115, 116 – it was just getting interesting with Occam and all!

    #115

    An even simpler explanation is that that story didn’t happen!

    Ah, now we are talking Neil Haggaths major argument against moon hoax: too many hoaxers=leak, too few=not feasible. Intermediate=too many or too few or both.

    The Bible is neither a history book, nor a scientific textbook, and 99% of Christians today don’t regard it as either.

    Not a science texbook, well, depends if you regard moral and theology as sciences. But not of natural science – granted. As it was by St Robert Bellarmine himself. It was he, not some adversary of his more favourable than himself to Galileo who said: “The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.”

    “neither a history book” … “99% of Christians today don’t regard it as either” – uh, uh.

    The book of Joshua has been received by the Hebrew people, both Jews and Samaritans, and by the Jewish branch both Christian and Jewish, from the start as KNOWN HISTORY.

    It’s a collection of ancient myths, written by people who didn’t have any of the knowledge we have today.

    What knowledge they had about astronomy is irrelevant. The question is how they came to confuse “ancient myth” (if they knew such a thing existed) and history. Do you take big or little scenario, Neil?

  117. 117 Hans-Georg:
    “Ah, now we are talking Neil Haggaths major argument against moon hoax: too many hoaxers=leak, too few=not feasible. Intermediate=too many or too few or both.”

    Firstly, that is not my argument against the “Moon Hoax”; it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain, who bothers to think about it.
    Secondly, I completely fail to see what this has to do with my previous comment, to which you referred. I was saying that your Bible story about God stopping the Sun didn’t happen!
    The Bible is not a history book, end of. I could write a few thousand words about why it isn’t, but I really can’t be bothered to do so here; it’s a future topic for my web site, when I can find the time to write it.
    Of course its authors’ lack of knowledge of astronomy is relevant! They wrote stories which inferred that the Earth is flat, that the Sun goes around it, and other such fallacies, because that was what they believed. Today, we know better – at least, most of the human race does, apart from you! – so we know that those stories are impossible.
    Now I’ve definitely had enough of this. Just so you know, I haven’t been writing my responses for your exclusive benefit – rather, as MTU said earlier in the thread, for the intellectual exercise of showing why your arguments are rubbish. But as no-one else is reading any more, it’s pointless continuing.
    End of discussion. Goodbye.

  118. Hope this works. Click on my name to return if you’ve just visited the page that my name is linked to where I reposted what I wrote in the comment # 109 above & 152 there & now awaiting moderation again at #21 on the ‘Sea Ice,coming and going’ thread, for August 19th 2010.

  119. Ah, Neil Haggath answered. Only, since it was 5 days after my latest answer, I missed that.

    In previous message I had said: Ah, now we are talking Neil Haggaths major argument against moon hoax: too many hoaxers=leak, too few=not feasible. Intermediate=too many or too few or both.

    Haggath answers (I will take each segment and answer separately):

    Firstly, that is not my argument against the “Moon Hoax”; it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain, who bothers to think about it.

    I did not say it was your very own and non-one else’s, I said it was yours, in the sense it is an argument you believe, also it is from your text I quoted it. As you can see on my site, I think it is a pretty good argument. Only, I think it is even better about things that happened before there were some very elaborate and technically equipped things around that just might have staged a fake with very few people and using the many as useful gullible persons. The real staging problem for the few would come in where it came to getting Armstrong back to earth, or, more properly sea. But before modern technology there were many staging problems that were much worse. How to part a red sea without miracle or make a sun appear to onlooking armies to stand still when it does not being a few of them.

    Secondly, I completely fail to see what this has to do with my previous comment, to which you referred. I was saying that your Bible story about God stopping the Sun didn’t happen!

    Meaning you are in same position as people denying Armstrong on the Moon, only worse.

    The Bible is not a history book, end of. I could write a few thousand words about why it isn’t, but I really can’t be bothered to do so here; it’s a future topic for my web site, when I can find the time to write it.

    Before you do that, will you try to see if your position stands the heat of the principle you so brightly used on Armstrong-on-the-moon?

    It WAS taken for history by an entire nation. It was taken for their history. Why does US believe George Washington defied George III and became your first president? Is it because every story telling this happened is a history book? No.

    It is because after a certain time, faking a collective memory becomes unfeasible because 100.000 of people will not get into one conspiracy claiming George III gave up the thirteen colonies to George Washington, if he only gave them up very peacefully without battle as Rome had given up Britain, because there were other battles to fight.

    Reasonably the Revolutions in US and France might not have happened, and 13 colonies could have become independent if the son of Louis XVI had become a Napoleon and Britain might have had to give up US a little later because the wars left no ressource to enforce the tea tax. Why is this false? Because if you had gotten your independence in this or any other way, all of you back then would have known it. No small conspiracy could ever have persuaded you that Washington rebelled, if that was not what you were already remembering, and then no need for conspiracy to persuade you. And, as said, 100.000 people will not make a big conspiracy to agree upon a false collective memory rather than the one they remembered. That is why I trust history, that is why I trust in the existence of George Washington. That is ALSO why I trust in the existence of Joshua and in the event of this battle where the sun stood still for hours: the Israelites numbered tens of hundreds of thousand men, they all were present to see that battle.

    Of course its authors’ lack of knowledge of astronomy is relevant! They wrote stories which inferred that the Earth is flat, that the Sun goes around it, and other such fallacies, because that was what they believed. Today, we know better – at least, most of the human race does, apart from you! – so we know that those stories are impossible.

    And the colonists liberated by administrational overwork for G-III by non-revolutionary wars with a very napoleonic France wrote the absurd history about George Washington because they thought colonies could rebel, but now we know better, right?

    The israelites, miraculously enough, wrote NO story inferring the earth was flat. None. They lived among nations beliving that, their record after divorcing from Christianity includes a Talmudic lore where the earth is seen as flat, but there are simply no stories in which this is inferrable.

    The miracle of Joshua is pretty close to inferring that the sun normally moves around the earth each day. Of course, Galileo Galilei had another take on how to explain what happened, and it was NOT denying the miracle. It was in fact that itch that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. St Robert Bellarmine even said that if it could be proven Earth moves, one had to agree with Galileo’s explanation, but if not … one had to condemn him for temerarily fiddling with interpretation of Scripture without solid proof.

    Has that solid proof for Galileo been supplemented since?

    I think not. At least, even a real landing on the moon or several, the first of Which with Neil Arsmtrong and … Aldrin was it? And one more, right? … does not prove it.

    That is what my post “Moontruth? Why?” is about. I am saying a Geocentric does not need to believe there was a Moon Hoax, since the story, if real, does not prove that earth moves.

    There is a difference between knowing something better and thinking one does.

    There is a big hole in your explanation.

    They wrote stories which inferred that the Earth is flat, … because that was what they believed.

    Indeed some Pagans did that when talking about Creation before there were humans around. A story where sources would vary from guess work to revelation but certainly include no history observed by men as such.

    But the Genesis account has been read as literally true by Christians who knew very well from Eratosthenes and Aristotle that the earth was a globe (and still is). Not all Church Fathers, but a very considerable portion. St Basil answers the question how there could be date limits in a story about an earth where the dates are changing at different locations: the days from creation of sun on refer to dates at Paradise or possibly Palestine, the future scene of Joshua’s conquests and Jesus’ sacrifice. Whereas Pagans had done guesswork involving a flat earth and were forced to reconsider their mythologies when science progressed or reached them. Or to reject science. Remarcable, huh?

    BUT EVEN PAGANS BELIEVING THE EARTH TO BE FLAT DID NOT IMPLY THAT FALLACY IN WRITING THE WAR OF TROY OR THE CONQUESTS OF HAMMURAPPI.

    Why, because it happened in a real world which is where earth is a globe, and because the story they wrote was real historic memory. Ship catalogue in Homer is boring, only possible reason for including its is history or slightly faking the accuracy by including a ship from a town that sent none. Similar observations are to be made about the book of Joshua. So, saying someone is writing non-histories because he believes fallacies about the unniverse is as an explanation goes, rubbish.

    Again, if you think the story of Joshua was written to amuse people and then only later there was a conspiracy to make them take the equivalent of Arabian Nights for the equivalent of Pliny’s Ab Urbe Condita, how did it succeed? Big scenario or little scenario? You may not have authored that argument (Bossuet did it for law of Moses), but you are not in a position to ignore what I mean.

  120. Mark McAndrew

    Holy crap.

    Another religious nutter argues that Earth is unmoving at the centre of the Universe (and doubtless only 4000 years old) – and you lot take the bait. Next time, just explain why such beliefs are actually anti-God with the following sentence:

    When Bible and Universe disagree, ask yourself one question: which one DEFINITELY involved fallible humans in its creation – and which DEFINITELY did not?

    QED. Get your nose out of the book and look up at reality. It’s far more impressive.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »